[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32329-32351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11437]



[[Page 32329]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030]
RIN 1904-AE40


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
General Service Fluorescent Lamps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed determination and request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including general 
service fluorescent lamps (``GSFLs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. 
Department of Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-
stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. 
In this notice of proposed determination (``NOPD''), DOE has initially 
determined that amended energy conservation standards for GSFLs do not 
need to be amended and requests comment on this proposed determination 
and the associated analyses and results.

DATES: 
    Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Monday, July 11, 2022, from 
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for 
webinar registration information, participant instructions, and 
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will 
be accepted on or before August 1, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket 
number EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, comments may be submitted by email to: 
[email protected]. Include docket number EERE-
2019-BT-STD-0030 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 VII of this document.
    Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions 
through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, email, 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 coronavirus 2019 (``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, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly 
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for further 
information on how to submit comments through 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. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. 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. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemakings for GSFLs
    C. Deviation from Appendix A
III. General Discussion
    A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    B. Test Procedure
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    E. Cost Effectiveness
    F. Further Considerations
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Overall
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Scope of Coverage
    2. Technology Options
    3. Screening Analysis
    a. Screened-Out Technologies
    b. Remaining Technologies
    4. Product Classes
    a. Existing Product Classes
    b. Summary
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    a. Representative Product Classes
    b. Baseline Lamps
    c. More Efficacious Substitutes
    d. Efficacy Levels
    e. Lamp-and-Ballast Systems
    f. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    2. Cost Analysis
    D. Energy Use Analysis
    E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    F. Shipments Analysis
    G. National Energy Savings
    1. Product Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    3. Net Present Value Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    B. National Impact Analysis
    1. Significance of Energy Savings
    2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    C. Proposed Determination
    1. Technological Feasibility
    2. Cost Effectiveness
    3. Significant Conservation of Energy
    4. Further Considerations
    5. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

[[Page 32330]]

    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination

    Title III, Part B \1\ of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include GSFLs, the subject of this 
NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ 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), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not 
later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or 
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of 
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, 
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
    For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed GSFLs subject to 
standards specified in 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') 
part 430, subpart A, Sec.  430.2.
    DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more energy 
efficient GSFLs. For those GSFLs for which DOE determined higher 
standards to be technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings 
that would result from potential energy conservation standards by 
conducting a national impact analysis (``NIA''). DOE evaluated whether 
higher standards would be cost effective by conducting life-cycle cost 
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses, and estimated the net 
present value (``NPV'') of the total costs and benefits experienced by 
consumers.
    Based on the results of the analyses, summarized in section V of 
this document, DOE has tentatively determined that current standards 
for GSFLs do not need to be amended.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the 
historical background relevant to the establishment of standards for 
GSFLs.

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include GSFLs, the 
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)) EPCA prescribed 
energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(1)(B)), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemaking to 
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)-(5))
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of 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).
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, 
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products 
comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The 
DOE test procedures for GSFLs appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix R.
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede State 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 
EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140, any final 
rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after 
July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy 
use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard 
for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the 
criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), 
incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single 
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for 
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE 
has determined that standby mode and off mode do not apply to GSFLs and 
that their energy use is accounted for entirely in the active mode. 
Therefore, DOE is not addressing standby and off modes, and will only 
address active mode in this proposed determination. In this analysis 
DOE considers only active mode in its determination of whether energy 
conservation standards need to be amended.
    DOE must periodically review its already established energy 
conservation standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from 
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This 6-year look-back provision 
requires that DOE publish either a determination that standards do not 
need to be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards 
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 
EPCA further provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance 
of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish 
either a notification of determination that standards for the product 
do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy 
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) DOE must make the analysis on which a 
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity 
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2))
    A determination that amended standards are not needed must be based 
on consideration of whether amended standards will result in 
significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, and 
are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) 
Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
prescribed by the Secretary for

[[Page 32331]]

any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines 
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE considers in evaluating whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified includes whether the 
proposed standard at that level is cost effective, as defined under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an 
evaluation of cost effectiveness requires DOE to consider savings in 
operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 
products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, 
initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that 
are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing this NOPD in 
satisfaction of the 6-year review requirement in EPCA.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In a final rule published on January 26, 2015, DOE prescribed the 
current energy conservation standards for GSFLs. 80 FR 4042 (``January 
2015 final rule''). These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations 
at 10 CFR 430.32(n) and repeated in Table II.1.

       Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for GSFLs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Minimum
                                                           average lamp
                                      Correlated color       efficacy
             Lamp type                   temperature        lumens per
                                                            watt (``lm/
                                                               W'')
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four-Foot Medium Bipin (``MBP'')..  <=4,500 Kelvin                  92.4
                                     (``K'').
 
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............  88.7................
Two-Foot U-Shaped.................  <=4,500 K...........            85.0
 
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............  83.3................
Eight-Foot Single Pin (``SP'')      <=4,500 K...........            97.0
 Slimline.
 
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............  93.0................
Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact  <=4,500 K...........            92.0
 (``RDC'') High Output.
 
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............  88.0................
Four-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard  <=4,500 K...........            95.0
 Output.
 
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............  89.3................
Four-Foot Miniature Bipin High      <=4,500 K...........            82.7
 Output.
 
>4,500 K and <=7,000 K............  76.9................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for GSFLs
    Amendments to EPCA in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPAct 
1992''; Pub. L. 102-486), established energy conservation standards for 
certain classes of GSFLs and incandescent reflector lamps (``IRLs''), 
and authorized DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to determine 
whether these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1) and 
(3)-(4)) EPCA also authorized DOE to adopt standards for additional 
GSFLs, if such standards were warranted. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)). DOE 
completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in a final rule 
published on July 14, 2009, that adopted amended performance standards 
for GSFLs and IRLs manufactured on or after July 14, 2012. 74 FR 34080. 
That rule adopted standards for additional GSFLs, amended the 
definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' and ``rated wattage,'' and 
also adopted test procedures applicable to the newly covered GSFLs. Id. 
DOE completed a second rulemaking cycle to amend the standards for 
GSFLs and IRLs by publishing a final rule on January 26, 2015. 80 FR 
4042. In this rule DOE amended standards for GSFLs; and concluded that 
amending standards for IRLs would not be economically justified. Id. 
The current energy conservation standards for GSFLs are located in 10 
CFR 430.32(n). The currently applicable DOE test procedures appear at 
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R.
    In support of the present review of the GSFL energy conservation 
standards, DOE published a request for information (``RFI''), which 
identified various issues on which DOE sought comment to inform its 
determination of whether amended standards for GSFLs and IRLs are 
warranted. 85 FR 25326 (``May 2020 RFI'').
    Subsequently, on May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule expanding 
the definition of general service lamp (``GSL'') to include IRLs. 87 FR 
27461 May 2022 Final Rule. On that same day, DOE also published a final 
rule implementing a statutory backstop requirement applicable to GSLs 
which prohibits the sale of any GSL that is less than 45 lm/W. 87 FR 
27439. Because IRLs, a newly covered GSL, cannot meet the 45 lm/W 
backstop requirement, DOE is no longer evaluating amended standards for 
IRLs and is only considering GSFLs in this NOPD.
    DOE received comments in response to the May 2020 RFI from the 
interested parties listed in Table II.2.

[[Page 32332]]



  Table II.2--Written Comments Received in Response to the May 2020 RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Reference in this
          Commenter(s)                   NOPD           Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness     ASAP et al........  Efficiency
 Project, American Council for                         Organizations
 an Energy-Efficient Economy,
 Consumer Federation of America,
 National Consumer Law Center,
 Natural Resources Defense
 Council, Northeast Energy
 Efficiency Partnerships,
 Northwest Energy Efficiency
 Alliance.
Attorneys General...............  Attorneys General.  State Official/
                                                       Agency
California Energy Commission....  CEC...............  State Official/
                                                       Agency
Pacific Gas and Electric          CA IOUs...........  Utilities
 Company, San Diego Gas &
 Electric Company, Southern
 California Edison.
Consumer Federation of America,   CFA et al.........  Consumer Advocacy
 Environment America, National                         Organizations
 Consumer Law Center, Natural
 Resources Defense Council,
 Sierra Club, U.S. Public
 Interest Research Group,
 Earthjustice.
Institute for Policy Integrity    IPI...............  Think Tank
 at NYU School of Law.
National Electrical               NEMA..............  Trade Association
 Manufacturers Association.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0030, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov/). The references 
are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number 
at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Appendix A

    In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430 subpart C, 
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the 
provision in appendix A regarding the comment period for a notice of 
proposed rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the 
length of the public comment period for a NOPR will not be less than 75 
days. For this proposed determination, DOE has opted to instead provide 
a 60-day comment period. As stated previously, DOE requested comment in 
the May 2020 RFI on the technical and economic analyses that would be 
used to determine whether a more stringent standard would result in 
significant conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. DOE has determined that a 60-day comment 
period, in conjunction with the prior May 2020 RFI, provides sufficient 
time for interested parties to review the proposed rule and develop 
comments.

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed this proposed determination after considering 
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent 
a variety of interests. This notice addresses issues raised by these 
commenters.

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
differing standards. In making a determination whether a 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 determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) The product classes 
for this proposed determination are discussed in further detail in 
section IV.B.4 of this document. This proposed determination covers 
GSFLs defined as any fluorescent lamp which can be used to satisfy the 
majority of fluorescent lighting applications, but does not include any 
lamp designed and marketed for the following nongeneral application: 
(1) Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth; (2) Fluorescent 
lamps specifically designed for cold temperature applications; (3) 
Colored fluorescent lamps; (4) Impact-resistant fluorescent lamps; (5) 
Reflectorized or aperture lamps; (6) Fluorescent lamps designed for use 
in reprographic equipment; (7) Lamps primarily designed to produce 
radiation in the ultra-violet region of the spectrum; and (8) Lamps 
with a Color Rendering Index of 87 or greater. 10 CFR 430.2. The scope 
of coverage is discussed in further detail in section IV.B.1 of this 
document.

