[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9118-9136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02863]


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

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: Final determination.

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

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 final determination, DOE has determined that energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs do not need to be amended.

DATES: The effective date of this final determination is March 15, 
2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this activity, 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, some documents listed in the 
index, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure, may 
not be publicly available.
    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0030. The docket web page contains instructions 
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the 
docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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. 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].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemakings for GSFLs
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. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes
    2. Technology Options
    3. Screening Analysis
    a. Screened-Out Technologies
    b. Remaining Technologies
    4. Product Classes
    a. Existing Product Classes
    b. Summary
    B. Engineering and Cost Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    a. Representative Product Classes
    b. Baseline Efficiency
    c. More Efficacious Substitutes
    d. Higher Efficiency Levels
    e. Lamp-and-Ballast Systems
    f. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    2. Cost Analysis
    C. Energy Use Analysis
    D. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    E. Shipments Analysis
    F. National Impact Analysis
    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. Final 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 Orders 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
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
    M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Determination

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B 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 
final determination. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)), 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)-(5))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant to the EPCA 
requirement that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final 
rule establishing or amending a standard,

[[Page 9119]]

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 final determination, DOE analyzed GSFLs subject to 
standards specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR 
430.32(n)(1)-(3).
    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 impacts analysis (NIA). DOE evaluated whether 
higher standards would be cost effective by estimating 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 determined that current standards for GSFLs do not 
need to be amended.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this final 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 rulemakings 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)) In 
this analysis, DOE considers such energy use in its determination of 
whether energy conservation standards need to be amended. 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 final determination.
    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 (n)(2)) Additionally, 
any new or amended 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)) 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 (o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE is publishing this final 
determination 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

[[Page 9120]]

rule). These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 
430.32(n)(3) and repeated in Table II.1.

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

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 that final 
rule, DOE amended standards for GSFLs and concluded that amending 
standards for IRLs would not be economically justified. Id. Energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs are set forth in 10 CFR 430.32(n). DOE 
test procedures for GSFLs 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) on May 1, 
2020, 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). On May 31, 2022, DOE 
published a notice of proposed determination not to amend standards for 
GSFLs. 87 FR 32329 (May 2022 NOPD). In the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated 
that it was only considering amending standards for GSFLs, and not 
IRLs, because of two final rules recently published on May 9, 2022. The 
first rule, among other things, expanded the definition of general 
service lamps (``GSL'') to include IRLs. 87 FR 27461. The second rule, 
published on that same day, implemented a statutory backstop 
requirement for GSLs of 45 lumens per watt (lm/W). 87 FR 27439. Because 
IRLs, a newly covered GSL, cannot meet the 45 lm/W backstop 
requirement, DOE did not evaluate amended standards for IRLs in the May 
2022 NOPD. Similarly, in this final determination, DOE evaluated 
amended standards only for GSFLs.
    DOE received comments in response to the May 2022 NOPD from the 
interested parties listed in Table II.2.

                                   Table II.2--May 2022 NOPD Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Reference in this   Comment No. in
           Commenter(s)              final determination    the docket                Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness       ASAP et al..........              19  Efficiency Organizations.
 Project (``ASAP''), the American
 Council for an Energy-Efficient
 Economy (``ACEEE''), the New York
 State Energy Research and
 Development Authority
 (``NYSERDA''), and the Northwest
 Energy Efficiency Alliance
 (``NEEA'').
National Electrical Manufacturers   NEMA................              18  Trade Association.
 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, page 
of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

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

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE

[[Page 9121]]

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 final determination are discussed in further detail in section 
IV.A.4 of this document. This final 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.A.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 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. On August 31, 
2022, DOE published a final rule adopting the proposed amendments. 87 
FR 53618. In that final rule, with regard to GSFLs, DOE updated the 
latest versions of the referenced industry test standards and provided 
cites to specific sections of these standards; clarified definitions, 
test conditions and methods, and measurement procedures; clarified test 
frequency and inclusion of cathode power in measurements; allowed 
manufacturers to make voluntary (optional) representations of GSFLs at 
high frequency settings; revised the sampling requirements; and aligned 
sampling and certification requirements with adopted test procedure 
terminology and with the Federal Trade Commission's labeling program. 
87 FR 53618, 53620-53621.
    The current test procedures for GSFLs are codified in appendix R to 
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.

