![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
PDF Version (101 pp, 841K, About PDF) [Federal Register: July 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 133)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 34079-34128] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr14jy09-10] [[Page 34080]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 430 [Docket Number EE-2006-STD-0131] RIN 1904-AA92 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is announcing that pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), it is amending the energy conservation standards for certain general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. DOE is also adopting new energy conservation standards and amendments to its test procedures for certain general service fluorescent lamps not currently covered by standards. Additionally, DOE is amending the definitions of certain terms found in the general provisions. It has determined that energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy, and are technologically feasible and economically justified. DATES: The effective date of this rule is September 14, 2009. Compliance with the standards established in today's final rule is required starting on July 14, 2012. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on September 14, 2009. ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents, the technical support document, transcripts of the public meetings in this proceeding, or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above telephone number for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. You may also obtain copies of certain previous rulemaking documents in this proceeding (i.e., framework document, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, notice of proposed rulemaking), draft analyses, public meeting materials, and related test procedure documents from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ incandescent_lamps.html. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Graves, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1851. E-mail: Linda.Graves@ee.doe.gov. Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585- 0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. E-mail: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Summary of the Final Rule A. The Standard Levels B. Current Federal Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps D. Impact on Manufacturers E. National Benefits F. Conclusion II. Introduction A. Authority B. Background 1. Current Standards 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This Rulemaking A. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamps for Which DOE is Adopting Standards 1. Scope of EPCA Requirement that DOE Consider Standards for Additional Lamps 2. Determination of the Additional Lamps to Which Standards Will Apply a. Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps b. Two-Foot Medium Bipin, U-Shaped Lamps c. Eight-Foot Recessed, Double-Contact Lamps d. Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps e. Very High Output Straight-Shaped Lamps f. T5 Lamps g. Various Other Fluorescent Lamps 3. Summary of GSFL for Which DOE Has Adopted Standards B. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope of Coverage 1. Covered Wattage Range 2. Exempted Incandescent Reflector Lamps 3. Museum Lighting C. Amended Definitions 1. ``Rated Wattage'' 2. ``Colored Fluorescent Lamp'' D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption Standards E. Color Rendering Index Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps IV. General Discussion A. Test Procedures B. Technological Feasibility 1. General 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels C. Energy Savings D. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria a. Economic Impact on Consumers and Manufacturers b. Life-Cycle Costs c. Energy Savings d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition f. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy g. Other Factors 2. Rebuttable Presumption V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology A. Market and Technology Assessment 1. Product Classes a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps i. Modified-Spectrum Fluorescent Lamps ii. 25 Watt 4-Foot MBP Lamps iii. Summary of GSFL Product Classes b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps i. Modified-Spectrum Lamps ii. Lamp Diameter iii. Voltage iv. IRL Summary B. Engineering Analysis 1. Approach 2. Representative Product Classes 3. Baseline Models 4. Efficacy Levels a. GSFL Compliance Reports b. 4-Foot MiniBP Efficacy Levels c. IRL Manufacturing Variability 5. Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed a. 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps b. Lamps With Higher CCTs c. Modified Spectrum IRL d. Small Diameter IRL e. IRL With Rated Voltages Greater Than or Equal to 125 Volts C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Consumer Product Price 2. Sales Tax 3. Annual Operating Hours 4. Electricity Prices and Electricity Price Trends 5. Ballast Lifetime 6. Lamp Lifetime 7. Discount Rates 8. Residential Fluorescent Lamp Analysis 9. Rebuttable Payback Period Presumption D. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net Present Value Analysis 1. Overview of NIA Changes in This Notice 2. Shipments Analysis 3. Macroeconomic Effects on Growth 4. Reflector Market Growth 5. Penetration of R-CFLs and Emerging Technologies 6. Building Codes 7. GSFL Shipments Growth 8. Residential Installed GSFL Stock 9. GSFL Lighting Expertise Scenarios 10. IRL Product Substitution Scenarios 11. Discount Rates E. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis F. Manufacturer Impact Analysis [[Page 34081]] G. Employment Impact Analysis H. Utility Impact Analysis I. Environmental Assessment J. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts VI. Discussion of Other Key Issues and Comments A. Sign Industry Impacts B. Max-Tech IRL 1. Treatment of Proprietary Technologies 2. Other Technologies a. High-Efficiency IR Coatings b. Silverized Reflectors c. Integrally-Ballasted Low-Voltage IRL 3. Lamp Lifetime C. IRL Lifetime 1. Baseline Lifetime Scenario 2. Minimum Lamp Lifetime Requirement 3. 6,000-Hour-Lifetime Lamps D. Impact on Competition 1. Manufacturers 2. Suppliers E. Xenon F. IRL Hot Shock G. Rare Earth Phosphors H. Product and Performance Feature Availability 1. Dimming Functionality 2. GSFL Product Availability I. Alternative Standard Scenarios 1. Tiered Standard 2. Delayed Effective Date 3. Residential Exemption 4. Conclusions Regarding Alternative Standard Scenarios J. Benefits and Burdens VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions A. Trial Standard Levels 1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps 2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps B. Significance of Energy Savings C. Economic Justification 1. Economic Impact on Consumers a. Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Period i. General Service Fluorescent Lamps ii. Incandescent Reflector Lamps b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results for the IRL Lifetime Sensitivity b. Cumulative Regulatory Burden c. Impacts on Employment d. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity e. Impacts on Manufacturers That Are Small Businesses 3. National Net Present Value and Net National Employment 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 7. Other Factors D. Conclusion 1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps Conclusion a. Trial Standard Level 5 b. Trial Standard Level 4 2. Incandescent Reflector Lamps Conclusion a. Trial Standard Level 5 b. Trial Standard Level 4 VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review M. Congressional Notification IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary Acronyms and Abbreviations ACEEE American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy ACG Applied Coatings Group ADLT Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc. AEO Annual Energy Outlook ANOPR advance notice of proposed rulemaking ANSI American National Standards Institute ASAP Appliance Standards Awareness Project BEF ballast efficacy factor BF ballast factor BR bulged reflector (reflector lamp shape) BT Building Technologies Program Btu British thermal units CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule CBECS Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey CCT correlated color temperature CEC California Energy Commission CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFL compact fluorescent lamp CIE International Commission on Illumination CO2 carbon dioxide CRI color rendering index CSL candidate standard level DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOJ U.S. Department of Justice E26 Medium screw-base (incandescent lamp base type) EEI Edison Electric Institute EIA Energy Information Administration EISA 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 EL efficacy level E.O. Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPACT 1992 Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPACT 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act ER elliptical reflector (reflector lamp shape) EU European Union EuP Energy-Using Product FEMP Federal Energy Management Program FR Federal Register FTC U.S. Federal Trade Commission GE General Electric Lighting and Industrial GRIM Government Regulatory Impact Model GSFL general service fluorescent lamp GSIL general service incandescent lamp GW gigawatt Hg mercury HID high-intensity discharge HIR halogen infrared reflector HO high output HVAC heating, ventilating and air-conditioning IALD International Association of Lighting Designers IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America ImSET Impact of Sector Energy Technologies INPV industry net present value IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I-O input-output IR infrared IRL incandescent reflector lamp K Kelvin kt kilotons LCC life-cycle cost LED light-emitting diode lm lumens LMC U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume I lm/W lumens per watt MBP medium bipin MECS Manufacturer Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) MIA manufacturer impact analysis miniBP miniature bipin MMt million metric tons Mt metric tons MW megawatts NAICS North American Industry Classification System NEEP Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMS National Energy Modeling System NEMS-BT National Energy Modeling System--Building Technologies NES national energy savings NIA national impact analysis NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NOPR notice of proposed rulemaking NOX nitrogen oxides NPV net present value NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program OEM original equipment manufacturer OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget PAR parabolic aluminized reflector (reflector lamp shape) PBP payback period PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric PSI Product Stewardship Institute quad quadrillion (1015) Btu R reflector (reflector lamp shape) R-CFL reflector compact fluorescent lamp R&D research and development RDC recessed double contact RECS Residential Energy Consumption Survey RIA regulatory impact analysis SBA U.S. Small Business Administration SO standard output SO2 sulfur dioxide SP single pin [[Page 34082]] T5, T8, T10, T12 tubular fluorescent lamps, diameters of 0.625, 1, 1.25 or 1.5 inches, respectively TSD technical support document TSL trial standard level TWh terawatt-hour UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act U.S.C. United States Code UV ultraviolet V volts VHO very high output W watts I. Summary of the Final Rule A. The Standard Levels The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA), provides that any new or amended energy conservation standard that the Department of Energy prescribes for covered consumer and/or commercial products, including general service fluorescent lamps (GSFL) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRL), must be designed to ``achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency * * * which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must ``result in significant conservation of energy.