B. Test Procedure

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation 
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(s) and 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). DOE's current energy conservation 
standards for GSFLs are expressed in terms of lumens per watt (``lm/
W''). (See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R)
    On July 6, 2009, DOE published a final rule that updated citations 
to industry standards and made several other modifications to the GSFL 
test procedure. 74 FR 31829. DOE further amended the test procedures to 
update references to industry standards for GSFLs in a final rule 
published on January 27, 2012. 77 FR 4203. On August 8, 2017, DOE 
published a RFI seeking comments on the current test procedures for 
GSFLs, IRLs, and general service incandescent lamps (``GSILs''). 82 FR 
37031. On June 3, 2021, DOE published a NOPR proposing amendments to 
DOE's GSFL, IRL and GSIL test procedures. 86 FR 29888. (``June 2021 
NOPR'') With regards to GSFLs, in the June 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to 
update to the latest versions of the referenced industry test standards 
and provide cites to specific sections of these standards; clarify 
definitions, test conditions and methods, and measurement procedures; 
clarify test frequency and inclusion of cathode power in measurements; 
allow manufacturers to make voluntary (optional) representations of 
GSFLs at high frequency settings; revise the sampling requirements; and 
align sampling and certification requirements with proposed test 
procedure terminology and with the Federal Trade Commission's labeling 
program. 86 FR 29888. DOE continues to review comments received in 
response to the June 2021 NOPR.
    The current test procedures for GSFLs are codified in appendix R to 
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

[[Page 32333]]

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In evaluating potential amendments to energy conservation 
standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on information 
gathered on all current technology options and prototype designs that 
could improve the efficiency of the products or equipment that are the 
subject of the determination. As the first step in such an analysis, 
DOE develops a list of technology options for consideration in 
consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested 
parties. DOE then determines which of those means for improving 
efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies 
incorporated in commercially available products or in working 
prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 
7(b)(1) of appendix A.
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 
Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.B.3 
of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis for 
GSFLs, particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, 
and those that are the basis for the standards considered in this 
proposed determination. For further details on the screening analysis 
for this proposed determination, see chapter 4 of the NOPD technical 
support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    As when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or 
class of covered GSFLs, in this analysis it must determine the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use 
that is technologically feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined 
the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in 
energy efficiency for GSFLs, using the design parameters for the most 
efficient products available on the market or in working prototypes. 
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described 
in section IV.C of this proposed determination and in chapter 5 of the 
NOPD TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each efficiency level (``EL'') evaluated, DOE projected energy 
savings from application of the EL to the GSFLs purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the assumed year of compliance with the 
potential standards (2026-2055). The savings are measured over the 
entire lifetime of the GSFLs purchased in the previous 30-year period. 
In order to account for wider market dynamics, DOE also modeled the 
purchases and energy consumption of tubular LEDs (``TLEDs'') over the 
same period that would compete for GSFL demand. DOE quantified the 
energy savings attributable to each EL as the difference in energy 
consumption of both GSFLs and TLEDs between each standards case and the 
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a 
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a 
product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy 
conservation standards. DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model \4\ to 
estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or 
new standards for GSFLs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in 
section IV.G of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of 
site energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the 
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in 
terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy 
that is used to generate and transmit the site electricity. DOE also 
calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy savings. 
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, 
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of 
energy conservation standards.\5\ DOE's approach is based on the 
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by 
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy 
savings, see section IV.G of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A model coded in the Python programming language to estimate 
lamp purchases, energy consumption, and national energy savings.
    \5\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and 
notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended 
at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must 
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation 
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)) The significance of energy savings 
offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be 
determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding 
a given rulemaking. For example, the United States has now rejoined the 
Paris Agreement on February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the 
United States has committed to reducing GHG emissions in order to limit 
the rise in mean global temperature.\6\ As such, energy savings that 
reduce GHG emission have taken on greater importance. Additionally, 
some covered products and equipment have most of their energy 
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of 
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the 
significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary 
energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment 
when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy 
and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production 
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture 
of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE 
evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021) 
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Cost Effectiveness

    Under EPCA's six-year-lookback review provision for existing energy 
conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of 
potential amended standards is a relevant consideration both where DOE 
proposes to adopt such standards, as well as where it does not. In 
considering cost-effectiveness when making a determination of whether 
amended energy conservation standards do not need to be amended, DOE 
considers the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the 
price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, 
the covered product that are likely to result from a standard. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))) Additionally, 
any new or amended

[[Page 32334]]

energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary for any type 
(or class) of covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2(A) Cost-effectiveness is one of the factors that DOE 
considers under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) in determining whether new or 
amended standards are economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)))
    In determining cost effectiveness of amending standards for GSFLs, 
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses that estimate the costs and benefits 
to users from standards. To further inform DOE's consideration of the 
cost effectiveness of amended standards, DOE considers the NPV of total 
costs and benefits estimated as part of the NIA. The inputs for 
determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by 
consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual 
operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and 
(3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings.

F. Further Considerations

    Pursuant to EPCA, absent DOE publishing a notification of 
determination that energy conservation standards for GSFLs do not need 
to be amended, DOE must issue a NOPR that includes new proposed 
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The new proposed standards in any 
such NOPR must be based on the criteria established under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o) and follow the procedures established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)). The criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) require 
that standards be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency, which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). In deciding 
whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)). DOE must make this determination after 
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the 
greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of 
the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

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

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
proposed determination with regard to GSFLs. Separate subsections 
address each component of DOE's analyses. DOE used several analytical 
tools to estimate the impact of potential energy conservation 
standards. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC 
savings and PBP of potential energy conservation standards. The NIA 
uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections, and 
calculates NES and net present value of total consumer costs and 
savings expected to result from potential energy conservation 
standards. These spreadsheet tools are available on the website: 
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030.

A. Overall

    DOE received several comments from stakeholders in response to the 
May 2020 RFI regarding whether DOE should amend standards for GSFLs. 
NEMA stated that sales of GSFLs have been in a decline which is 
expected to continue as light-emitting diode (``LED'') replacement 
products (including integrated LED fixtures and LED replacement lamps) 
continue to replace GSFLs through naturally occurring market adoption 
without regulation. NEMA noted that based on the current rate of market 
decline, there is very limited, meaningful energy savings that can be 
economically justified through revised energy conservation standards 
for GSFLs. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 2)
    NEMA also stated that slightly increasing the efficacy of 
fluorescent lamps will not achieve the desired energy savings DOE seeks 
and will only make lighted areas brighter. NEMA notes that because new 
construction and renovations are shifting to cost-competitive LED 
lighting, DOE's calculations in the previous rulemaking that show 
brighter fluorescent lamps will allow for fewer lamps, fixtures, and 
ballasts, are no longer realistic. As a result, NEMA notes that 
fluorescent lamps would not be used in fewer numbers and will still be 
driven at the rated wattage of the ballasts in existing fixtures, using 
the same amount of energy. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 2)
    CEC agreed with DOE's findings in the May 2020 RFI that indicated 
that GSFLs on the market are more energy efficient than current federal 
standards. CEC noted that setting higher efficiency levels is cost 
effective and can be achieved using either fluorescent or LED lighting 
sources. Additionally, CEC pointed out that manufacturing costs and 
retail prices of TLED lamps are dropping while their market share is 
increasing and that this trend is expected to continue. CEC determined 
that more stringent standards will result in significant conservation 
of energy, are technologically feasible, and are cost effective. CEC 
asserted that DOE should increase the minimum energy efficiency of 
GSFLs and consider the technology-neutral utility of replacement lamps 
by including TLED lamps as a feasible replacement option in its cost 
analysis. (CEC, No. 9 at p. 3)
    ASAP et al. and CA IOUs noted that new GSFLs on the market that are 
currently certified in DOE's compliance certification database are more 
energy efficient than current federal standards and asserted that DOE 
should conduct a full analysis to determine whether standards for GSFLs 
should be amended as the market for GSFLs has changed substantially 
since the last rulemaking. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 8 
at p. 2) ASAP et al. added that the new GSFL standards that required 
compliance in 2018 eliminated many lamp options and forced 
manufacturers to overhaul their product offerings. As a result, TLEDs 
have seen an increase in market supply, at a reduced price. (ASAP et 
al., No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP et al. added that raising the existing 
standards for GSFLs will affect their prices, resulting in a market 
shift to LED technology. ASAP et al. urged DOE to consider the economic 
and energy saving impacts in its evaluation of higher standards. (ASAP 
et al., No. 5 at p. 5)
    As discussed in section II.A of this document, DOE is required to 
periodically review its already established energy conservation 
standards for a covered product no later than 6 years from the issuance 
of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) This proposed