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 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (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.A.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 final 
determination. For further details on the screening analysis for this 
final determination, see chapter 4 of the final determination 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 product, 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.B of this final determination and in chapter 5 of the 
final determination 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 light-emitting diodes 
(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.F 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,

[[Page 9122]]

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.F 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, 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. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy 
savings on a case-by-case basis.

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 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 covered 
products, DOE generally conducts life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback 
period (PBP) analyses that estimate the costs and benefits to users 
from potential standards. Based on the rapidly declining shipments of 
GSFLs, and limited and uncertain energy savings opportunity, as 
discussed in sections IV.C, IV.E, and V.C of this final determination, 
DOE did not conduct LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic 
impacts on individual consumers of amended GSFL energy conservation 
standards. To further inform DOE's consideration of the cost 
effectiveness of potential amended standards, DOE considered 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 
final 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 NIA 
uses a 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.
    DOE received general comments on the May 2022 NOPD. NEMA stated 
that it agreed with DOE's proposed determination to not amend current 
energy conservation standards for GSFLs because the technology is 
highly mature, and its market share is in sharp decline. (NEMA, No. 18 
at p. 2)
    ASAP et al. commented that in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated that 
projected energy savings from more stringent standards are due to a 
faster market shift to solid state lighting rather than reduction in 
GSFL energy use. ASAP et al. stated that this conclusion indicates that 
significant savings can be achieved by regulating linear lamps under a 
technology-neutral standard, which would accelerate transition of the 
market to light-emitting diodes (LEDs). ASAP et al. stated that NEMA's 
lamp

[[Page 9123]]

sales index in the first quarter (Q1) of 2022 reported about two thirds 
of linear lamp shipments were still fluorescent. Specifically, ASAP et 
al. stated that because GSFLs and TLEDs provide the same utility for 
consumers, it makes sense to subject them to the same standards. (ASAP 
et al., No. 19 at pp. 1-2)
    Further, ASAP et al. stated that replacing a linear fluorescent 
lamp with the more efficient TLED can reduce power consumption by 50 
percent. It also stated that a 2022 ASAP and American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy report estimated that a complete transition 
from fluorescent to LED lighting would yield cumulative carbon dioxide 
(CO2) emissions reductions of about 200 million metric tons 
through 2050, the vast majority of which would come from linear lamps. 
ASAP et al. acknowledged that in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated that 
this rulemaking cannot address any product that does not meet the 
definition of a GSFL. ASAP et al. encouraged DOE to explore the 
possibility of setting a technology-neutral standard for all linear 
lamps in a separate rulemaking. (ASAP et al., No. 19 at p. 2)
    In the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated that the proposed determination 
addresses only GSFLs defined in 10 CFR 430.2, which do not include 
TLEDs. DOE stated that it is not authorized to consider any product not 
meeting this definition, such as TLEDs, as a part of this proposed 
determination. 87 FR 32329, 32336. Hence in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE did 
not conduct an analysis in which the scope of coverage included TLEDs. 
For the same reasons as stated in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE did not 
include TLEDs in the analysis of this final determination. However, as 
in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE agrees with ASAP et al. that TLEDs have 
gained market share at the expense of GSFLs and are suitable 
substitutes for GSFLs. Certain types of TLEDs are included in the 
definition of GSL in 10 CFR 430.2, and DOE is currently evaluating 
amending standards for GSLs in a NOPR published on January 11, 2023. 88 
FR 1638.