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The energy conservation standards in today's final rule, which apply to certain types of types of GSFL and IRL, satisfy these requirements, as well as all other applicable statutory provisions discussed in this notice. Table I.1 and Table I.2 present the energy conservation standard levels DOE is adopting today. These standards will apply to GSFL and IRL listed in those tables that are manufactured for sale in the United States, or imported into the United States, on or after July 14, 2012. Table I.1--Summary of the Amended Energy Conservations Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Lamp type Correlated color conservation temperature standard (lm/W) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-Foot Medium Bipin........... <=4,500K............. 89 >4,500K and <=7,000K. 88 2-Foot U-Shaped............... <=4,500K............. 84 >4,500K and <=7,000K. 81 8-Foot Slimline............... <=4,500K............. 97 >4,500K and <=7,000K. 93 8-Foot High Output............ <=4,500K............. 92 >4,500K and <=7,000K. 88 4-Foot Miniature Bipin <=4,500K............. 86 Standard Output. >4,500K and <=7,000K. 81 4-Foot Miniature Bipin High <=4,500K............. 76 Output. >4,500K and <=7,000K. 72 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table I.2--Summary of the Energy Conservation Standards for Incandescent Reflector Lamps ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Lamp wattage Lamp type Diameter Voltage conservation (inches) standard (lm/W) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40W-205W............................ Standard Spectrum...... >2.5 >=125 6.8*P0.27 <125 5.9*P0.27 <=2.5 >=125 5.7*P0.27 <125 5.0*P0.27 40W-205W............................ Modified Spectrum...... >2.5 >=125 5.8*P0.27 <125 5.0*P0.27 <=2.5 >=125 4.9*P0.27 <125 4.2*P0.27 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note 1: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. Note 2: Standard Spectrum means any incandescent reflector lamp that does not meet the definition of ``modified spectrum'' in 430.2. B. Current Federal Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps Table I.3 and Table I.4 present the current statutorily-prescribed Federal energy conservation standards for GSFL and IRL. The standards set requirements for minimum efficacy and color rendering index (CRI) levels for certain GSFL, and minimum efficacy levels for certain IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(n)) Table I.3--EPCA Standard Levels for GSFL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nominal lamp Minimum average Lamp type wattage Minimum CRI efficacy (lm/W) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-Foot Medium Bipin.......................................... >35W 69 75.0 <=35W 45 75.0 2-Foot U-Shaped.............................................. >35W 69 68.0 <=35W 45 64.0 8-Foot Slimline.............................................. >65W 69 80.0 <=65W 45 80.0 [[Page 34083]] 8-Foot High Output........................................... >100W 69 80.0 <=100W 45 80.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table I.4--EPCA Standard Levels for IRL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Minimum average Wattage efficacy (lm/ W) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40-50................................................... 10.5 51-66................................................... 11.0 67-85................................................... 12.5 86-115.................................................. 14.0 116-155................................................. 14.5 156-205................................................. 15.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ C. Benefits and Burdens to Purchasers of General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps In the April 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE considered the impacts on consumers of several trial standard levels (TSLs) related to the efficiency of GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 16920 (April 13, 2009). In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the economic impacts on most consumers (i.e., the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings) of amended standards for GSFL and IRL would be positive. DOE has reached the same conclusion in today's final rule, as explained below. The economic impacts on consumers, i.e., the average life-cycle cost savings, are generally positive in this final rule. DOE's analyses indicate that on average residential and commercial consumers would see benefits from the proposed standards. DOE expects that under the standards presented in this final rule, the purchase price of high- efficacy GSFL would be higher (up to thirteen times higher, including the purchase of new lamps and a new ballast) than the average price of these products today; the energy efficiency gains, however, would result in lower energy costs that more than offset such higher costs for the majority of consumers analyzed in this final rule. When the potential savings due to efficiency gains are summed over the lifetime of the high-efficacy products, consumers would be expected to save up to $67.06 (depending on the lamp type), on average, compared to their expenditures over the lives of today's baseline GSFL. The results of DOE's analyses for IRL follow a similar pattern. Although DOE expects the purchase price of the higher-efficacy IRL to be 47 to 64 percent higher than the average price of these products today, the energy efficiency gains would result in lower energy costs that more than offset the higher costs for the majority of consumers analyzed in this final rule. When these potential savings due to efficiency gains are summed over the lifetime of the higher-efficacy IRL, it is estimated that consumers would save up to $7.95 per lamp (depending on the wattage and operating sector), on average, compared to their expenditures over the lives of today's baseline IRL. D. Impact on Manufacturers Using a real corporate discount rate of 10.0 percent, DOE estimates the net present value (NPV) of the GSFL and IRL industries to be $527- 639 million and $221-301 million in 2008$, respectively. DOE expects the impact of today's standards on the industry net present value (INPV) of manufacturers of GSFL to be between a 0.6 percent loss and a 30.7 percent loss (-$4 million to -$162 million), and between a 6.8 percent loss and a 44.4 percent loss (-$21 million to -$98 million) for IRL manufacturers. Based on DOE's interviews with GSFL and IRL manufacturers, DOE expects minimal plant closings or loss of employment as a result of the standards. E. National Benefits DOE estimates the GSFL standards will save approximately 3.83 to 9.94 quads (quadrillion (10\15\) British thermal units (Btu)) of energy over 30 years (2012-2042). Over the same time period, DOE estimates IRL standards will save approximately 0.94 to 2.39 quads. By 2042, DOE expects the energy savings from the GSFL and IRL standards to eliminate the need for approximately 1.8 to 6.2 and 0.2 to 1.1 gigawatts of generating capacity, respectively. These energy savings from GSFL will result in cumulative (undiscounted) greenhouse gas emission reductions of 175 to 488 million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2); for IRL, DOE estimates these reductions will be 44 to 106 million tons (Mt) of CO2. Cumulative for GSFL and IRL, DOE estimates that the range of the monetized value of CO2 emission reductions is between $0.2 billion to $24.8 billion, at a 7-percent discount rate, and between $0.5 billion to $49.8 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. The mid- range of the CO2 value (using $33 per ton) is $3.9 to $10.2 billion and $7.6 to $20.6 billion at 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. Additionally, the GSFL standards will help alleviate air pollution by resulting in between approximately 11,000 to 36,780 tons (11.0 and 36.8 kilotons (kt)) of nitrogen oxides (NOX) cumulative emission reductions from 2012 through 2042; the IRL standards will result in NOX cumulative emission reductions of 6.4 to 8.4 kt. Mercury (Hg) cumulative emissions reductions over the same time period will be reduced by up to 7.3 metric tons due to GSFL standards and 1.65 metric tons from IRL standards. The monetized values of these emissions reductions, cumulative for both GSFL and IRL, are estimated at $6.0 to $131.5 million for NOX and up to $82.6 million for Hg at a 7-percent discount rate. Using a 3-percent discount rate, the monetized values of these emission reductions are $6.9 to $162.3 million for NOX and up to $153.7 million for Hg. The national NPV of the GSFL and IRL standards is between $10.02 and $26.31 billion and $1.83 and $9.06 billion, respectively, using a 7-percent discount rate cumulative from 2012 to 2042 in 2008$. Using a 3-percent discount rate, the national NPV of the GSFL and IRL standards is between $21.84 and $53.53 billion and $3.78 and $17.81 billion, respectively, cumulative from 2012 to 2042 in 2008$. This is the estimated total value of future savings minus the estimated increased costs of purchasing GSFL and IRL, discounted to 2009. The benefits and costs of today's final rule can also be expressed in terms of annualized 2008$ values over the forecast period 2012 through 2042. Using a 7-percent discount rate for the annualized cost analysis, the cost of the standards established in today's final rule is $700 million per year in increased product and installation costs, while the annualized benefits are $2.95 billion per year in reduced product operating costs. Using a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the standards established in today's final rule is $531 million per year, while the benefits of today's standards are $3.12 billion per year. The following tables depict these annualized benefits and costs for the adopted standards for GSFL and IRL. [[Page 34084]] Table I.5--Annualized Benefits and Costs for GSFL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Units ---------------------------------------- Category Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate Disc Period Year dollars (%) covered -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annualized Monetized $millions/year. 2302................... 