[[Page 32335]]

determination represents the mandatory 6-year review of standards for 
GSFLs. DOE discusses the methodology used to analyze potential 
standards in the following subsections of this section IV and the 
results of the analysis in section V of this document. DOE discusses 
the tentative conclusion regarding amended standards for GSFLs in 
section V.C of this document.
    ASAP et al. highlighted two potential market failures that may 
hinder adoption of energy efficient products. One of the market 
failures was a lack of information about potential savings causing 
consumers to focus on lower first costs. The other market failure was a 
scenario where the entity making the purchase decision, such as the 
landlord, is not incentivized to purchase slightly more expensive 
energy efficient products over the lowest cost products. (ASAP et al., 
No. 5 at pp. 5-6) DOE appreciates the feedback regarding potential 
market failures in the context of amended energy conservation standards 
for GSFLs. More efficient substitutes for GSFLs and their associated 
product prices are discussed in section IV.C of this document. The 
shipments analysis and life-cycle cost analysis are discussed in 
sections IV.F and IV.E of this document.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products 
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available 
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology 
assessment for this proposed determination include (1) a determination 
of the scope and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry 
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, 
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options 
that could improve the energy efficiency of GSFLs. The key findings of 
DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See 
chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD for a complete discussion of the market and 
technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
    In this analysis, DOE relied on the definition of fluorescent lamp 
and general service fluorescent lamp in 10 CFR 430.2. A fluorescent 
lamp is a low pressure mercury electric-discharge source in which a 
fluorescing coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy generated 
by the mercury discharge into light, including only the following: (1) 
Any 4-foot medium bipin lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; (2) 
any 2-foot U-shaped lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; (3) any 8-
foot high output (``HO'') lamp; (4) any 8-foot slimline lamp with a 
rated wattage of 49 or more; (5) any 4-foot miniature bipin 
(``miniBP'') standard output (``SO'') lamp with a rated wattage of 25 
or more; and (6) any 4-foot miniature bipin high output (``HO'') lamp 
with a rated wattage of 44 or more. 10 CFR 430.2. GSFL is defined as 
any fluorescent lamp which can be used to satisfy the majority of 
fluorescent lighting applications, but does not include any lamp 
designed and marketed for the following nongeneral application: (1) 
Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth; (2) fluorescent 
lamps specifically designed for cold temperature applications; (3) 
colored fluorescent lamps; (4) impact-resistant fluorescent lamps; (5) 
reflectorized or aperture lamps; (6) fluorescent lamps designed for use 
in reprographic equipment; (7) lamps primarily designed to produce 
radiation in the ultra-violet region of the spectrum; and (8) lamps 
with a color rendering index (``CRI'') of 87 or greater. 10 CFR 430.2. 
Any product meeting the definition of GSFL is included in DOE's scope 
of coverage, though all products within the scope of coverage may not 
be subject to standards.
    In response to the May 2020 RFI, DOE received several comments 
regarding extending coverage to currently exempt lamp types. ASAP et 
al., CA IOUs and CEC agreed that DOE should expand the GSFL definition 
to include impact-resistant fluorescent lamps, lamps with a CRI of 87 
or greater, and lamps less than 4-foot in length. ASAP et al., CA IOUs 
and CEC noted that excluding these lamp types from the current 
definition of GSFL has created a significant loophole in the GSFL 
standard resulting in increased sales of inefficient T12 lamps mainly 
comprised of impact-resistant fluorescent lamps and lamps with a CRI of 
87 or greater. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at pp. 2-4; CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 2-
3; CEC, No. 9 at pp. 1-2) NEMA stated that majority of the lamps with a 
CRI of 87 or greater are 4-foot T12 lamps and are mainly used in 
residential applications, while 8-foot T12 lamps are mainly deployed in 
commercial spaces. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 12) NEMA commented that DOE could 
consider including less than 4-foot fluorescent lamps in the scope, 
however, this lamp category exhibits significantly lower energy use per 
lamp relative to 4-foot linear fluorescent lamps. NEMA added that it is 
unaware of any new fluorescent lamp or incandescent reflector lamp 
products coming to the market. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3)
    Regarding exempt GSFLs, CEC supports two final rules DOE published 
on January 19, 2017, amending the definitions of GSL and GSIL \7\, 
which included a revised definition for ``designed and marketed'' that 
would require markings to be prominently displayed. CEC asserted that 
DOE should reinstate the revised definition for ``designed and 
marketed'' in its evaluation of standards for GSFLs. CEC noted that the 
reinstated definition would require exempt GSFLs to be designed and 
marketed for their specialty application, limiting their use in general 
lighting applications. (CEC, No. 9 at pp. 3-4) ASAP et al. added that 
if DOE decides to not set standards for impact-resistant fluorescent 
lamps, DOE should add a definition for these lamps to prevent potential 
loopholes. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On January 19, 2017, DOE published two related final rules 
amending the definitions of GSL and GSIL by discontinuing certain 
exemptions for some lamps that Congress originally excluded from 
those definitions. 82 FR 7276; 82 FR 7322 (``January 2017 Final 
Rules''). DOE subsequently issued a final rule withdrawing the 
January 2017 final rules. 84 FR 46661, 46664 (Sep. 5, 2019). The May 
2022 Final Rule discussed in section II.B.2 of this document 
reinstated the amendments to the definitions of GSL and GSIL in the 
January 2017 Final Rules. 87 FR 27461.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on information collected during manufacturer interviews, DOE 
determined that less than 4-foot fluorescent lamps are a small portion 
of the market and are decreasing in shipments. Therefore, DOE 
tentatively determined that standards for less than 4-foot lamps were 
unlikely to result in significant energy savings. Further, because 
these lamps are not regulated and yet are decreasing in shipments, DOE 
tentatively concluded that continuing to exclude these lamp types from 
the GSFL definition would likely not create a loophole in current 
standards for GSFLs. Regarding lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater and 
impact-resistant fluorescent lamps, these are exemptions stated in the 
statutory definition of ``general service fluorescent lamp'' (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(B)) and it is not within the scope of DOE's authority in this 
rulemaking to modify these exemptions for GSFLs. Given that EPCA's 
statutory definition of ``general service fluorescent lamp'' contains a 
number of express exclusions for certain categories

[[Page 32336]]

of fluorescent lamps, DOE finds no basis in the language of EPCA to 
support assertions that the agency's authority to act under section 
325(i)(5) of EPCA is unlimited. DOE believes section 325(i)(5) covers 
additional GSFL that are not one of the enumerated specialized products 
that EPCA excludes from coverage (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)). 73 FR 
13620, 13629 (Mar. 13, 2008). (emphasis added). For these reasons, and 
for the additional reasons set forth in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE views 
``additional'' GSFL, as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), as 
lamps that: (1) Meet the technical portion of the statutory definition 
of ``fluorescent lamp'' . . . (2) can be used to satisfy the majority 
of fluorescent lighting applications . . . ; (3) are not within the 
exclusions from the definition of GSFL specified in 42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(B); and (4) are ones for which EPCA does not prescribe 
standards. 74 FR 16920, 16926-16928 (emphasis added).
    ASAP et al. commented that DOE should consider adopting a 
technology-agnostic approach that groups together all products that 
provide the same general lighting service. ASAP et al. pointed out that 
TLEDs have gained market share at the expense of GSFLs over time and 
are marketed as suitable substitutes for GSFLs. ASAP et al. noted that 
DOE has the broad authority to cover electric lights (42 U.S.C. 
6311(2)(B)(v)) and any products that meet certain minimum consumption 
thresholds (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)). (ASAP et al, No. 5 at p. 3)
    DOE agrees with ASAP et al. that TLEDs have gained market share at 
the expense of GSFLs over time and are marketed as suitable substitutes 
for GSFLs. However, this proposed determination addresses only GSFLs 
defined in 10 CFR 430.2. DOE is not authorized to consider any product 
not meeting this definition, such as TLEDs, as a part of this proposed 
determination.
2. Technology Options
    In the May 2020 RFI, DOE identified several technology options that 
would be expected to improve the efficiency (i.e., efficacy or lumens 
per watt) of GSFLs, as measured by the DOE test procedure. To develop a 
list of technology options, DOE reviewed manufacturer catalogs, recent 
trade publications, technical journals, and the January 2015 final 
rule.
    In response to the May 2020 RFI, ASAP et al. commented that lamps 
currently covered by standards include technology options that can be 
applied to the lamp types that can be added to scope, and DOE should 
evaluate these technology options for potential scope additions. (ASAP 
et al., No. 5 at p. 5) As discussed in section IV.B.1 of this NOPD, DOE 
has tentatively determined that modifications to the scope of lamps 
included as GSFLs are either not possible or not likely to result in 
significant energy savings.
    DOE conducted research for this NOPD to identify new technology 
options for GSFLs. DOE identified mercury isotopes as a technology 
option that can be implemented to improve the efficiency of GSFLs. 
Mercury used in GSFLs is composed of seven different isotopes, each 
having a distinct excited state that provides ultraviolet (``UV'') 
light. The abundance of these isotopes can be altered to optimize the 
amount of UV light emitted and increase the efficiency of the lamp. For 
more detail on this technology option see chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD. In 
summary, for this analysis, DOE considers the technology options shown 
in Table IV.1 of this document. These options are the same ones 
presented in the May 2020 RFI with the addition of mercury isotopes. 
Detailed descriptions of these technology options can be found in 
chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD.

                   Table IV.1--GSFL Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Technology option                       Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings.....  Improved electrode coatings
                                          allow electrons to be more
                                          easily removed from
                                          electrodes, reducing lamp
                                          power and increasing overall
                                          efficacy.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas          Fill gas compositions improve
 Composition.                             cathode thermionic emission or
                                          increase mobility of ions and
                                          electrons in the lamp plasma.
Higher Efficiency Phosphors............  Phosphors increase the
                                          conversion of 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.
Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter........  Optimal lamp diameters improve
                                          lamp efficacy.
Multi-Photon Phosphors.................  Phosphors emit more than one
                                          visible photon for each
                                          incident UV photon.
Mercury Isotopes.......................  The abundance of mercury
                                          isotopes can be altered to
                                          optimize the amount of UV
                                          light emitted and increase the
                                          efficiency of the lamp.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Screening Analysis
    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:
    (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 and reliable installation and servicing 
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the 
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or 
would 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 would 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(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A. In summary, if DOE 
determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, fails 
to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it will be