A. 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 final 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 final determination TSD for further discussion of the 
market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes
    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 straight-shaped, medium bipin lamp with a rated wattage of 
25 or more; (2) any 2-foot U-shaped, medium bipin (MBP) lamp with a 
rated wattage of 25 or more; (3) any 8-foot rapid start, recessed 
double contact (RDC) base, high output (HO) lamp; (4) any 8-foot 
instant start, single pin (SP) base, slimline lamp with a rated wattage 
of 49 or more; (5) any 4-foot straight-shaped, miniature bipin (MiniBP) 
standard output (SO) lamp with a rated wattage of 25 or more; and (6) 
any 4-foot straight-shaped, MiniBP 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.
    NEMA stated that there are energy saving opportunities in 
regulating the currently exempt linear fluorescent lamps with CRI of 87 
or greater (high CRI). NEMA further stated that over the past years 
nine states (VT, CO, HI, WA, MA, OR, NV, NJ, MD) and the District of 
Columbia have passed regulations requiring high CRI linear fluorescent 
lamps meet current DOE efficiency standards. NEMA stated that these 
regulations are inconsistent in terms of effective dates and types of 
restriction (e.g., sell-by, install by, manufacture by) and therefore, 
are administratively burdensome and increase risk of non-compliance and 
enforcement confusion for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. 
NEMA further stated that in its April 2022 Forward Regulatory Plan, 
Canada's Office of Energy Efficiency also proposed to remove the 
exemption of high CRI fluorescent lamps from its energy efficiency 
standards. Based on potential energy savings and to provide uniformity 
in regulations at the national level and to continue to align with 
Canada's appliance energy efficiency standards, NEMA recommended that 
DOE expand the scope of this rulemaking to include high CRI linear 
fluorescent lamps and subject them to current energy efficiency 
standards. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 2)
    NEMA recommended a three-year implementation period of subjecting 
the high CRI lamps to current energy efficiency standards based on a 
manufacture by end-date. NEMA stated that three-year implementation 
periods are common in DOE's lighting product rulemakings and industry 
is familiar with the timeline. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 2)
    ASAP et al. also encouraged DOE to address energy savings 
opportunities from exempt fluorescent lamps including high CRI lamps. 
ASAP et al. stated that as standards for non-exempt GSFLs have been 
implemented, use of certain exempt lamps has become more widespread as 
the lamps are marketed for general use. In particular, ASAP et al. 
commented that high CRI and impact resistant linear lamps have gained 
in market share and will continue to do so. ASAP et al. stated that 
this is particularly problematic as most high CRI and to a lesser 
extent impact resistant lamps are being sold as T12 lamps, which are 
generally the most inefficient. ASAP et al. stated that the 2015 U.S. 
Lighting Market Characterization (LMC) report showed average efficacies 
of T12 lamps to be 70 to 80 lumens per watt (lm/W) and a recent review 
of the market showed a high CRI 4-foot medium bipin T12 lamp for sale 
with an efficacy of 55 lm/W (i.e., almost 40 percent less efficacious 
than a lamp that just meets current GSFL

[[Page 9124]]