1329................... 3275................... 2008 7 31 2420................... 1387................... 3452................... 2008 3 31 Annualized Quantified............... 10.48 CO2 (Mt)......... 5.76 CO2 (Mt).......... 15.2 CO2 (Mt).......... .............. 7 31 1.78 NOX (kt).......... 1.03 NOX (kt).......... 2.54 NOX (kt).......... .............. 7 31 0.11 Hg (t)............ 0 Hg (t)............... 0.22 Hg (t)............ .............. 7 31 10.6 CO2 (Mt).......... 5.69 CO2 (Mt).......... 15.52 CO2 (Mt)......... .............. 3 31 1.19 NOX (kt).......... 0.63 NOX (kt).......... 1.76 NOX (kt).......... .............. 3 31 0.11 Hg (t)............ 0 Hg (t)............... 0.23 Hg (t)............ .............. 3 31 Qualitative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annualized Monetized $millions/year. 582.................... 378.................... 786.................... 2008 7 31 425.................... 230.................... 621.................... 2008 3 31 Qualitative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Net Benefits/Costs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annualized Monetized $millions/year. 1720................... 951.................... 2489................... 2008 7 31 1994................... 1158................... 2831................... 2008 3 31 Qualitative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table I.6--Annualized Benefits and Costs for IRL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Units ---------------------------------------- Category Primary estimate Low estimate High estimate Disc Period Year dollars (%) covered -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annualized Monetized $millions/year. 650.................... 406.................... 894.................... 2008 7 31 696.................... 424.................... 968.................... 2008 3 31 Annualized Quantified............... 2.39 CO2 (Mt).......... 1.51 CO2 (Mt).......... 3.28 CO2 (Mt).......... .............. 7 31 0.51 NOX (kt).......... 0.45 NOX (kt).......... 0.58 NOX (kt).......... .............. 7 31 0.02 Hg (t)............ 0 Hg (t)............... 0.05 Hg (t)............ .............. 7 31 2.4 CO2 (Mt)........... 1.45 CO2 (Mt).......... 3.35 CO2 (Mt).......... .............. 3 31 0.35 NOX (kt).......... 0.31 NOX (kt).......... 0.4 NOX (kt)........... .............. 3 31 0.02 Hg (t)............ 0 Hg (t)............... 0.05 Hg (t)............ .............. 3 31 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Costs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annualized Monetized $millions/year. 118.................... 227.................... 9...................... 2008 7 31 106.................... 218.................... -6..................... 2008 3 31 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Qualitative -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Net Benefits/Costs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Annualized Monetized $millions/year. 532.................... 179.................... 885.................... 2008 7 31 590.................... 207.................... 973.................... 2008 3 31 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F. Conclusion DOE has evaluated the benefits (energy savings, consumer LCC savings, positive national NPV, and emissions reductions) to the Nation of today's new and amended energy conservation standards for certain GSFL and IRL, as well as the costs (loss of manufacturer INPV and consumer LCC increases for some users of GSFL and IRL). Based upon all available information, DOE has determined that the benefits to the Nation of the standards for GSFL and IRL outweigh their costs. Today's standards also represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and will result [[Page 34085]] in significant energy savings. At present, GSFL and IRL that meet the new standard levels are commercially available. II. Introduction A. Authority Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A\1\ of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The program covers consumer products and certain commercial products (all of which are referred to hereafter as ``covered products''), including GSFL and IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14) and 6292(i)) DOE publishes today's final rule pursuant to Part A of Title III, which provides for test procedures, labeling, and energy conservation standards for GSFL and IRL and certain other types of products, and authorizes DOE to require information and reports from manufacturers. The test procedures for GSFL and IRL appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendix R. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ This part was originally titled Part B; however, it was redesignated Part A after Part B was repealed by Public Law 109-58. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The scope of coverage of these provisions for GSFL and IRL is dictated by EPCA's definitions of these and related terms, as further discussed below. EPCA defines ``general service fluorescent lamp'' as follows: * * * [F]luorescent lamps which can be used to satisfy the majority of fluorescent applications, but does not include any lamp designed and marketed for the following non-general lighting applications: (i) Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth. (ii) Fluorescent lamps specifically designed for cold temperature installations. (iii) Colored fluorescent lamps. (iv) Impact-resistant fluorescent lamps. (v) Reflectorized or aperture lamps. (vi) Fluorescent lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment. (vii) Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet region of the spectrum. (viii) Lamps with a color rendering index of 87 or greater. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) EPCA defines ``incandescent reflector lamp'' as follows: * * * [A] lamp in which light is produced by a filament heated to incandescence by an electric current * * * [and] (commonly referred to as a reflector lamp) which is not colored or designed for rough or vibration service applications, that contains an inner reflective coating on the outer bulb to direct the light, an R, PAR, ER, BR, BPAR, or similar bulb shapes with E26 medium screw bases, a rated voltage or voltage range that lies at least partially within 115 and 130 volts, a diameter which exceeds 2.25 inches, and has a rated wattage that is 40 watts or higher. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C), (C)(ii) and (F)) EPCA further clarifies this definition of IRL by defining lamp types excluded from the definition, including ``rough service lamp,'' ``vibration service lamp,'' and ``colored incandescent lamp.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X), (AA), and (EE)) EPCA prescribes specific energy conservation standards for certain GSFL and IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) The statute further directs DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards, and to initiate a rulemaking to determine whether to adopt standards for additional types of GSFL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)-(5)) This rulemaking represents the first round of amendments to the GSFL and IRL energy conservation standards as directed by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), and it also implements the requirement for DOE to consider energy conservation standards for additional GSFL under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5). The advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) in this proceeding, 73 FR 13620, 13622, 13625, 13628-29 (March 13, 2008) (the March 2008 ANOPR), the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in this proceeding, 74 FR 16920, 16924-26 (April 13, 2009) (the April 2009 NOPR), and subsections II.B.2 and III.B.2 below provide additional detail on the nature and statutory history of EPCA's requirements for GSFL and IRL. EPCA provides criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including GSFL and IRL. As indicated above, any such new or amended standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Further, DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard if DOE determines by rule that such standard would not result in ``significant conservation of energy,'' or ``is not technologically feasible or economically justified.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Additionally, DOE may not prescribe an amended or new standard for any GSFL or IRL for which DOE has not established a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) EPCA also provides that in deciding whether such a standard is economically justified for covered products, DOE must, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors: (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard; (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the standard; (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the imposition of the standard; (6) The need for national energy conservation; and (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) In addition under (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)), EPCA, as amended, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard for covered products is economically justified if the Secretary finds that ``the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy, and as applicable, water, savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the test procedure * * *'' in place for that standard. EPCA also contains what is commonly known as an ``anti- backsliding'' provision. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) This provision mandates that the Secretary not prescribe any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. EPCA further provides that the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is ``likely to result in the unavailability in the United States of any product type (or class) with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States * * *.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) [[Page 34086]] Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA sets forth additional requirements applicable to promulgating standards for any type or class of covered product that has two or more subcategories. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Under this provision, DOE must specify a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of product ``for any group of covered products which have the same function or intended use, if * * * products within such group--(A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard'' than applies or will apply to the other products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies such a different standard for a group of products, DOE must ``consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a feature'' and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which DOE established such higher or lower level. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) Federal energy conservation requirements for covered products generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE can, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of section 327(d) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) B. Background 1. Current Standards The energy conservation standards that EPCA prescribes for GSFL and IRL, and that are currently in force, set efficacy levels and color rendering index (CRI) levels for certain GSFL, and efficacy standards for certain IRL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1); 10 CFR 430.32(n)) These standard levels are set forth in Table I.3 and Table I.4 above. 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps This rulemaking represents the first round of amendments to these GSFL and IRL standards, and it also addresses the adoption of standards for additional GSFL, as directed by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) and (5), respectively. Initially, this rulemaking also included consideration of energy conservation standards for general service incandescent lamps (GSIL). However, as explained in the April 2009 NOPR, amendments to EPCA in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 \2\ (EISA 2007) eliminated DOE's authority to regulate additional GSIL and statutorily prescribed standards for GSIL; therefore this rulemaking no longer addresses GSIL. 74 FR 16920, 16926 (April 13, 2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Public Law 110-140 (enacted Dec. 19, 2007). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOE commenced this rulemaking on May 31, 2006, by publishing its framework document for the rulemaking, and by giving notice of a public meeting and of the availability of the document for review and public comment. 71 FR 30834 (May 31, 2006). The framework document described the procedural and analytical approaches DOE anticipated using and issues to be resolved in the rulemaking. DOE held a public meeting on June 15, 2006, to present the framework document, describe the analyses DOE planned to conduct during the rulemaking, obtain public comment on these subjects, and facilitate the public's involvement in the rulemaking. DOE also allowed the submission of written statements after the public meeting, and in response received 10 written statements. On February 21, 2008, DOE issued the March 2008 ANOPR in this proceeding. 73 FR 13620 (March 13, 2008). In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE described and sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE was using to analyze the impacts of energy conservation standards for the two appliance products. In conjunction with issuance of the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE published on its Web site the complete ANOPR technical support document (TSD), which included the results of DOE's various preliminary analyses in this rulemaking. In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE requested oral and written comments on these results, and on a range of other issues. DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on March 10, 2008, to present the methodology and results of the ANOPR analyses, and to receive oral comments from those who attended. In the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE invited comment in particular on the following issues: (1) Consideration of additional GSFL; (2) amended definitions; (3) product classes; (4) scaling to product classes not analyzed; (5) screening of design options; (6) lamp operating hours; (7) energy consumption of GSFL; (8) LCC calculation; (9) installation costs; (10) base-case market-share matrices; (11) shipment forecasts; (12) base-case and standards-case forecasted efficiencies; (13) trial standard levels; and (14) period for lamp production equipment conversion. 73 FR 13620, 13686-88 (March 13, 2008). In addition, subsequent to the public meeting and the close of the ANOPR comment period, DOE and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) met on June 26, 2008 at NEMA's request to discuss appropriate standards for high correlated color temperature (CCT) fluorescent lamps. 74 FR 16920, 16926 (April 13, 2009). DOE addressed in detail the comments it received in response to the ANOPR, including NEMA's presentation at the June 2008 meeting, in the April 2009 NOPR. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed amended and new energy conservation standards for GSFL and IRL. In conjunction with the NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the complete TSD for the proposed rule, which incorporated the final analyses DOE conducted and technical documentation for each analysis. The TSD included the engineering analysis spreadsheets, the LCC spreadsheet, the national impact analysis spreadsheet, and the MIA spreadsheet-all of which are available on DOE's Web site.\3\ The proposed standards were as shown in Table II.1 and Table II.2, as presented in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 17027 (April 13, 2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The Web site address for all the spreadsheets developed for this rulemaking proceeding are available at: http:// www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/ incandescent_lamps.html. Table II.1--Proposed GSFL Standard Levels in April 2009 NOPR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Correlated color Proposed level Lamp type temperature (lm/W) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-Foot Medium Bipin................. <=4,500K 84 >4,500K 78 [[Page 34087]] 2-Foot U-Shaped..................... <=4,500K 78 >4,500K 73 8-Foot Slimline..................... <=4,500K 95 >4,500K 91 8-Foot High Output.................. <=4,500K 88 >4,500K 84 4-Foot Miniature Bipin Standard <=4,500K 103 Output............................. >4,500K 97 4-Foot Miniature Bipin High Output.. <=4,500K 89 >4,500K 85 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * For these product classes, EPCA has different efficacy standards for lamps with wattages less than 35W and greater than or equal to 35W. Table II.2--Proposed IRL Standards in April 2009 NOPR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Diameter Proposed level Lamp type (inches) Voltage (lm/W) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Spectrum 40W-205W...................................... >2.5 <=125 7.1P \0.27\ <125 6.2P \0.27\ <=2.5 >=125 6.3P \0.27\ <125 5.5P \0.27\ Modified Spectrum 40W-205W...................................... >2.5 >=125 5.8P \0.27\ <125 5.0P \0.27\ <=2.5 >=125 5.1P \0.27\ <125 4.4P \0.27\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. DOE held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on February 3, 2009, to hear oral comments on and solicit information relevant to the proposed rule. At the public meeting and in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE invited comment in particular on the following issues: (1) The scope of covered products; (2) the amended definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp''; (3) product classes for IRL; (4) product classes for T5 lamps; (5) the 4-foot MBP residential engineering analysis; (6) performance characteristics of model lamps used in the engineering analysis; (7) the efficacy levels for IRL; (8) the efficacy levels for GSFL; (9) scaling to product classes not analyzed; (10) ballast operating hours in all sectors and GSFL operating hours in the residential sector; (11) growth rates and market penetration in the shipments analysis; (12) base-case and standards-case market-share matrices; (13) the manufacturer impact analysis; (14) the determination of environmental impacts; (15) the selected trial standard levels; (16) the proposed standard levels; (17) alternative scenarios to achieve greater energy savings for GSFL; (18) other technology pathways to meet IRL TSL5. 74 FR 16920, 17025-26 (April 13, 2009). The April 2009 NOPR also included additional background information on the history of this rulemaking. 74 FR 16920, 16925-26 (April 13, 2009). III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This Rulemaking A. Additional General Service Fluorescent Lamps for Which DOE Is Adopting Standards 1. Scope of EPCA Requirement That DOE Consider Standards for Additional Lamps As discussed above, EPCA established energy conservation standards for certain general service fluorescent lamps (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) and directed the Secretary to ``initiate a rulemaking procedure to determine if the standards in effect for fluorescent lamps * * * should be amended so that they would be applicable to additional general service fluorescent [lamps] * * *.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5)) Thus, EPCA directs DOE to consider whether to adopt energy efficacy standards for additional GSFL beyond those already covered by standards prescribed in the statute. However, as set forth in greater detail in the March 2008 ANOPR and the April 2009 NOPR, although many GSFL not currently subject to standards are potential candidates for coverage, it could be argued that EPCA's definitions of ``general service fluorescent lamp'' and ``fluorescent lamp'' conflict with (and negate) the requirement of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) that DOE consider standards for additional GSFL. 73 FR 13620, 13628-29 (March 13, 2008); 74 FR 16920, 16920, 16926-27 (April 13, 2009). Specifically, EPCA defines ``general service fluorescent lamp'' as ``fluorescent lamps'' that can satisfy the majority of fluorescent lamp applications and that are not designed and marketed for certain specified, nongeneral lighting applications. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) Furthermore, EPCA defines ``fluorescent lamp'' as ``a low pressure mercury electric-discharge source in which a fluorescing coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury discharge into light,'' and as including ``only'' the four enumerated types of fluorescent lamps for which EPCA already prescribes standards. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) Thus, to construe ``general service fluorescent lamp'' in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) as being limited by all elements of the EPCA definition of ``fluorescent lamp,'' would mean there are no GSFL that are not already subject to standards, and hence, there would be no ``additional'' GSFL for which DOE could consider standards. Such an interpretation would conflict with the directive in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) that DOE consider standards for ``additional'' GSFL, thereby rendering that provision a nullity. For the reasons below, DOE has concluded that the term ``additional general service fluorescent lamps'' in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) should be construed as [[Page 34088]] not being limited to the four enumerated lamp types specified in the EPCA definition of ``fluorescent lamp,'' thereby giving effect to the directive in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) that DOE consider standards for additional GSFL. First, DOE added this directive to EPCA at the same time it added the definitions for ``general service fluorescent lamps'' and ``fluorescent lamps,'' as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992; Pub. L. 102-486). DOE does not believe Congress would intentionally insert a legislative provision that, when read in conjunction with simultaneously added definitions, amounts to a nullity. Second, reading the definition of ``fluorescent lamp'' to preclude consideration of standards for additional GSFL would run counter to the energy-saving purposes of EPCA. It is reasonable to assume that, when Congress incorporated this directive into EPCA, it sought to have DOE consider whether standards would be warranted for generally available products for which EPCA did not prescribe standards. Also, it is assumed that Congress would not have intended for DOE to limit itself to consideration of energy conservation standards only for those products utilizing technologies available in 1992, but instead, it would seek to cast a broader net that would achieve energy efficiency improvements in lighting products incorporating newer technologies. In addition, DOE understands that the industry routinely refers to ``fluorescent lamps'' as including products in addition to the four enumerated in the statutory definition of that term. In fact, in the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE presented its plan for including additional GSFL for coverage, and DOE did not receive adverse comment. 73 FR 13620, 13628-29 (March 13, 2008) For these reasons, and as further explained in the March 2008 ANOPR, 73 FR 13620, 13629 (March 13, 2008), and in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 16926-27 (April 13, 2009), DOE has concluded that, in addressing general service fluorescent lamps in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), Congress intended to refer to ``fluorescent lamps'' in a broader, more generic sense than as expressed in the EPCA definition for that term. Consequently, as set forth in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 16927 (April 13, 2009), DOE views ``additional'' GSFL, as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5), as lamps that: (1) Meet the technical portion of the statutory definition of ``fluorescent lamp'' (i.e., a low- pressure mercury electric-discharge source in which a fluorescing coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury discharge into light) (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A)) without restriction to the four lamp types specified in that definition; (2) can be used to satisfy the majority of fluorescent lighting applications (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)); (3) are not within the exclusions from the definition of GSFL specified in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B); and (4) are ones for which EPCA does not prescribe standards. Such an interpretation does not alter the existing statutory provision or standards for ``fluorescent lamps,'' but it does permit DOE to give effect to section 6295(i)(5) of EPCA by adopting energy conservation standards for a wide variety of GSFL that are not currently covered by standards. DOE notes that it received no adverse comments on this interpretation in response to the April 2009 NOPR. 2. Determination of the Additional Lamps to Which Standards Will Apply To determine the additional GSFL to which energy conservation standards should apply, DOE first comprehensively reviewed the fluorescent lighting market and identified the following types of lamps as ``additional'' GSFL for consideration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295 (i)(5), based on the four criteria above: • 4-foot, medium bipin (MBP), straight-shaped lamps, rated wattage of less than 28W; • 2-foot, medium bipin, U-shaped lamps, rated wattage of less than 28W; • 8-foot, recessed double contact (RDC), rapid start, high- output (HO) lamps not defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991 \4\ or with current other than 0.800 nominal amperes; --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Titled ``for Fluorescent Lamps--Rapid-Start Types-- Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- • 8-foot single pin (SP), instant start, slimline lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 52, not defined in ANSI Standard C78.3-1991; \5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Titled ``for Fluorescent Lamps--Instant-Start and Cold- Cathode Types--Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Very high output (VHO) straight-shaped lamps; • T5 \6\ miniature bipin (miniBP) straight-shaped lamps; --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ T5, T8, T10, and T12 are nomenclature used to refer to tubular fluorescent lamps with diameters of 0.625, 1, 1.25, and 1.5 inches respectively. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- • Additional straight-shaped and U-shaped lamps other than those listed above (e.g., alternate lengths, diameters, or bases); and • Additional fluorescent lamps with alternate shapes (e.g., circline lamps and pin-based compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)). 73 FR 13620, 13630 (March 13, 2008); 74 FR 16920, 16927-28 (April 13, 2009). For each of these categories of GSFL, DOE assessed whether standards had the potential to result in energy savings. For each category for which it appeared that standards could save significant amounts of energy, DOE then performed a preliminary analysis of whether potential standards appeared to be technologically feasible and economically justified. Finally, for GSFL that met that test, DOE did an in-depth analysis of whether, and at what levels, standards would be warranted under the EPCA criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), pertaining to energy savings, technological feasibility, economic justification, and certain other factors. Based on this analysis, as summarized in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to cover the following additional GSFL: • 2-foot, medium bipin U-shaped lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 25 and less than 28; • 4-foot, medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 25 and less than 28; • 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, standard output lamps with rated wattage greater than or equal to 26; • 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, high output lamps with rated wattage >=51; • 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps other than those defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991; • 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps (other than 0.800 nominal amperes) defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991; and • 8-foot single pin instant start slimline lamps, with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 52, not defined in ANSI Standard C78.3-1991 74 FR 16920, 16930 (April 13, 2009). DOE received several comments regarding the additional GSFL proposed for coverage. In terms of methodology, the Green Lighting Campaign questioned the criteria DOE used in determining whether to include additional fluorescent lamps in coverage. Specifically, the Green Lighting Campaign argued that just because a product is low- volume, and, therefore, does not represent significant energy savings, does not indicate that it should not be subject to standards. According to the commenter, many low-volume products are some of the least- efficient products on the market. (Green Lighting Campaign, No. 74 at p. 3) In response, as described in more detail for each lamp described below for which coverage was not extended, DOE concluded that coverage was inappropriate given the small market share of these lamps. DOE emphasizes that it will vigilantly monitor the market [[Page 34089]] shares and other relevant information for these lamps and consider whether to extend coverage in a future rulemaking. NEMA and EEI agreed with the scope of coverage proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 43; EEI, No. 45 at p. 3) However, the Green Lighting Campaign disagreed with DOE's proposed scope of coverage, expressing concern that DOE's proposed standards in the April 2009 NOPR would allow a significant amount of outdated lighting equipment to be sold in the U.S. even though more efficient replacement technologies exist. Specifically, the Green Lighting Campaign requested that two-pin compact fluorescent lamps, high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps, ballasts, luminaires, and fluorescent lamps of other shapes and sizes be included in coverage. (Green Lighting Campaign, No. 74 at pp. 1-4) In response, DOE considered two-pin compact fluorescent lamps and fluorescent lamps of other shapes and sizes for coverage but concluded that they did not meet the statutory criteria defined by EPCA, because these lamps represent relatively small market shares and do not possess the ability to serve as substitutes for most covered GSFL. See section III.A.2.g for more details. Additionally, this rulemaking only amends standards for GSFL and IRL, as described in section III. DOE is addressing standards for ballasts and HID lamps in separate rulemakings, and DOE currently does not have the authority to set energy conservation standards for luminaires. Please consult the Web site of DOE's Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program for further detail.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ appliance_standards/index.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Earthjustice and the Green Lighting Campaign disagreed with DOE's proposed covered wattage ranges. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE determined the wattage range for covered products based on commercially-available products. 74 FR 16920, 16929-30 (April 13, 2009). This approach allowed DOE to confirm that an energy conservation standard would be technologically feasible and economically justified for any covered product. In comments on the March 2008 ANOPR, stakeholders stated that instead of determining a covered wattage range based on commercially- available products, DOE should substantially lower covered wattage ranges and use narrowly-drawn exemptions for those products that did not meet the EPCA criteria for inclusion as a covered product. 