[[Page 32337]]

excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis.
a. Screened-Out Technologies
    For this analysis, DOE found that multi-photon phosphors are still 
not used in working prototypes or in commercially available products. 
DOE did not receive any comments on the screening analysis for GSFLs. 
In this NOPD, as it did in the January 2015 final rule (80 FR 4042, 
4061), DOE continues to screen out multi-photon phosphors. Regarding 
the new technology option identified for this NOPD, DOE was not able to 
find mercury isotopes utilized in working prototypes or in commercially 
available products. Therefore, in this NOPD, DOE has screened out 
mercury isotopes based on technological feasibility. See chapter 4 of 
the NOPD TSD for further details on the GSFL screening analysis.
b. Remaining Technologies
    After reviewing each technology, DOE did not screen out the 
following technology options and considers them as design options in 
the engineering analysis:
    (1) Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings
    (2) Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition
    (3) Higher Efficiency Phosphors
    (4) Glass Coatings
    (5) Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter
    DOE determined that these technology options are technologically 
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in 
commercially available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds 
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening 
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service and do 
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product 
availability, health, or safety). For additional details, see chapter 4 
of the NOPD TSD.
4. Product Classes
    In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation 
standards, DOE divides the covered product into classes by (1) the type 
of energy used, (2) the capacity of the product, or (3) any other 
performance-related feature that affects energy efficiency and 
justifies different standard levels, considering factors such as 
consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
a. Existing Product Classes
    For GSFLs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 
10 CFR 430.32(n)(4) are based on 12 product classes, separated 
according to the following three factors: (1) Correlated color 
temperature (``CCT''); (2) physical constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp 
shape and length); and (3) lumen package (i.e., standard output 
(``SO'') versus high output (``HO'')).
    NEMA and CA IOUs commented that there is no need for any changes to 
product classes or groupings, as the GSFL category is a mature and 
well-established technology and the current GSFL product classes 
adequately cover the GSFL products on the market today. NEMA commented 
that separating or combining any GSFL product classes would eliminate 
some features. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 3) CA IOUs stated that any new GSFL 
product classes could create additional loopholes in the GSFL 
standards. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 3) DOE agrees that the existing 
product classes sufficiently cover the GSFLs on the market. Therefore, 
DOE is not proposing any amendments to the existing GSFL product 
classes.
b. Summary
    In this analysis, DOE proposes to maintain separate product classes 
for GSFLs based on the following three factors: (1) CCT (i.e., less 
than or equal to versus greater than 4,500 K); (2) physical constraints 
of lamps (i.e., lamp shape and length); and (3) lumen package (i.e., 
standard output versus high output). In summary, DOE assesses the 
product classes shown in Table IV.2 in its analysis.

                     Table IV.2-GSFL Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Lamp Type                               CCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin.....................................      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
2-foot U-shaped.........................................      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
8-foot single pin slimline..............................      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
8-foot recessed double contact high output..............      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin standard output..............      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin high output..................      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between efficiency and cost for GSFLs. There are two 
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of 
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and 
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the 
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency 
products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not 
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE 
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the 
product at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the 
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are 
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the 
NIA).
1. 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 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 this proposed determination, DOE is adopting an efficiency-level 
approach for GSFLs. In this NOPD, efficiency levels are referred to as 
efficacy levels (``ELs'') because GSFL efficiency is reported in terms 
of lumens per watt, which is known as the lamp's efficacy. DOE derives 
efficacy levels in the efficiency analysis and end-user prices in the 
cost analysis. DOE estimates the end-user price of GSFLs directly 
because reverse-engineering a lamp is impractical as the lamps are not 
easily disassembled. By combining the results of the efficiency 
analysis and the cost analysis, DOE derives typical inputs for

[[Page 32338]]

use in the LCC and NIA. Section IV.C.2 discusses the cost analysis (see 
chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for further details).
    The methodology for the efficiency analysis consists of the 
following steps: (1) Select representative product classes, (2) select 
baseline lamps, (3) identify more efficacious substitutes, (4) develop 
efficacy levels by directly analyzing representative product classes, 
and (5) scale efficacy levels to non-representative product classes. 
The details of the efficiency analysis are discussed in chapter 5 of 
the NOPD TSD.
    NEMA commented that since GSFL technologies are fully mature, the 
previous analytical conclusions continue to be accurate when it comes 
to use of certain combinations of design options. NEMA strongly opposed 
any amendments to the current GSFL efficiency levels, stating that 
since any new research in this market segment is unlikely, the increase 
in efficiency levels threatens to significantly reduce the product 
offerings. (NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 7-8)
    DOE agrees with NEMA that fluorescent is a more mature technology 
than LED, meaning that the rates of product development for the former 
are much slower than the rate for the latter. In the efficiency 
analysis, DOE reviews products certified in DOE's compliance 
certification database and offered in manufacturer catalogs and on 
retailer websites. DOE bases its more efficient substitutes on products 
currently or formerly offered for sale on the market. The more 
efficient substitutes and corresponding efficacy levels are discussed 
in more detail in the following sections.
a. Representative Product Classes
    In the case where a covered product has multiple product classes, 
DOE identifies and selects certain product classes as 
``representative'' and concentrates its analytical effort on those 
classes. DOE chooses product classes as representative primarily 
because of their high market volumes. DOE then scales its analytical 
findings for those representative product classes to other product 
classes that are not directly analyzed. Based on its assessment of 
product offerings, DOE analyzed as representative all GSFLs with CCTs 
less than or equal to 4,500 K with the exception of the 2-foot U-shaped 
lamps, as shown in gray in Table IV.3 of this document. DOE did not 
directly analyze GSFLs with CCTs greater than 4,500 K or GSFLs that are 
2-foot U-shaped lamps of any CCT due to low shipment volumes.

             Table IV.3--GSFL Representative Product Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Lamp type                               CCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot medium bipin.....................................      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
2-foot U-shaped.........................................      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
8-foot single pin slimline..............................      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
8-foot recessed double contact high output..............      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin standard output..............      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
4-foot T5, miniature bipin high output..................      <= 4,500 K
                                                                >4,500 K
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Baseline Lamps
    For each representative product class, DOE generally selects a 
baseline model as a reference point for each class, and measures 
changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards against 
the baseline. The baseline model in each product class represents the 
characteristics of a product typical of that class (e.g., capacity, 
physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just meets 
current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in 
place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient 
unit on the market. Typically, the baseline lamp is the most common, 
least efficacious lamp that meets existing standards. In this analysis, 
DOE selected as baselines the least efficacious lamps meeting standards 
that have common attributes for lamps in each product class such as 
diameter, wattage, CCT, lumen output, and lifetime.
    NEMA commented that any review of reported lamp efficiencies for 
determining baseline models in each product class should start with 
DOE's compliance certification database. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 7).
    To identify baseline lamps for this analysis, DOE reviewed data in 
the compliance certification database, product offerings in catalogs 
and on retailer websites, and manufacturer feedback obtained during 
interviews. DOE used the efficacy values of lamps in the compliance 
certification database to select baseline lamps. For representative 
product classes without certification data at the baseline, DOE used 
catalog and retailer data to select a baseline lamp. Specifically, DOE 
selected a baseline lamp from a retailer for the 8-foot single pin 
(``SP'') slimline product class because DOE was unable to identify any 
lamp in the compliance certification database that just meets the 
existing standards with common attributes for lamps in the product 
class.
    DOE is proposing the GSFL baseline lamps specified in Table IV.4. 
See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for more detail.

                                                             Table IV.4--GSFL Baseline Lamps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Nominal     Efficacy ** lm/  Initial lumen    Mean lumen    Rated life ***
      Representative product class         Lamp diameter     wattage W           W           output lm       output lm          hr              CRI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot MBP..............................              T8              32            92.4           3,050           2,910          24,000              85
8-foot SP slimline......................              T8              59            98.2           5,900           5,430          15,000              82
8-foot RDC HO...........................              T8              86            94.6           8,000           7,520          18,000              78
4-foot T5 MiniBP SO *...................              T5              28            95.9           2,610           2,453          24,000              85
4-foot T5 MiniBP HO *...................              T5              54              83           4,500           4,140          30,000              85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO initial lumen output, and mean lumen output given at 25 [deg]C. Initial and mean lumens are calculated from catalog lumens
  at 35 [deg]C by applying a 10 percent lumen reduction.
** Efficacy is from the compliance certification database, if available, or catalog initial lumen output divided by the American National Standards
  Institute (``ANSI'') rated wattage if the lamp does not have certification data.
*** Rated life is based on an instant start ballast with 3 hour starts for the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline product classes and a programmed start
  ballasts with 3 hour starts for all other product classes.


[[Page 32339]]

c. More Efficacious Substitutes
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE 
also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum 
possible efficiency for a given product. DOE selects more efficacious 
replacements for the baseline lamps considered within each 
representative product class. DOE considers only design options 
identified in the screening analysis. More efficacious substitutes were 
selected such that, where possible, potential substitutions maintained 
light output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp's light output. DOE 
also sought to keep characteristics of substitute lamps, such as CCT, 
CRI, and lifetime, as similar as possible to the baseline lamps. DOE 
used efficacy data from the compliance certification database to 
identify more efficacious substitutes in all product classes. DOE 
ensured that all more efficacious substitutes selected showed an 
improvement in efficacy of at least one percent from the previous 
level. DOE identified more efficacious substitutes that typically 
represent a group of lamps in the compliance certification database 
with similar efficacy data. The GSFL representative lamps analyzed in 
the NOPR are shown in Table IV.5 of this document.
    The CA IOUs commented that DOE should consider new information 
regarding the energy efficiency of available GSFLs. The CA IOUs pointed 
out that new and more efficient fluorescent lamps exceed the max-tech 
efficiency levels established in January 2015 final rule (e.g., 4-foot 
T8 lamps can achieve 97 to 100 lm/W compared to the 2015 max-tech value 
of 92.4 lm/W). (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2)
    However, NEMA pointed out in its comments that DOE, while in 
pursuit of higher efficiencies, should be aware of newer test 
procedures for fluorescent lamps and the possibility of incorrectly 
testing efficiency by using a high frequency ballast, thus yielding an 
inflated efficiency level. If DOE did decide to pursue a new, higher 
baseline efficiency, then NEMA strongly recommended that DOE verify 
selected representative products to ensure that the efficiency levels 
are not inadvertently inflated. (NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 7-8)
    NEMA concluded, upon review of the compliance certification 
database, that only T5 products have any opportunity for minimal 
efficiency gain and that although the T8 category may appear to have 
some room for improvement NEMA warns that efficiency gain opportunities 
may exist but at the expense of dimming functionality. (NEMA, No. 6 at 
pp. 12-13) Regarding dimming, NEMA stated that the fill gas in reduced 
wattage fluorescent lamps, krypton, adversely affects dimming 
capability and thus only 32 W 4-foot T8 lamps are recommended for 
dimming applications. Although the demand for fluorescent lamps 
continues a downward trend, an amended standard that eliminates the 32 
W category would leave consumers with little choice other than 
converting to dimmable solid-state lighting. NEMA states that this 
scenario must be included in the cost-benefit analysis. (NEMA, No. 6 at 
p. 4)
    For this analysis, DOE did consider new information regarding the 
efficacy of currently available GSFLs as compared to GSFLs available at 
the time of the January 2015 final rule. As described previously, DOE 
gathered recent product information from DOE's compliance certification 
database, manufacturer catalogs, and retailer websites. As shown in 
Table IV.5, DOE did identify max-tech levels in certain product classes 
that are higher than the max-tech levels identified in the January 2015 
final rule. Regarding 4-foot T8 lamps, reduced wattage lamps available 
at the max-tech level are around the 100 lm/W value cited by the CA 
IOUs. However, as pointed out by NEMA, reduced wattage lamps do not 
maintain full dimming functionality due to the krypton fill gas. 
Therefore, DOE has established the efficacy level at the efficacy 
achieved by the most efficient 32 W lamp. DOE notes that the max-tech 
value for the 32 W 4-foot T8 lamp in this NOPD is higher than the max-
tech value for the same product class in the January 2015 final rule.