energy efficiency standards). Further, ASAP et al. stated that the 
shift to TLEDs is impacting T8 lamps while the market share of T12 
lamps remains relatively steady and will continue to do so in the 
absence of standards. ASAP et al. stated that according to NEMA lamp 
sales indexes, in Q1 2022, T8, T12, and T5 lamps accounted for 49.6, 
9.7, and 7.5 percent of the market of linear fluorescent lamps, 
respectively. ASAP et al. also stated that a 2019 California Energy 
Commission report estimated that replacing a 4-foot T12, 8-foot 
standard output T12, and 8-foot high output T12 with a compliant T8 
lamp yields energy savings of 45 kilowatt hour per year (kWh/yr), 83 
kWh/yr, and 126 kWh/yr, respectively. (ASAP et al., No. 19 at pp. 2-3)
    Finally, similar to comments provided by NEMA (see NEMA, No. 18 at 
p. 2), ASAP et al. cited states that had adopted regulations for high 
CRI lamps and additionally noted that in May 2022, New York state 
passed legislation that would give the New York State Energy Research 
and Development Authority the power to set standards for federally 
exempt fluorescent lamps, and in July 2022, the California Energy 
Commission announced ``Federally Exempted Linear Fluorescent Lamps'' as 
an upcoming standards rulemaking. (ASAP et al., No. 19 at p. 3)
    ASAP et al. acknowledged that DOE stated in the May 2022 NOPD that 
it cannot modify the definition of GSFL to include statutorily exempt 
lamps in this rulemaking. ASAP et al. encouraged DOE to pursue setting 
standards for exempt lamps in a separate rulemaking. (ASAP et al., No. 
19 at pp. 2-3)
    In the May 2022 NOPD, DOE stated that exemptions for high CRI lamps 
and impact resistant fluorescent lamps are included 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 statutory exemptions. Additionally, as 
stated in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE finds no basis in the language of EPCA 
to support assertions that the agency's authority to consider energy 
conservation standards for ``additional'' GSFL under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(5) is unlimited. As discussed in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE 
interprets section 6295(i)(5) to cover additional GSFL that are not one 
of the lamps excluded from the definition of GSFL in 42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(B). 87 FR 32329, 32335-36. For these reasons, DOE did not 
consider high CRI lamps to be in the scope of this rulemaking.
2. Technology Options
    In the May 2022 NOPD, 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 and technical journals, and the 
January 2015 final rule. In addition to the technology options 
identified in the January 2015 final rule, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32336. For more detail on this technology 
option, see chapter 3 of the final determination TSD.
    NEMA stated that it agreed with DOE's assessment of technology 
options. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 2)
    In summary, in this final determination, DOE considers the 
technology options proposed in the May 2022 NOPD and shown in Table 
IV.1. Detailed descriptions of these technology options can be found in 
chapter 3 of the final determination 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 commercially viable, existing 
prototypes will not be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that 
technology will not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to 
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to 
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered 
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as products generally available in the United States at the time, 
it will not be considered further.
    (4) Safety of technologies. 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 technology has 
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a 
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the 
potential for monopolistic concerns.


[[Page 9125]]


10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).

    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 excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis. NEMA commented that it agreed with DOE's screening analysis 
in the May 2022 NOPD. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 2)
a. Screened-Out Technologies
    In the May 2022 NOPD, DOE did not find that multi-photon phosphors 
or mercury isotopes are being used in working prototypes or in 
commercially available products. 87 FR 32329, 32337. Therefore, as in 
the May 2022 NOPD, in this final determination DOE has screened out 
multi-photon phosphors and mercury isotopes based on technological 
feasibility. See chapter 4 of the final determination TSD for further 
details on the GSFL screening analysis.
b. Remaining Technologies
    After reviewing each technology, and consistent with the May 2022 
NOPD (87 FR 32329, 32337), 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 final determination 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)).
b. Summary
    Having received no comments on product classes, as proposed in the 
May 2022 NOPD (87 FR 32329, 32337), DOE maintains the existing 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., SO versus HO). 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 (``MBP'')...............................   <=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. Engineering and Cost Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of 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 final determination, DOE is adopting an efficiency-level 
approach for GSFLs. For GSFLs, efficiency levels (ELs) are determined 
as lumens per watt, which is known as the lamp's efficacy. DOE derives 
ELs 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 use in the LCC and 
NIA. Section IV.B.2 discusses the cost analysis (see chapter 5 of the 
final determination 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 
ELs by directly analyzing representative product classes, and (5) scale 
ELs to non-representative product classes. The

[[Page 9126]]

efficiency analysis is discussed in the sections following and further 
details are provided in chapter 5 of the final determination TSD.
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. As in the May 2022 NOPD (87 FR 
32329, 32338), in this final determination, 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 Efficiency
    For each 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.
    In the May 2022 NOPD, 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 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. 87 FR 32329, 32338. DOE utilized the same methodology in this 
final determination as in the May 2022 NOPD. In this final 
determination, as in the May 2022 NOPD (87 FR 32329, 32338), DOE 
selected the GSFL baseline lamps specified in Table IV.4. See chapter 5 
of the final determination TSD for more detail.