74 FR 16920, 16929-30 (April 13, 2009). The stakeholders believed that this approach ensured that energy conservation standards would achieve largest potential energy savings. DOE responded in the April 2009 NOPR and agreed that current covered wattage ranges should be extended when commercially-available product exists, but disagreed that they should be extended when no products are available. DOE is required to consider energy conservation standards that are technologically feasible. If a lower wattage lamp does not yet exist, DOE cannot confirm that it would be technologically feasible or economically justified for such a lamp to meet a set energy conservation standard. Furthermore, DOE encourages the introduction of lamps at lower wattages. Thus, DOE decided to only lower the wattage range of a covered product if a commercially available product existed at a lower wattage. 74 FR 16920, 16929-30 (April 13, 2009). In commenting on the April 2009 NOPR, Earthjustice again disagreed with DOE's approach and urged DOE to be proactive in extending the standards' covered wattage range so as to eliminate potential loopholes. Earthjustice argued that DOE should cover all wattages of the designated product classes that are lower than the existing covered wattage range unless DOE can prove that standards are not technologically feasible or economically justified. In not doing so, Earthjustice claims DOE is not meeting its obligations under EPCA to consider standards for all GSFL, including those that do not currently exist, but might be popular at the time the standard takes effect. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 4) The Green Lighting Campaign asserted that the covered wattage ranges proposed in the April 2009 NOPR ``seem arbitrary and unjustified,'' commenting that the European Union's (EU) energy efficiency standards for lighting cover a much larger range of rated wattages. (Green Lighting Campaign, No. 74 at pp. 2-3) In seeking to advance the energy-saving goals of EPCA, DOE understands stakeholders' concerns that new products may emerge that are outside of the covered wattage range. However, in setting up the statutory structure, Congress was very careful to ensure that any standards set would be based upon the best available data, particularly in terms of what standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. Furthermore, given the anti-backsliding provision of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), DOE must exercise great care so as to set an appropriate standard in the first instance. Contrary to EPCA's direction that DOE set standards for products that the data show to be technologically feasible and economically justified, Earthjustice would have DOE broaden coverage without data, unless DOE can prove a negative (i.e., that such standards are not economically feasible and economically justified). DOE concludes that such an approach would violate the statute. Accordingly, DOE maintains that it is inappropriate to lower the covered wattage range to include products that do not exist. Without knowing the performance characteristics of a lamp, DOE cannot know how energy conservation standards will affect it. It is not possible for DOE to set standards for lower-wattage lamps that currently do not exist because DOE cannot prove that standards for such lamps are technologically feasible and economically justified. Therefore, DOE maintains the covered wattage range proposed in the April 2009 NOPR in this final rule. It is further noted that if low- wattage products do subsequently enter the market, DOE would address the appropriateness of energy conservation standards for such products in considering periodic amendments to the GSFL and IRL standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m). In response to comments on the EU's lighting efficiency standards, DOE notes that these standards are not directly comparable, because they are applied to a larger scope of products than what is covered in this rulemaking. Thus, the cited EU standards encompass a broader range of covered wattages (i.e., include lower wattage levels) than those proposed by DOE, because the EU standard covers lamps with shorter lengths. ACEEE and the CA Stakeholders suggested that DOE should lower the wattage range of covered products by one watt in order to account for imprecision in how lamps are rated. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 44-45; CA Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 11) ACEEE argued that because a lamp's rated wattage and its ``actual'' wattage often differ, lowering the wattage range would prevent manufacturers from circumventing standards by rating lamps at artificially low wattages. For example, a manufacturer could rerate a 25 watt lamp as a 24 watt lamp, which would then not be covered by standards. While DOE understands the stakeholders' concerns, DOE believes that the definition of ``rated wattage'' sufficiently addresses the issue of potential circumvention. As discussed in further detail in section III.C.1 below, [[Page 34090]] for lamps currently commercially-available and listed in ANSI C78.81- 2005 or ANSI C78.901-2005, ``rated wattage'' (as defined in amended 10 CFR 430.2) is specified for each lamp on its corresponding datasheet in the same industry standard. Therefore, for these lamps, manufacturers may not arbitrarily lower the rated wattage of lamps listed in the ANSI standards. However, due to the emergence of new products on the market after publication of the ANSI standards, not all currently commercially-available lamps are listed in ANSI C78.81-2005 or ANSI C78.901-2005. For lamps not listed in either standard, the rated wattage corresponds to the wattage measured when operating the lamp on an appropriate ballast, as specified by part 1(iii) of the revised definition of ``rated wattage.'' In such a case, the ``actual'' wattage would be equivalent to the rated wattage, thereby preventing circumvention of the standard. Thus, for all covered lamps, DOE believes that the definition of ``rated wattage'' adopted in this final rule prevents manufacturers from artificially raising or lowering the rated wattage of a lamp, thereby addressing any potential loopholes. The following sections discuss each additional GSFL category DOE considered throughout this rulemaking and summarize the analysis performed to determine to which lamps DOE should extend coverage. a. Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps DOE found that there are no 4-foot medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage below 25W currently on the market, but that manufacturers do market and sell 25W 4-foot medium bipin T8 fluorescent lamps as replacements for higher-wattage 4-foot bipin T8 lamps. Thus, DOE initially concluded that standards for these lamps that are 25W or higher, but less than 28W, would mitigate the risk of unregulated 25W lamps becoming a loophole, and would maximize potential energy savings. In addition, because the technology and incremental costs associated with increased efficacy of 25W lamps are similar to their already regulated 28W counterparts, DOE tentatively concluded that standards for these lamps would be technologically feasible and economically justified. 73 FR 13620, 13630 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). As explained in the April 2009 NOPR and as set forth below in section VII, DOE has now determined that standards for 4-foot medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage at or above 25W, and below 28W, would save significant amounts of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified, and includes such standards in today's rule. DOE has not, however, pursued standards for 4-foot medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage below 25W. The lack of existence of such lamps precludes DOE from assessing whether standards for them are technologically feasible and economically justified, and the inability to make such an assessment could also result in the adoption of standards that would reduce the utility of such a product or even preclude its development. 74 FR 16920, 16929-30 (April 13, 2009). Therefore, in this final rule, DOE extends coverage to 4-foot medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 25W and less than 28W. b. Two-Foot Medium Bipin, U-Shaped Lamps DOE initially decided not to consider standards for 2-foot U-shaped lamps less than 28W, based on its understanding that no such products are commercially available. NEMA provided information, however, that such lamps have been introduced at 25W. Therefore, consistent with its approach just described for 4-foot medium bipin lamps, DOE evaluated for standards 2-foot U-shaped lamps of 25W or more, but less than 28W. 74 FR 16920, 16929-30 (April 13, 2009). As set forth below in section VII, DOE has now determined that standards for these lamps would save significant amounts of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified, and includes such standards in today's rule. In addition, DOE has not pursued standards for 2-foot U-shaped lamps with a rated wattage below 25W, for the same reasons that it has declined to pursue standards for 4-foot medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage below 25W. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE extends coverage to 2- foot U-shaped lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 25W and less than 28W. c. Eight-Foot Recessed, Double-Contact Lamps As indicated above, DOE examined 8-foot recessed double-contact (RDC) rapid-start HO lamps, including those not defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991 as well as those defined in ANSI Standard C78.1- 1991, but with other than 0.800 nominal amperes. These are T8 8-foot lamps, and neither is currently subject to standards. DOE concluded that these lamps serve or could serve as substitutes for GSFL currently subject to standards, and, therefore, coverage of these lamps would maximize energy savings from standards. DOE also tentatively concluded that energy conservation standards for these T8 lamps would be: (1) Technologically feasible because they use technologies similar to the technologies used by their already-regulated T12 counterparts; and (2) economically justified because preliminary analysis indicated such standards would result in substantial economic savings. 73 FR 13620, 13630-31 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). As set forth below in section VII, DOE has now determined that standards for these lamps would save significant amounts of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified, and includes such standards in today's rule. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE extends coverage to the following 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps: (1) Ones other than those defined in ANSI Standard C78.1- 1991; and (2) those defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991 with other than 0.800 nominal amperes. d. Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps As with 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps, DOE concluded that 8-foot, single pin, instant start, slimline lamps not included in ANSI Standard C78.3-1991, with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 52W, could serve as substitutes for GSFL currently subject to standards. Therefore, DOE tentatively concluded that regulation of these lamps has the potential to achieve substantial energy savings. DOE's preliminary analysis also indicated that energy conservation standards for these 8-foot single pin lamps would be: (1) Technologically feasible because they use technologies similar to the technologies used by their already-regulated T12 counterparts; and (2) economically justified because preliminary analysis indicated such standards would result in substantial economic savings. 73 FR 13620, 13631-32 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 16929 (April 13, 2009). As set forth below in section VII, DOE has now determined that standards for these lamps would save significant amounts of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified, and includes such standards in today's rule. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE extends coverage to 8-foot single pin instant start slimline lamps, with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 52W that are not defined in ANSI Standard C78.3-1991. e. Very High Output Straight-Shaped Lamps Although individual VHO T12 lamps consume relatively large amounts of [[Page 34091]] energy, they are commonly used in outdoor applications where high- intensity discharge (HID) lamps are rapidly gaining market share, and shipments of VHO lamps are declining rapidly. Therefore, the total energy savings that would result from standards for these lamps would be small and would likely decrease over time. In response to the April 2009 NOPR, DOE received no adverse comment regarding its decision to not cover VHO lamps. Accordingly, DOE has not pursued standards for VHO lamps and does not extend them coverage in this final rule. 73 FR 13620, 13632 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). As emphasized above, DOE will vigilantly monitor the market shares and other relevant information for these lamps and consider whether to extend coverage in a future rulemaking. f. T5 Lamps DOE initially decided not to consider standards for T5 lamps because it believed that standards for these lamps would have limited potential to result in energy savings. First, these lamps have a relatively small market share. Second, although T5 lamps can substitute for T8 or T12 lamps, T5 lamps tend to have higher efficacies than T8s or T12s. Therefore, DOE inferred that a lack of standards for T5 lamps would be unlikely to undermine energy savings resulting from a T12 and T8 standard, even if the standard caused increased sales of T5 systems. 73 FR 13620, 13632 (March 13, 2008). However, after receiving comments on this issue in response to the March 2008 ANOPR, including comments advocating energy conservation standards for T5 lamps, DOE decided it should reconsider whether such standards are warranted. Specifically, DOE concluded that, absent standards for T5 lamps, less-efficient T5 lamps could enter the market and be substituted for T8 and T12 lamps that are subject to standards. Thus, a lack of standards for T5 lamps could potentially reduce the energy savings that could result from the standards for T8 and T12 lamps. Accordingly, in the NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that regulation of T5 lamps has the potential to achieve substantial energy savings. Furthermore, DOE research indicated that: (1) The primary driver of T5 market share growth is substitution for currently regulated 4-foot MBP lamps; (2) standard-output (approximately 28W) and high-output (approximately 54W) lamps are the highest volume T5 miniature bipin lamps; and (3) reduced-wattage versions of these lamps (26W and 51W, respectively) are available. Therefore, DOE evaluated for standards 4-foot nominal, straight-shaped, T5 miniature bipin standard output lamps with rated wattages >=26W and 4-foot nominal, straight- shaped, T5 miniature bipin high output lamps with rated wattages >=51W, as they present the greatest potential for energy savings. DOE also tentatively concluded that energy conservation standards for these T5 lamps would be: (1) Technologically feasible because higher-efficacy versions of some of these lamps are already present in the market; and (2) economically justified because preliminary analysis indicated such standards would result in substantial economic savings. 74 FR 16920, 16929 (April 13, 2009). Both NEMA and ACEEE supported the extension of coverage to T5 lamps. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 43; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 44; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7) Since the publication of the NOPR, DOE has learned that a 49W T5 miniature bipin high-output lamp has been introduced to the market. As this lamp is very similar to a 51W T5 miniature bipin high-output lamp, DOE concludes that standards for these lamps would be technologically feasible and economically justified for the reasons listed above. Therefore, as set forth in more detail in section VII, DOE has determined that standards for T5 lamps would save significant amounts of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified. Thus, in this final rule, DOE extends coverage to 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, standard output lamps with rated wattage greater than or equal to 26W and 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight- shaped, high output lamps with rated wattage greater than or equal to 49W. g. Various Other Fluorescent Lamps In addition to the GSFL already covered by standards and those just discussed, there exist straight-shaped and U-shaped fluorescent lamps that have, for example, alternate lengths, diameters, or bases, as well as fluorescent lamps with alternative shapes (e.g., circline lamps and pin-based compact fluorescent lamps (CFL)). In this rulemaking, DOE has not pursued standards for these additional fluorescent lamps. The GSFL already covered and those DOE included in this rulemaking represent a significant majority of the GSFL market, and, thus, the bulk of the potential energy savings from amended or new standards. Furthermore, there is limited potential for lamps with miscellaneous lengths and bases to grow in market share, given the constraints of fixture lengths and socket compatibility. 73 FR 13620, 13632 (March 13, 2008) and 74 FR 16920, 16928 (April 13, 2009). Given the relatively low shipments and limited potential for growth in shipments, DOE does not extend coverage to GSFL with alternate lengths, diameters, bases, or shapes. DOE again emphasizes that it will vigilantly monitor the market shares and other relevant information for these lamps and consider whether to extend coverage in a future rulemaking. Magnaray, a luminaire manufacturer, commented that the amended standards should not eliminate existing ``twin T5'' fluorescent lamps from the market. Magnaray stated that ``twin T5'' lamps have demonstrated significant energy savings relative to their replacements. The luminaire manufacturer further requested that DOE recommend these lamps for use in all outdoor lighting applications. (Magnaray, No. 58 at p. 1) DOE research indicates that ``twin T5'' lamps are actually high-lumen-output single-ended twin-tube T5 pin-based CFL. In general, these lamps are offered with wattages between 18W and 80W, CCTs between 3000K and 5000K, lengths between 9 and 22.6 inches, and CRIs of 82. As discussed above, based on their relatively low market-share and the low potential energy savings associated with their regulation, DOE is not extending coverage to pin-based CFL. DOE reiterates that it will vigilantly monitor the market shares and other relevant information for these lamps and consider whether to extend coverage in a future rulemaking. In addition, it should be noted that DOE does not endorse particular products or recommend that consumers adopt particular technologies in the energy conservation standards rulemaking. 3. Summary of GSFL for Which DOE Has Adopted Standards DOE has determined that energy conservation standards are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings, for all of the ``additional'' GSFL for which DOE proposed standards in the April 2009 NOPR. Therefore, DOE is adopting standards today for the following additional GSFL: • 2-foot, medium bipin U-shaped lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 25 and less than 28; • 4-foot, medium bipin lamps with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 25 and less than 28; • 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, standard output lamps with rated wattage greater than or equal to 26; [[Page 34092]] • 4-foot T5, miniature bipin, straight-shaped, high output lamps with rated wattage greater than or equal to 49; • 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps other than those defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991; • 8-foot recessed double contact, rapid start, HO lamps (other than 0.800 nominal amperes) defined in ANSI Standard C78.1-1991; and • 8-foot single pin instant start slimline lamps, with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 52, not defined in ANSI Standard C78.3-1991. B. Incandescent Reflector Lamp Scope of Coverage The April 2009 NOPR proposed amended energy conservations standards for incandescent reflector lamps with a rated wattage from 40W to 205W, other than those exempted from standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(C). 74 FR 16920, 16924-25, 16930-31, 17017-18 (April 13, 2009) In response to the April 2009 NOPR, DOE received several comments regarding the proposed incandescent reflector lamp scope coverage. These comments are discussed below. 1. Covered Wattage Range In response to the April 2009 NOPR, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) expressed concern that the scope of coverage for IRL is too limited, specifically with regard to the proposed covered wattage range (i.e., 40W-205W). EEI suggested that manufacturers could easily produce lamps at 39W or 206W to circumvent energy conservation standards. Because IRL exist in the market at wattages as low as 35W and as high as 500W, EEI recommended that the covered wattage range for IRL be extended to include lamps as low as 20W and as high as 505W. (EEI, No. 45 at p. 2) In amending energy conservation standards for IRL, DOE is limited to the definition prescribed by EISA 2007, which defines IRL as a lamp that ``has a rated wattage that is 40 watts or higher.