                                                      Table IV.5--GSFL More Efficacious Substitutes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Initial
                 Product classes                       EL          Lamp       Nominal    Efficacy **     light      Mean light   Rated life      CRI
                                                                 diameter    wattage  W      lm/W      output lm    output lm      *** hr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-foot MBP......................................         EL 1           T8           32         93.6        3,200        3,010       24,000           85
                                                         EL 2           T8           32         94.6        3,100        2,915       24,000           85
                                                         EL 2           T8           25        100.8        2,300        2,230       32,000           85
                                                         EL 2           T8           28        100.3        2,725        2,560       24,000           85
8-foot SP slimline..............................         EL 1           T8           59         99.6        5,900        5,430       18,000           82
                                                         EL 2           T8           59        102.8        6,100        5,730       24,000           85
                                                         EL 2           T8           49        105.4        5,000        4,700       24,000           82
8-foot RDC HO...................................         EL 1           T8           86         99.0        8,200        7,800       18,000           85
                                                         EL 2           T8           86        108.4        8,200        7,710       18,000           85
T5 MiniBP SO *..................................         EL 1           T5           28         97.0        2,610        2,394       30,000           85
                                                         EL 2           T5           28         98.8        2,610        2,427       36,000           85
                                                         EL 3           T5           28        100.8        2,610        2,408       24,000           82
                                                         EL 3           T5           26        101.0        2,610        2,394       25,000           85
T5 MiniBP HO *..................................          EL1           T5           54         85.6        4,500        4,185       30,000           85
                                                         EL 1           T5           49         88.8        4,365        4,140       36,000           85
                                                         EL 2           T5           54         89.8        4,500        4,050       30,000           82
                                                         EL 2           T5           47           90        4,320        3,969       30,000           84
                                                         EL 3           T5           54         96.4        4,365        4,140       36,000           85
                                                         EL 3           T5           49         96.5        4,500        4,005       30,000           85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO rated efficacy, initial lumen output, and mean lumen output given at 25 [deg]C. Initial and mean lumens are calculated from
  catalog lumens at 35[deg]C by applying a 10 percent lumen reduction.
** Efficacy is from the compliance certification database, if available, or catalog/retailer initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage if
  the lamp does not have certification data.
*** Rated life is based on an instant start ballast with 3 hour starts for the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline product classes and a programmed start
  ballasts with 3 hour starts for all other product classes.


[[Page 32340]]

d. Efficacy Levels
    After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each of the 
baseline lamps, DOE develops ELs based on the consideration of several 
factors, including: (1) The design options associated with the specific 
lamps being studied (e.g., grades of phosphor); (2) the ability of 
lamps across wattages to comply with the standard level of a given 
product class; and (3) max-tech level. Although fluorescent lamps are a 
component of a system that often includes ballasts and fixtures, DOE 
based its ELs only on lamp performance because GSFLs are the subject of 
this proposed determination. DOE acknowledges, however, that the energy 
consumption of fluorescent lamps is related to the ballast on which 
they operate. Therefore, DOE pairs each lamp with an appropriate 
ballast to better approximate real-world conditions (see section 
IV.C.1.e of this document for more information).
    To determine appropriate ELs, DOE used efficacy values of lamps 
certified in its compliance certification database. DOE considered only 
ELs at which a full wattage version of the lamp type was available 
because reduced wattage lamps have limited dimming capability.
    Table IV.6 summarizes the ELs developed by the engineering analysis 
for GSFLs in this NOPD.

                       Table IV.6--Summary of ELs for GSFL Representative Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Efficacy level  (lm/W)
                  CCT                           Lamp type        -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=4,500 K.............................  4-foot MBP..............            93.6            94.6             N/A
                                        8-foot SP slimline......            99.6           102.8             N/A
                                        8-foot RDC HO...........            99.0           108.4             N/A
                                        4-foot T5 MiniBP SO.....            97.0            98.8           100.8
                                        4-foot T5 MiniBP HO.....            85.6            89.8            96.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Lamp-and-Ballast Systems
    Because fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast in practice, DOE 
analyzed lamp-and-ballast systems in the engineering analysis. DOE 
determined that pairing a lamp with a ballast more accurately captures 
real-world energy use and light output.
    DOE considered two different scenarios in the engineering analysis: 
(1) A lamp replacement scenario in which the consumer selects a 
replacement lamp that can operate on the installed ballast and (2) a 
lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario in which the consumer selects a 
new lamp and also selects a new ballast with potentially different 
performance characteristics, such as ballast factor \8\ (``BF'') or 
ballast luminous efficiency \9\ (``BLE''). DOE only selected 
replacement systems that do not have higher energy consumption than the 
baseline system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ BF is defined as the output of a ballast delivered to a 
reference lamp in terms of power or light divided by the output of 
the relevant reference ballast delivered to the same lamp (ANSI 
C82.13-2002). Because BF affects the light output of the system, 
manufacturers design ballasts with a range of ballast factors to 
allow consumers to vary the light output, and thus power consumed, 
of a fluorescent system. See the fluorescent lamp ballast (``FLB'') 
final determination (published on October 22, 2019, 85 FR 81558) TSD 
Chapter 3. The FLB ECS final determination materials are available 
at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006.
    \9\ BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to ballast 
input power, multiplied by the appropriate frequency adjustment 
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For both substitution scenarios, DOE determined energy consumption 
by calculating the system input power of the lamp-and-ballast system. 
The system input power represents the energy consumption rate of both 
the lamp and ballast, and therefore is greater than the rated power of 
the lamp alone. In addition to the rated lamp power, the system input 
power is also affected by the number of lamps operated per ballast, BLE 
of ballast used, starting method, and the BF of that ballast.
f. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    As noted previously, DOE analyzes the representative product 
classes directly. DOE then scales the levels developed for the 
representative product classes to determine levels for product classes 
not analyzed directly. For GSFLs, the representative product classes 
analyzed were all lamp types with CCTs <= 4,500 K, with the exception 
of 2-foot U-shaped lamps. For the 2-foot U-shaped product class, DOE 
scaled from the efficacy levels developed for the 4-foot MBP product 
class.
    Efficacy levels developed for lamp types with CCTs less than or 
equal to 4,500 K were scaled to obtain levels for higher CCT product 
classes not analyzed. DOE found variation in the percent reduction in 
efficacy associated with increased CCT among product classes and 
therefore chose to develop a separate scaling factor for each product 
class. DOE developed scaling factors by identifying pairs and comparing 
the efficacies between the same lamp type from the same manufacturer 
within the same product class but that differed by CCT.
    For 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE compared catalog and certification 
data for 2-foot U-shaped lamps with equivalent 4-foot MBP lamps, and 
determined an average efficacy reduction of 6 percent from the 4-foot 
MBP lamps was appropriate. For the higher CCT product classes, DOE 
determined a 4 percent scaling factor for the 4-foot MBP product class, 
2 percent scaling factor for the 2-foot U-shaped product class, 3 
percent scaling factor for the 8-foot SP slimline product class, 3 
percent scaling factor for the 8-foot RDC HO product class, 6 percent 
scaling factor for the T5 SO product class, and 6 percent scaling 
factor for the T5 HO product class were appropriate.
    Regarding the max efficacy achievable by 2-foot U-shaped lamps, 
NEMA commented that the information outlined in DOE's compliance 
certification database is available and that the sales of U-shaped 1 5/
8'' lamps are lower than U-shaped 6'' lamps sales. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 
4) NEMA further added that the scaling factors developed in the prior 
rulemaking pertaining to the average efficacy difference between 2-foot 
MBP and 4-foot MBP lamps, and between lamps with CCT less than 4,500 K 
and CCT greater than 4,500 K, are still adequate and do not require any 
revision. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 8)
    As described previously in this section, DOE has calculated scaling 
factors for each product class to scale from lamps with CCTs less than 
4,500 K to lamps with CCTs greater than 4,500 K. These scaling factors 
are the same as those used in the January 2015 final rule with the 
exception of the scaling factors for the 8-foot RDC HO (3 percent 
instead of 4 percent) and T5 HO (6 percent instead of 7 percent) 
product classes. DOE also calculated a scaling factor for 2-foot U-
shaped lamps and found it to be 6 percent instead of the 8 percent

[[Page 32341]]

used in the January 2015 final rule. DOE determined the updated scaling 
factors by considering efficacy data for lamps in the compliance 
certification database and catalog data. DOE updated the scaling factor 
in cases where both data sources indicated that the existing scaling 
factors do not capture the difference in efficacy of the scaled lamp 
types. DOE determined that the updated scaling factors more accurately 
represent lamps currently on the market. Regarding the different leg 
spacings of 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE compared the scaled ELs to 
available certification data and confirmed that 2-foot U-shaped lamps 
with both 6-inch and 1 5/8-inch leg spacings can meet the analyzed ELs. 
Table IV.7 summarizes the ELs for all GSFL product classes.