                                                             Table IV.4--GSFL Baseline Lamps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Nominal       Efficacy **    Initial lumen    Mean lumen    Rated life ***
                                                              wattage    ----------------     output          output     ----------------
    Representative product class        Lamp diameter    ----------------                --------------------------------                       CRI
                                                                 W             lm/W             lm              lm              hr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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. In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 
32329, 32339.
    NEMA commented that it agreed with DOE's assessment of potentially 
more efficacious substitutes, in particular issues regarding 
performance such as dimming and other inversely proportional 
relationships between technology options and performance. (NEMA, No. 18 
at p. 3)
    DOE utilized the same methodology for identifying more efficacious 
substitutes in this final determination as in the May 2022 NOPD. In 
this final determination, as in the May 2022 NOPD (87 FR 32329, 32339), 
DOE analyzed the more efficacious substitutes shown in Table IV.5 of 
this document. See chapter 5 of the final determination TSD for more 
detail.

[[Page 9127]]



                                                                          Table IV.5--GSFL More Efficacious Substitutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Nominal       Efficacy **    Initial light    Mean light    Rated life ***
                                                                                                      wattage    ----------------     output          output     ----------------
             Product classes                           EL                    Lamp diameter       ----------------                --------------------------------                       CRI
                                                                                                         W             lm/W             lm              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 *...........................  EL 1......................  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            90.0           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.

d. Higher Efficiency Levels
    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.
    After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each of the 
baseline lamps, in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE developed ELs based on the 
consideration of several factors, including: (1) The design options 
associated with the specific lamps being studied (e.g., grades of 
phosphor); (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 analysis. DOE 
acknowledges, however, that the energy consumption of fluorescent lamps 
is related to the ballast on which they operate. Therefore, in the May 
2022 NOPD, DOE paired each lamp with an appropriate ballast to better 
approximate real-world conditions. 87 FR 32329, 32340. DOE utilized the 
same methodology in this final determination as in the May 2022 NOPD 
(see section IV.B.1.e of this document for more information).
    In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32340. DOE utilized the same 
methodology in this final determination as in the May 2022 NOPD. In 
this final determination, as in the May 2022 NOPD, DOE identified the 
ELs summarized in Table IV.6 of this document. See chapter 5 of the 
final determination TSD for more detail.

                       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, in the 
May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 
32329, 32340.
    In the May 2022 NOPD, 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 \6\ (BF) or ballast luminous

[[Page 9128]]

efficiency \7\ (BLE). DOE only selected replacement systems that do not 
have higher energy consumption than the baseline system. For both 
substitution scenarios, DOE determined energy consumption by 
calculating the system input power of the lamp-and-ballast system. 87 
FR 32329, 32340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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 Energy Conservation Standards final determination 
materials are available at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006.
    \7\ BLE is the ratio of the total lamp arc power to ballast 
input power, multiplied by the appropriate frequency adjustment 
factor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    DOE used the same methodology and determined the same results as in 
the May 2022 NOPD for the energy consumption of the lamp and ballast 
systems in this final determination. See chapter 5 of the final 
determination TSD for more detail.
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.
    In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32340.
    In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32341.
    DOE used the same methodology and determined the same results as in 
the May 2022 NOPD for the scaled ELs of the non-representative product 
classes in this final determination. See chapter 5 of the final 
determination TSD for more detail. 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 product 
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 May 2022 NOPD, DOE conducted the cost analysis using the 
price survey approach. Typically, DOE develops manufacturer selling 
prices (``MSPs'') for covered products and applies markups to create 
end-user prices to use as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. Because 
GSFLs are difficult to reverse-engineer (i.e., not easily 
disassembled), DOE directly derived end-user prices for the covered 
lamps in the May 2022 NOPD. The end-