                              Table IV.7--Summary of All Efficacy Levels for GSFLs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Efficacy level
                  CCT                           Lamp type        -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=4,500 K.............................  4-foot medium bipin.....            93.6            94.6  ..............
                                        2-foot U-shaped.........            88.0            88.9  ..............
                                        8-foot single pin                   99.6           102.8  ..............
                                         slimline.
                                        8-foot recessed double              99.0           108.4  ..............
                                         contact HO.
                                        4-foot T5 miniature                 97.0            98.8           100.8
                                         bipin SO.
                                        4-foot T5 miniature                 85.6            89.8            96.4
                                         bipin HO.
>4,500 K..............................  4-foot medium bipin.....            89.9            90.8  ..............
                                        2-foot U-shaped.........            86.2            87.1  ..............
                                        8-foot single pin                   96.6            99.7  ..............
                                         slimline.
                                        8-foot recessed double              96.0           105.1  ..............
                                         contact HO.
                                        4-foot T5 miniature                 91.2            92.9            94.8
                                         bipin SO.
                                        4-foot T5 miniature                 80.5            84.4            90.6
                                         bipin HO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 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 the availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the GSFLs 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 present case, DOE conducted the analysis using the price 
survey approach. Typically, DOE develops manufacturing selling prices 
(``MSPs'') for covered products and applies markups to create end-user 
prices to use as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because GSFLs are 
difficult to reverse-engineer (i.e., not easily disassembled), DOE 
directly derives end-user prices for the lamps covered in this proposed 
determination. The end-user price refers to the product price a 
consumer pays before tax and installation. Because GSFLs operate with a 
ballast in practice, DOE also incorporated prices for ballasts that 
operate those lamps.
    In its review of publicly available prices for GSFLs, DOE observed 
a range of end-user prices paid for a lamp, depending on the 
distribution channel through which the lamp was purchased. DOE 
identified the following three main distribution channels: Small 
consumer-based distributors (i.e., internet retailers, drug stores); 
large retail distributors: (i.e., home centers, mass merchants, 
hardware stores, and electrical distributors); and state procurement.
    For each distribution channel, DOE calculated an average price for 
the representative lamp unit at each EL using prices for the 
representative lamp unit and similar lamp models at the same level. 
Because the lamps included in the calculation were equivalent to the 
representative lamp unit in terms of performance and utility (i.e., had 
similar wattage, CCT, shape, base type, CRI, and technology), DOE 
considered the pricing of these lamps to be representative of the 
technology of the EL. DOE developed average end-user prices for the 
representative lamp units sold in each of the three main distribution 
channels analyzed. DOE then calculated an average weighted end-user 
price using estimated shipments through each distribution channel. 
Table IV.8 summarizes the weightings used for the GSFL main 
distribution channels. Table IV.9 summarizes the weightings within the 
large retail distributors. The cost analysis methodology is explained 
in more detail in chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD.

          Table IV.8--Weightings for GSFL Distribution Channels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Main Channels                       Weighting  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Procurement.......................................              10
Large retail distributors...............................              70
Online Retailers........................................              20
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table IV.9--Weightings Within Large Retail Distributor Channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          GSFL weighting
           Main channels                 Description            (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Retail Distributors.........  Mass merchants and                11
                                     Home centers.

[[Page 32342]]

 
                                    Hardware stores.....               1
                                    Electrical                        88
                                     distributors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of GSFLs at different efficiencies in representative 
U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and commercial 
buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased GSFL 
efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use 
of GSFLs in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). 
The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE 
performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the 
savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of 
amended or new standards.
    Tables 6.4.1 through 6.4.10 in section 6.4 of the January 2015 
final rule TSD present the average energy consumption for each GSFL 
product class and efficiency level. DOE has tentatively concluded that 
the current average energy consumption for these products is comparable 
to the estimates developed in the January 2015 final rule, as the 
wattage options have not changed substantially for most products 
classes. Max-tech parameters, including system arc power, BF, and BLE 
have been updated to account for the max-tech levels described in 
section IV.C of this proposed determination. NEMA suggested that the 
2015 DOE Lighting Market Characterization Report \10\ (2015 LMC) should 
be used for operating hours for GSFLs. (NEMA, No. 6 at pp.8-9). DOE 
agrees that the operating hours in the 2015 LMC are appropriate. The 
8.1 average daily operating hours in the commercial sector from the 
2015 LMC translate to lower energy use and thus lower potential energy 
savings from GSFLs compared to the estimated 11.1 average daily 
operating hours in the commercial sector in the January 2015 final 
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 2015 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. U.S. Department 
of Energy, available at www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 6 of the NOPD TSD provides details on DOE's energy use 
analysis for GSFLs.

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducts LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
GSFLs. 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. DOE typically uses the following two 
metrics to measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, 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.
    Based on the rapidly declining shipments of GSFLs, limited and 
uncertain energy savings opportunity, and potential impacts on 
manufacturers, as discussed in sections IV.D, IV.F, and V.C of this 
NOPD, DOE did not conduct LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic 
impacts on individual consumers of amended GSFL energy conservation 
standards.

F. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation 
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\11\ 
The shipments model takes an accounting approach in tracking market 
shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock. 
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age 
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age 
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to 
calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any 
year depend on the age distribution of the stock. DOE used a model 
coded in the Python programming language to compute an estimate of 
shipments and stock in each projection year up through the end of the 
analysis period (2021-2055). DOE included 4-foot T8, 4-foot T5 standard 
output and 4-ft T5 high output representative lamps in its shipments 
model. While T8 lamps represent the largest part of the GSFL market, 
the T5 product classes have engineering options with lower wattage 
options at higher ELs that may result in energy savings for consumers. 
The 8-foot recessed double-contact high-output product class does not 
include any lamp options at higher ELs that reduce energy compared to 
the baseline lamp, and the only lamp option in the 8-foot slimline 
product class that would reduce energy consumption does not offer the 
same utility as the other representative lamp options because its lumen 
output is more than 10 percent lower. These lamp categories with 
smaller markets and without potential energy savings at higher 
efficiency levels were excluded from analysis due to the fact that 
there would be either no or miniscule savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeded this model with estimates of total historical shipments 
derived from the January 2015 final rule (up through data year 2015) 
and sales indices of the linear lamp market published by NEMA\1\ (for 
data years 2015--2020). These indices show a steep decline of GSFL 
sales for lamps of all types over this five year period. In order to 
account for LED competition for GSFL applications, DOE included 
representative T8 and T5 LED replacement lamps in the shipments model 
(see the chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD for details). DOE assumed that in 
each shipments projection year, demand for replacements would be the 
only source of demand for new lamp purchases. Demand for replacement

[[Page 32343]]

lamps in each year is allotted among available replacement options 
using a consumer choice model that derives market share based on the 
features of available representative lamps. This model includes 
consumer sensitivity to price, lifetime, energy savings, and mercury 
content as measured in a market study \12\ of consumer preference for 
lamps. Though these parameters represent the preference of residential 
consumers, DOE adopted them for the linear lamp market in the absence 
of available alternatives. DOE expects that because these parameters 
place more weight on first-cost than other attributes, the model 
results in a conservative estimate of LED adoption since commercial and 
industrial consumers are more likely to weigh decreases in operating 
costs in purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Steven Krull and Dan Freeman, ``Next Generation Light Bulb 
Optimization'' (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, February 10, 
2012), https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/images/stories/Lighting_Conjoint_Study_v020712f.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE assumes that the purchase price of TLED lamp options will drop 
over the course of the analysis period due to price learning associated 
to cumulative shipments of LED lamps of all types (consistent with the 
price learning analysis detailed in a LBNL report on the impact of the 
GSL backstop \13\). Further, DOE assumes that while consumers may 
replace fluorescent lamps with either a fluorescent or TLED lamp 
option, those with failing LEDs will only opt for an LED replacement. 
Lastly, DOE applies an efficiency trend, based on a fit to projections 
of linear fixture efficiency from the 2019 Solid State Lighting 
Report,\14\ to the most efficient LEDs available. Over the course of 
the shipments projection period, the application of this trend expands 
the range of available LED efficiencies and attempts to account for 
increases in LED market share that would occur as a result of this 
shift. Due in part to these assumptions, the shipments model projects 
that the linear lamp market continues to shift quickly towards LED over 
the analysis period in the no-new-standards case. See the chapter 8 of 
the NOPD TSD for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ C.L.S. Kantner et al., ``Impact of the EISA 2007 Backstop 
Requirement on General Service Lamps'' (Berkeley, CA: Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory, December 2021), https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/impact-eisa-2007-backstop-requirement.
    \14\ Navigant Consulting, Inc., ``Energy Savings Forecast of 
Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications'' 
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, December 2019), https://www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2019-ssl-forecast-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also assumed that a fixed fraction of all tubular lamp stock in 
each year will leave the market due to retrofits or renovation with 
integrated LED fixtures. This assumption has the effect of reducing the 
number of lamps that might retire, and therefore the size of the 
market, in each year.
    NEMA commented that their data shows a much more aggressive decline 
than the assumption in the January 2015 final rule which accounts for 
the penetration of LED lighting into GSFL markets. (NEMA, No. 6 at p. 
10). Additionally, during manufacturer interviews, manufacturers 
commented that the market is shifting to LED technology in the GSFL 
markets. Most manufacturers commented that there has been a 20 to 40 
percent decline in shipments for GSFLs each year that is expected to 
continue absent new standards for GSFLs. This decline is greater than 
that projected in the January 2015 final rule, and more in line with 
the projected market share estimated in this proposed determination.

G. National Energy Savings

    The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of 
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from 
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\15\ DOE 
calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered 
based on projections of annual product shipments, along with the annual 
energy consumption and total installed cost data estimated or provided 
from other sources. For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy 
savings, operating cost savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer 
benefits over the lifetime of GSFLs sold from 2026 through 2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and 
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the effects of new or amended standards by comparing 
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
GSFL class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. The efficiency distribution is projected using a consumer-
choice model, as discussed in section IV.F, and takes into account 
competition from TLED substitutes. DOE compares the no-new-standards 
case with projections characterizing the market for each product class 
if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency 
levels (i.e., the ELs or standards cases) for that class. For the 
standards cases, consistent with the approach in the no-new-standards 
case, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the market 
shares of GSFLs with efficiencies greater than the standard and TLED 
substitutes using the consumer-choice model discussed previously.
    The only potential standard for which NES and NPV were calculated 
was the max-tech levels, where the standard for each GSFL product class 
is set at the maximum available level. NES and NPV at this candidate 
standard define an upper bound on how much savings could be realized at 
any lower standard.
    Because a LCC analysis was not performed for consumers of lamps 
covered under this analysis, DOE estimated the per-unit annual energy 
use of available GSFL options based on nominal wattages derived during 
the engineering analysis (described in section IV.C) and separate 
average hours-of-use (HOU) estimates for individual sectors.
    To estimate the HOU for linear lamps in the residential sector, DOE 
scaled the average HOU estimated for A-type medium screw-base lamps in 
DOE's 2016 GSL NOPR analysis. 81 FR 14528 (Mar. 16, 2016) The national-
average HOU for A-type lamps in the residential sector was estimated to 
be 2.3 hours/day based on DOE's 2016 GSL NOPR analysis, which 
considered a number of field metering studies conducted across the U.S. 
DOE developed a scaling factor for linear lamps using the distribution 
of room types that linear lamps are typically installed in and the HOU 
associated with those room types, relative to the distribution of room 
types and associated HOU for A-type lamps. Room-specific average HOU 
data came from NEEA's 2014 Residential Building Stock Assessment 
Metering Study (RBSAM) \16\ and room distribution data by lamp type 
came from a 2010 KEMA report.\17\ DOE estimated the national weighted-
average HOU of linear lamps to be 2.1 hours per day in the residential 
sector. See chapter 9 of this NOPD TSD for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Ecotope Inc. Residential Building Stock Assessment: 
Metering Study. 2014. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance: Seattle, 
WA. Report No. E14-283. (Last accessed December 5, 2019.) https://neea.org/data/residential-building-stock-assessment.
    \17\ KEMA, Inc. Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting 
Program: Volume 2. 2010. California Public Utilities Commission, 
Energy Division: Sacramento, CA. Report No. CPU0015.02. (Last 
accessed March 14, 2016.) https://www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol2_CALMAC.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to estimate HOU for linear lamps in the commercial sector, 
DOE took HOU estimates from the 2015 LMC of linear fluorescent lamps 
for the commercial buildings present in that report. The building-
specific HOU for

[[Page 32344]]

these lamps was weighted by the relative floor space of each building 
type as reported in the 2015 LMC. The national weighted-average HOU for 
linear lamps GSLs in the commercial sector were estimated at 8.1 hours 
per day.
    DOE derived LED alternatives to the T8 GSFL lamps represented in 
this analysis by looking at the efficiency and estimated cost of TLED 
lamps found in manufacturer catalogs and retailer websites (in order of 
data priority). DOE chose seven total TLED lamps ranging from 120 to 
177 lumens per watt, and an estimated pre-tax price of $8.78 to $14.20 
in 2021 USD. DOE assumed that the efficiency of T5 and 8-foot TLED 
lamps would be the same as LED T8 lamps, and estimated their wattage by 
assuming they would have the same lumen output of their GSFL 
competitors described in the engineering analysis. Like with the GSFLs, 
the annual energy use of TLED lamps was estimated using average hours 
of use and wattage. The price of any given T5 or 8-foot LED alternative 
is estimated as the sum of (a) the cost of the least efficient GSFL 
option of that lamp type, and (b) the incremental cost between the 
least efficient T8 GSFL and the LED T8 with the same efficiency as the 
given lamp. See the chapter 8 and chapter 9 of the NOPD TSD for more 
details.
    DOE uses a model written in the python programming language to 
calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and 
savings from each EL.
    Table IV.10 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the NOPD.

   Table IV.10--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments..............................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                          model.
Modeled Compliance Date of Standard....  2026.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit.....  Energy consumption values of
                                          modeled representative lamps
                                          are a function of EL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit..........  Purchase price of modeled
                                          representative lamps.
Electricity Prices.....................  AEO2021 projections (to 2050)
                                          and extrapolation through
                                          2055.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC           A time-series conversion factor
 Conversion.                              based on AEO2021.
Discount Rate..........................  3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year...........................  2022 (the year to which NPV is
                                          discounted).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards 
cases. DOE uses a shipments model that implements consumer choice over 
available lamp options in each year in order to compute the efficiency 
distribution. At each standard level and the no-new-standards case, the 
consumer choice model uses consumer sensitivity to price, relative 
energy savings, lamp lifetime, and mercury content to estimate the 
efficiency distribution of purchases in each year.
2. National Energy Savings
    The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy 
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards 
case and the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. 
DOE calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the 
number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or age) by the unit 
energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based 
on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new-
standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE 
estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and 
converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy 
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site 
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO2021. 
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the 
timeframe of the analysis.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and 
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the NIA and emissions analyses 
included in future energy conservation standards rulemakings. 76 FR 
51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the approaches discussed in the 
August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a statement of amended policy in 
which DOE explained its determination that EIA's National Energy 
Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most appropriate tool for its FFC 
analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial 
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \18\ that EIA uses to 
prepare its AEO. The FFC factors incorporate losses in production, and 
delivery in the case of natural gas, (including fugitive emissions) and 
additional energy used to produce and deliver the various fuels used by 
power plants. The approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use 
and emissions is described in appendix 10B of the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009. 
Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581(2009)index.php (last 
accessed March 4, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), 
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between 
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total 
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. 
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each product 
shipped during the projection period.
    DOE assumed that the price of TLED lamps would decrease over the 
analysis period due to price learning, as described in section IV.F of 
this document, which affected the market share projected by the 
shipments model. The gradual decrease in LED prices also affects the 
total installed cost over the analysis period, and has the effect of 
reducing lamp costs in both the standards- and no-new-standards cases 
as well as the incremental cost of a standard.
    The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are 
calculated using

[[Page 32345]]

the estimated energy savings in each year and the projected price of 
the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy prices in future 
years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by the 
projection of annual national-average residential energy price changes 
in the Reference case from AEO2021, which has an end year of 2050. To 
estimate price trends after 2050, DOE assumed that prices would remain 
constant after 2050.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
NOPD, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent 
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in 
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and 
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory 
analysis.\19\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in 
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are 
designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value 
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private 
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the 
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society 
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html (last accessed March 4, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for GSFLs. 
It addresses the max tech levels examined by DOE and the projected 
impacts of these levels. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses 
are contained in the NOPD TSD supporting this document.

A. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

    Based on the lack of energy savings and declining shipments of 
GSFLs, as discussed in sections IV.D and IV.F of this NOPD, DOE did not 
conduct LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on 
individual consumers of amended GSFL energy conservation standards.

B. National Impact Analysis

    This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of 
consumer benefits that would result from each of the ELs considered as 
potential amended standards.
1. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for GSFLs, DOE compared their energy consumption under the 
no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under the 
max-tech levels for 4-foot T8 and 4-foot standard and high output T5 
GSFL product classes. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime 
of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of 
anticipated compliance with amended standards (2026-2055).
    The NIA model projected relatively low potential savings from a 
max-tech standard level and that the majority of savings realized by 
setting a GSFL standard are the result of incurring quicker market 
shift to LED alternatives, rather than the reduction in energy 
consumption of a constant GSFL market share. Further, because the 
entire tubular lamp market is projected to decline over the analysis 
period, most savings occur in the first decade of a potential standard. 
For more details, see chapters 9 and 10 of the NOPD TSD.
    Table V.1 presents DOE's projections of the NES the max-tech levels 
considered for GSFLs. The savings were calculated using the approach 
described in section IV.G of this document.

Table V.1--Cumulative National Energy Savings for GSFLs (Quads); 9 Years
     of Shipments (2026-2034) and 30 Years of Shipments (2026-2055)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Max tech savings
                                         -------------------------------
                                              9 years        30 years
                                             shipments       shipments
                                            (2026-2034)     (2026-2055)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Energy.............................            0.01            0.01
FFC Energy..............................            0.03            0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \20\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this proposed 
determination, DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, 
rather than 30 years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year 
period is a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain 
energy conservation standards and potential revision of and compliance 
with such revised standards.\21\ The review timeframe established in 
EPCA is generally not synchronized with the product lifetime, product 
manufacturing cycles, or other factors specific to GSFLs. Thus, such 
results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES 
sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are 
presented in Table V.1. The impacts are counted over the

[[Page 32346]]

lifetime of GSFLs purchased in 2026-2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed 
March 4, 2022).
    \21\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards 
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before 
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards 
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous 
standards. If DOE makes a determination that amended standards are 
not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review within three years 
following such a determination. As DOE is evaluating the need to 
amend the standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the review 
timeframe associated with amended standards. While adding a 6-year 
review to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes 
that it may undertake reviews at any time within the 6-year period 
and that the 3-year compliance date may yield to the 6-year 
backstop. A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate given the 
variability that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and the 
fact that for some products, the compliance period is 5 years rather 
than 3 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the max-tech levels considered for 
GSFLs. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\22\ 
DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 
rate. Table V.2 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted 
over the lifetime of products purchased in 2026-2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed 
March 4, 2022).

 Table V.2--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for GSFLs
(Billions of 2021 USD); 9 Years of Shipments (2026-2034) and 30 Years of
                          Shipments (2026-2055)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Maximum tech standard
                                         -------------------------------
              Discount rate                 9 Years of      30 Years of
                                             shipments       shipments
                                            (2026-2034)     (2026-2055)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent...............................            0.21            0.26
7 percent...............................            0.15            0.18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are also presented in Table V.2. The impacts are counted over 
the lifetime of GSFLs purchased in 2026-2034. As mentioned previously, 
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision 
criteria.