[[Page 9129]]

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 the 
May 2022 NOPD. 87 FR 32329, 32341.
    Because the range of end-user prices paid for a lamp depended on 
distribution channel, DOE identified the following three main 
distribution channels to analyze in the May 2022 NOPD: 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. 87 FR 
32329, 32341.
    In the May 2022 NOPD, 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. 87 FR 32329, 32341.
    DOE used the same methodology and determined the same results as in 
the May 2022 NOPD for end-user prices in this final determination. 
Table IV.8 summarizes the weightings used for the GSFL main 
distribution channels.
    Table IV.9 summarizes the weightings within the large retail 
distributors. See chapter 5 of the final determination TSD for more 
detail.

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


     Table IV.9--Weightings Within Large Retail Distributor Channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 GSFL
            Main channels                   Description        weighting
                                                                  (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Retail Distributors...........  Mass merchants and              11
                                       Home centers.
                                      Hardware stores.......           1
                                      Electrical                      88
                                       distributors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. 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.
    DOE determined the annual energy consumption of GSFLs using 
information on their power (i.e., the rate of energy they consume), 
developed in the engineering analysis, and the way consumers use them 
(i.e., their operating hours per year).
    To estimate operating hours for linear lamps in the residential 
sector, DOE utilized the same methods as in the May 2022 NOPD. DOE 
estimated the national weighted-average hours-of-use (HOU) of linear 
lamps to be 2.1 hours per day in the residential sector. The national 
weighted-average HOU for linear lamps GSFLs in the commercial sector 
were estimated at 8.1 hours per day.
    Max-tech parameters, including system arc power, BF, and BLE have 
not been updated for the max-tech levels described in section IV.B.1 of 
this final determination.
    Table 6.3.1 in section 6.3 of the final determination TSD presents 
results of the energy use analysis for GSFL purchases in units of 
kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr).
    Chapter 6 of the final determination TSD provides details on DOE's 
energy use analysis for GSFLs.

D. 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 
covered products. 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, and limited and 
uncertain energy savings opportunity, as discussed in sections IV.D, 
IV.F, and V.C of this final determination, DOE did not conduct LCC and 
PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts on individual consumers 
of amended GSFL energy conservation standards. DOE received no comments 
on its decision not to conduct LCC and PBP analyses.

E. 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.\8\ 
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

[[Page 9130]]

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-foot 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 RDC HO 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 SP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 \9\ (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 
7 of the final determination TSD for details). DOE assumed that in each 
shipment's projection year, demand for replacements would be the only 
source of demand for new lamp purchases. Demand for replacement 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 \10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.nema.org/analytics/lamp-indices.
    \10\ Steven Krull and Dan Freeman, ``Next Generation Light Bulb 
Optimization'' (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, February 10, 
2012), http://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 Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory report on the impact of the GSL backstop \11\). 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,\12\ 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 chapter 7 of the final determination TSD for 
more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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.
    \12\ 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.
    The only comment DOE received on the shipments analysis was from 
NEMA, referring DOE to the NEMA Lamp Index for GSFLs,\13\ consistent 
with DOE's approach. (NEMA, No. 18 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See footnote 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. National Impact Analysis

    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.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in 
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of 
efficiencies over time. 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, 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 an LCC 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 system input power derived in the 
engineering analysis (described in section IV.B of this document) and 
separate average HOU estimates for individual sectors.
    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 lm/W, 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

[[Page 9131]]

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 chapter 7 and chapter 8 of the final determination 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 final determination. Discussion of these inputs and 
methods follows the table. See chapter 8 of the final determination TSD 
for details.