C. Proposed Determination

    As required by EPCA, this NOPD analyzes whether the Secretary 
should issue a notification of determination not to amend standards for 
GSFLs based on DOE's consideration of whether amended standards would 
be technologically feasible, result in significant conservation of 
energy, and be cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(n)(2)) Any new or amended standards issued by the Secretary would 
be required to comply with the economic justification and other 
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
1. Technological Feasibility
    EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation 
standards for GSFLs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has tentatively 
determined that there are technology options that would improve the 
efficacy of GSFLs. These technology options are being used in 
commercially available GSFLs and therefore are technologically 
feasible. Hence, DOE has tentatively determined that amended energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs are technologically feasible.
2. Cost Effectiveness
    EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards 
for GSFLs would be cost effective through an evaluation of the savings 
in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 
GSFLs compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial 
charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered GSFLs which are 
likely to result from the imposition of an amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) In the absence of a LCC analysis, DOE considers 
NPV estimated by the NIA model to estimate the potential monetary 
benefits of amended standards for GSFLs. (See results in Table V.2) The 
inputs for determining the NPV are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) 
total annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance 
costs), and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of 
costs and savings. DOE observes that most of the estimated NPV 
resulting from a potential standard comes from operating cost savings 
associated to a slightly faster market transition to LED alternatives, 
rather than savings associated to lower energy consumption for GSFL 
consumers.
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
    EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs would result in significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(n)(2)(A)) DOE observed that a max-tech FFC energy savings of 0.03 
quads over 30 years of shipments represents an approximately 1 percent 
decrease in total energy use of lamps shipped in the period 2026-2055. 
In addition, the model used to estimate these savings projects that 
most of this reduction comes in incurring a faster market shift to 
solid state lighting rather than a reduction in energy use among 
existing GSFL consumers.
    DOE also notes that GSFLs are manufactured and sold at standard 
wattage levels, which restricts the effect of efficiency gains to 
increasing the amount of light provided by GSFLs rather than directly 
reducing energy consumption. For 4-foot T8 GSFLs, which represent the 
bulk of GSFL shipments, the same wattage options are available at the 
max tech standard level as at the baseline, so there is no reason to 
believe that GSFL consumers will use less energy as a result of a 
standard. The 0.02 FFC quads of potential energy savings associated 
with these lamps is thus uncertain, as consumers may simply continue to 
purchase a GSFL of the same wattage as their current lamp, rather than 
shift to a lower wattage lamp or different lighting technology. 
Consumers who have not already transitioned to LED lighting, once the 
vast majority of the market has done so, may be less inclined to do so 
than the typical consumer modeled by the consumer-choice model.
    The 8-foot recessed double-contact high-output product class and 
the 8-foot slimline product class do not include any lamp options at 
higher ELs that would reduce energy compared to the baseline lamp, with 
the exception of one lamp option in the 8-foot slimline product class 
that doesn't offer the same utility as the other representative lamp 
options because its lumen output is more than 10 percent lower. Thus 
there is no potential energy savings from more efficient GSFLs for the 
8-foot product classes.

[[Page 32347]]

    The potential FFC energy savings from the remaining (4-foot T5 
standard and high output) product classes is only 0.01 quads over 30 
years of shipments. While these product classes do offer a lower 
wattage option at max tech, in addition to an option with the same 
wattage as the baseline lamp, DOE notes that for standard output T5 
lamps, the lower wattage lamp costs more than the baseline-equivalent 
wattage option, and for the high output T5 lamps, the lower wattage 
lamp costs similar to the baseline-equivalent option, again suggesting 
uncertainty that consumers will switch to a lower wattage lamp. 
Additionally, most potential energy savings would come from consumers 
switching to LEDs, and as with 4-foot T8 GSFLs, there is no guarantee 
that consumers will switch to LEDs as a result of a standard, rather 
than continue to purchase GSFLs of the same wattage as their current 
lamp.
    Further, while consumers historically might save energy under a 
standard by retrofitting their systems with lower ballast factor 
ballasts to reduce the operating wattage of their lamps (while 
retaining light output), it appears unlikely in the current market that 
consumers would retrofit their ballasts in this way as opposed to 
installing a solid-state lighting solution. This removes the potential 
lamp-and-ballast replacement approach as a strategy to save energy, and 
consequently this approach was not modeled in this analysis of 
potential energy savings.
4. Further Considerations
    As discussed previously, any amended standards for GSFLs would be 
required to comply with the economic justification and other 
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Based on the: (1) Uncertainty of 
potential energy savings discussed in detail in section V.C.3 of this 
document; (2) the fact that an amended standard for GSFLs would require 
manufacturers to invest in the manufacture of more efficient GSFLs at a 
time when the market is already rapidly declining, as discussed in 
section IV.F; and (3) international uncertainty regarding the ability 
to sell GSFLs in the future following the second segment of the fourth 
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention on 
Mercury,\23\ DOE has tentatively determined that energy conservation 
standards for GSFLs would not be economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ clasp, ``Convention on Mercury Promises CFLs Phase-Out; 
Action on LFLs Delayed,'' available at https://www.clasp.ngo/updates/convention-on-mercury-agrees-to-phase-out-major-category-of-fluorescent-light-bulbs-but-last-minute-interventions-delay-action-on-another/; UN Environment Programme, ``Minamata COP-4 closes with 
global commitment to strengthen efforts against toxic mercury,'' 
available at https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/minamata-cop-4-closes-global-commitment-strengthen-efforts-against; 
UN Environment Programme, ``Minamata Convention on Mercury,'' 
available at https://www.mercuryconvention.org/en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Summary
    Based on the reasons stated in the foregoing discussion, DOE has 
tentatively determined that the energy conservation standards for GSFLs 
do not need to be amended because amended standards would not be 
economically justified.
    DOE will consider all comments received on this proposed 
determination in issuing any final determination.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires 
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a 
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify 
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to 
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office 
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques 
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might 
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action 
is consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a 
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under 
E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless 
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE recently conducted a focused inquiry into small business 
manufacturers of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE used the 
Small Business Administration (``SBA'') size standards to determine 
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the 
proposed determination. The small business size standards are listed by 
North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code as well 
as by industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Manufacturing GSFLs is classified under 
NAICS code 335110, ``electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing.'' The 
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be 
considered as a small business for this category. DOE used the

[[Page 32348]]

Compliance Certification Database \24\ and other publicly available 
information to create a list of manufacturers. DOE then used market 
research tools to determine whether any of the potential manufacturers 
met the SBA's definition of a small entity, based on the total number 
of employees for each company including parent, subsidiary, and sister 
entities. DOE additionally screened out companies that are entirely or 
largely foreign owned and operated. DOE identified a total of 38 
distinct potential small businesses that import or manufacturer GSFLs 
in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification 
Database, available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures 
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend 
standards for GSFLs, if adopted, the determination would not amend any 
energy conservation standards. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE 
certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this proposed 
determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting 
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of GSFLs must certify to DOE that their products 
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify 
compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their 
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments 
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for 
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered 
consumer products and commercial equipment, including microwave ovens. 
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to 
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). 
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated 
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    DOE has tentatively determined that current standards for GSFLs do 
not need to be amended. This proposed determination, if made final, 
would not impact the reporting burden approved under OMB control number 
1910-1400.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or 
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart 
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for 
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in 
regards to an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements 
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed determination 
and has tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the GSFLs that are the subject of this proposed 
determination. States can petition DOE for exemption from such 
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is required by E.O. 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to 
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 
(1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets 
the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the

[[Page 32349]]

private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted 
annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 
to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, 
benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), 
(b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective 
process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and 
Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental 
mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving notice and 
opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments 
before establishing any requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of 
policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 
FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    DOE examined this proposed determination according to UMRA and its 
statement of policy and determined that the proposed determination does 
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to 
require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposed determination, if finalized as proposed, would not have 
any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an 
institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to 
prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed determination, if 
finalized as proposed, would not result in any takings that might 
require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 
Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded 
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a Statement of 
Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor Executive Order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This proposed determination, which does not propose to amend energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs, is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared Peer Review report pertaining 
to the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses.\25\ 
Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented 
evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and independent 
reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/scientific/business 
merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the productivity and 
management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. Because available 
data, models, and technological understanding have changed since 2007, 
DOE has engaged with the National Academy of Sciences to review DOE's 
analytical methodologies to ascertain whether modifications are needed 
to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is in the process of 
evaluating the resulting report.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 
Report.'' 2007. Available at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed March 4, 2022).
    \26\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Participation

    DOE invites public participation in this process through 
participation in the

[[Page 32350]]

webinar and submission of written comments and information. After the 
webinar and the closing of the comment period, DOE will consider all 
timely-submitted comments and additional information obtained from 
interested parties, as well as information obtained through further 
analyses.

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at 
the beginning of this document. If no participants register for the 
webinar then it will be cancelled. Webinar registration information, 
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities 
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=22. Participants are responsible for ensuring 
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this 
NOPD, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has 
an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral 
presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit requests to speak 
to [email protected]. Persons who wish to speak 
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes 
the nature of their interest in this proposed determination and the 
topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime 
telephone number where they can be reached.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public 
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. 
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, 
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the 
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to 
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures 
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be 
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, 
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After 
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period, 
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and 
any aspect of the proposed determination.
    The webinar/public meeting will be conducted in an informal, 
conference style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics 
addressed in this rulemaking, allow time for prepared general 
statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to 
share their views on issues affecting this proposed determination. Each 
participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time 
limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. 
DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly 
on any general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should 
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants 
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of 
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed 
determination. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will 
accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time 
permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural 
rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for 
the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the 
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the 
beginning of this NOPD. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed determination no later than the date provided in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this NOPD. Interested parties may submit 
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies 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 itself 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. Otherwise, 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 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 
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 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 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 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 in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. With this instruction followed, 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. No faxes will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in

[[Page 32351]]

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) 
file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written 
in English, and that are 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. Pursuant 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, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    (1) DOE seeks comment on the technology options identified and the 
ones selected as design options in the screening analysis. See sections 
IV.B.2 and IV.B.3 of this document.
    (2) DOE seeks comment on the performance characteristics of the 
more efficacious substitutes. See section IV.C of this document.
    (3) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comment on the energy use 
analysis methodology. See section IV.D of this document.
    (4) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comment on the shipments 
analysis methodology. See section IV.F of this document.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this 
notification of proposed determination and request for comment.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 23, 
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy 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 24, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-11437 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P