   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          2026.
 Standard.
Efficiency Trends.................  Consumer choice model, assuming
                                     increasing efficiency for max tech
                                     linear LED lamp option and
                                     decreasing LED prices over time.
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.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per     Annual values do not change with
 Unit.                               efficiency level.
Energy Prices.....................  Energy Information Administration's
                                     Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO'')
                                     2022 projections (to 2050) and
                                     extrapolation through 2095.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC      A time-series conversion factor
 Conversion.                         based on AEO2022.
Discount Rate.....................  3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year......................  2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (EL) 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 AEO2022. 
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 Energy Information 
Administration's (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 \15\ 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 8B of the final determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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 December 1, 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, 
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 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 energy price 
changes in the Reference case from AEO2022,

[[Page 9132]]

which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE 
assumed that prices would remain constant after 2050. NIA results based 
on these cases are presented in appendix 8C of the final determination 
TSD.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
final determination, 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.\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf (last accessed December 1, 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 final determination 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.C and IV.E of this final 
determination, 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 7 and 8 of the final determination TSD.
    Table V.1 presents DOE's projections of the NES for the max-tech 
standard level considered for GSFLs. The savings were calculated using 
the approach described in section IV.F 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Energy...............................          0.02          0.03
FFC Energy..................................          0.02          0.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \17\ 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 final 
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.\18\ 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 lifetime of 
GSFLs purchased in 2026-2034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ OMB. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ 
(last accessed March 4, 2022).
    \18\ 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,\19\ 
DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 
rate. 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), shows the consumer NPV results with 
impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2026-2055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See footnote 17.

[[Page 9133]]



 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...................................          0.15          0.20
7 percent...................................          0.11          0.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are also presented in 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). 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. Final Determination

    In order to make a final determination that standards for GSFLs do 
not need to be amended, EPCA requires that DOE analyze whether amended 
standards for GSFLs would result in significant conservation of energy, 
be technologically feasible, and be cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A) and (n)(2)) Any new or amended standards issued by the 
Secretary would be required to comply with the economic justification 
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). The criteria considered under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional analysis relating to economic 
justification are discussed in this section V.C.
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 (n)(2)(B)) DOE has 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 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), (n)(2)(C), and (o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) In the absence of an 
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.) As noted, 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 (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 no GSFL consumer must 
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 RDC HO product class and the 8-foot SP 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 SP 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 are no potential 
energy savings from more efficient GSFLs for the 8-foot product 
classes.
    The potential FFC energy savings from the remaining (4-foot T5 
standard output 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

[[Page 9134]]

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,\20\ 
DOE has determined that energy conservation standards for GSFLs would 
not be economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 
determines that the energy conservation standards for GSFLs do not need 
to be amended because amended standards would not be economically 
justified.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 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 final 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 final 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 and a 
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an 
agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the 
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As required by 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 reviewed this final determination under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on 
February 19, 2003. Because DOE is not amending standards for GSFLs, the 
determination will not amend any energy conservation standards. On the 
basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the final determination will 
have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an FRFA for this final 
determination. DOE has transmitted 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

    This final determination, which concludes that no amended energy 
conservation standards for GSFLs are needed, imposes no new information 
or recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 
required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE has analyzed this final 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 
has determined that this final determination qualifies for categorical 
exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regard to an 
existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for 
application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. 
Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental 
impact statement is required.

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 E.O. 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 final determination and has tentatively determined that 
it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the National

[[Page 9135]]

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 final 
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 
E.O. 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 final 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 regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a 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 final determination according to UMRA and its 
statement of policy and determined that the final 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 final determination 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 final determination 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 final determination 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 E.O. 12866, or any successor 
E.O.; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the 
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the 
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This final determination, which does not amend energy conservation 
standards for GSFLs, is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 
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''),

[[Page 9136]]

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.\21\ 
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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 
Report.'' 2007. Available at energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last 
accessed Nov. 7, 2022).
    \22\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this final determination prior to its effective date. 
The report will state that it has been determined that the final 
determination is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
determination.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 30, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on February 7, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-02863 Filed 2-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P