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C), (C)(ii), and (F)) Given this definition, DOE does not have the authority to decrease the lower wattage limit of covered IRL below 40W. DOE does, however, have the authority to alter the upper limit of the wattage range for covered IRL. In response to EEI's comment, DOE analyzed commercially-available product in manufacturer catalogs to assess the prevalence of products with wattages greater than 205W. Based on this research, DOE believes that IRL with rated wattages greater than 205W comprise a very small portion of the market and, therefore, do not represent substantial potential energy savings. For these reasons, DOE has decided, in this final rule, to adopt standards for IRL with a rated wattage greater than or equal to 40W and less than or equal to 205W. 2. Exempted Incandescent Reflector Lamps As discussed in more detail in the April 2009 NOPR, 74 FR 16920, 16930 (April 13, 2009), section 332(b) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA to expand its definition of ``incandescent reflector lamp'' to include lamps with a diameter between 2.25 and 2.75 inches, as well as ER, BR, BPAR, or similar bulb shapes (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii)) and also to exempt certain of these lamps from EPCA's standards for IRL (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(C)). As discussed in section II.B.2, DOE issued and posted on its Web site the January 2009 NOPR in which DOE adhered to its conclusion that these exemptions, read in conjunction with other language in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(C) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), precluded DOE from adopting energy conservation standards for lamps covered by the exemptions. DOE subsequently held a public meeting where stakeholders commented on the contents of the January 2009 NOPR. At the February 3, 2009 NOPR public meeting, NEMA stated its agreement with DOE's interpretation of the statute regarding the exempted IRL. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 323) However, stakeholders presented comments disagreeing with DOE's conclusion and urging DOE to set standards for the exempted lamps. Several commenters stated that exempted lamps comprise a substantial portion of the market and, therefore, represent significant potential energy savings. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 27-28; EEI, No. 45 at p. 3; Woolsey, No. 46 at p. 1) Furthermore, ASAP argued that DOE's interpretation that these lamps are exempt from DOE regulation, does not accurately reflect what Congress intended when making these lamps covered products in EISA 2007. According to the commenter, because States are preempted from setting standards for covered products, these exempted IRL would remain beyond the reach of any energy conservation standards. Several stakeholders urged DOE to draft and publish a supplementary NOPR to address the exempted ER and BR lamps. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 33, 52-53, 322-323; Woolsey, No. 46 at p. 2) After carefully considering the testimony of the February 3, 2009 NOPR public meeting and reexamining the ANOPR public comments on this issue, DOE has reexamined its authority under EPCA to amend standards for ER, BR, and small-diameter lamps and concluded that its earlier view may have been in error. As discussed in more detail in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE is reconsidering whether, under 42 U.S.C 6295(i)(3), the directive to amend the standards in paragraph (1) encompasses both the statutory levels and the exemptions to those standards. Regardless of the outcome of that decision, DOE has not considered such lamps as part of the present rulemaking because it had not conducted the requisite analyses to adopt appropriate standard levels. At the same time, DOE did not wish to delay the present rulemaking (and the accompanying energy savings to the Nation) for the sole reason of considering this subset of ER, BR, and small-diameter lamps. Therefore, as explained in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE has decided to proceed with setting energy conservation standards for the lamps that are the subject of the present rulemaking and to commence a separate rulemaking for ER, BR, and small-diameter lamps. 74 FR 16920, 16930-31 (April 13, 2009). Following the publication of the April 2009 NOPR, several stakeholders supported DOE's decision to address the exempted lamps in a separate rulemaking and urged DOE to act quickly to set these new standards. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at p. 2; NEEP, No. 61 at p. 5; Joint Comment, No. 62 at pp. 2-3; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 5; NRDC, No. 82 at p. 4) Commenters encouraged DOE to establish energy conservation standards for the exempted lamps with the same effective date as those adopted in this rulemaking in order to minimize market distortions and potential shifting from regulated products to unregulated products. (EEI, No. 45 at p. 3; NEEP, No. 61 at p. 5; EEI, No. 78 at p. 2) DOE will consider these comments in its separate rulemaking assessing energy conservation standards for the exempted ER, BR, and small diameter lamps. 3. Museum Lighting DOE received a comment from The J Paul Getty Museum requesting that museum lighting, and particularly art museum lighting, be exempt from standards. The comment stated that HIR lamps do not provide the same quality of light as the halogen lamps that would be eliminated by the proposed standard. (The J Paul Getty Museum, No. 56 at p. 1) In response, DOE is unaware of any [[Page 34093]] specific light quality of halogen lamps that would necessitate their usage instead of halogen infrared reflector lamps for museum applications. In addition, the commenter did not provide any further details on the unique utility of current lamps in museum settings that could not be provided by substitute lamps that would meet the requirements of the energy conservation standards under consideration. Although the infrared reflector coating causes a reduction in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum, these wavelengths of light are largely invisible to the human eye. Therefore, DOE does not believe that halogen lamps represent a distinct utility. In addition, given the identical nature of halogen PAR lamps used in museum settings and non-museum settings, it would be potentially easy for any consumer to purchase and install a lamp meant for museum use. Accordingly, DOE is concerned that failure to regulate this type of lamp could significantly undermine the energy savings potential of the IRL standard. In light of this concern and the lack of information to substantiate a unique utility of halogen IRL, DOE has decided not to create an exemption from IRL standards for museum lighting. C. Amended Definitions 1. ``Rated Wattage'' To implement the expanded scope of EPCA's coverage of GSFL and IRL, and of standards adopted for GSIL in EISA 2007, DOE proposed to revise its definitions of ``rated wattage'' and ``colored fluorescent lamp.'' 74 FR 16920, 16931-32 (April 13, 2009). As to ``rated wattage,'' one element of EPCA's definitions for both ``fluorescent lamp'' and ``incandescent reflector lamp'' is a lamp's rated wattage. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(A), (C)(ii), and (F)) Also, EPCA prescribes maximum rated wattages as part of its energy conservation standards for GSIL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) Although EPCA does not define the term ``rated wattage,'' DOE's regulations do, but the current DOE definition covers only 4-foot medium bipin T8, T10, and T12 fluorescent lamps. 10 CFR 430.2. Therefore, DOE proposed a revised and updated definition of ``rated wattage.'' This definition included references to the current versions of applicable ANSI standards, clarified and improved the definition, and applied it to those lamps for which rated wattage is a key characteristic but to which DOE's current definition does not apply. 74 FR 16920, 16931 (April 13, 2009). DOE did not receive any comments in response to this proposed change. However, because ``electrical power'' is appropriately defined in paragraph 2.8 or Appendix R of Subpart B, DOE note that it has decided to replace the term ``wattage'' in parts (1)(ii) and (1)(iii) of the definition of ``rated wattage'' with ``electrical power.'' Therefore, for the reasons explained above and in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE adopts the definition of ``rated wattage'' as set out in the regulatory text of this final rule. 2. ``Colored Fluorescent Lamp'' With respect to the definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp,'' DOE first notes that EPCA defines general service fluorescent lamps as fluorescent lamps ``which can be used to satisfy the majority of fluorescent [lighting] applications,'' but which are not designed and marketed for certain specifically listed ``nongeneral lighting applications,'' including ``colored fluorescent lamps.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) As with ``rated wattage,'' EPCA does not define the term ``colored fluorescent lamp,'' but DOE's regulations do. The DOE regulations currently define the term as ``a fluorescent lamp designated and marketed as a colored lamp'' and having a CRI less than 40 or a CCT less than 2500 K or greater than 6600 K. 10 CFR 430.2. Because lamps meeting this definition are not GSFL under EPCA, they are not covered by the standards applicable to GSFL. After becoming aware of a lamp on the European market that is intended for general illumination applications but has a CCT of 17000 K and might meet DOE's definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp,'' DOE became concerned that some new products with general service applications might be excluded from the coverage of standards applicable to GSFL. 73 FR 13620, 13634 (March 13, 2008). To avoid this possibility, DOE considered adding the following phrase to its definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'': ``* * * and not designed or marketed for general illumination applications.'' Id. Following publication of the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE obtained information indicating that, instead, it should amend the definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' both to: (1) Exclude from the definition, and thereby place under energy conservation standards, lamps with CCTs from 6600 K to 7000 K; and (2) include in the definition, and thereby place outside the coverage of standards, all lamps with a CCT greater than 7000 K (i.e., regardless of how the lamp is designated and marketed). Although lamps with CCTs greater than 6600 K and less than or equal to 7000 K are not prevalent in the market, such lamps are commercially available and becoming increasingly popular. Furthermore, manufacturers would likely be able to produce a lamp at 7000 K using the same materials as a 6500 K lamp (a commonly sold lamp). Thus, DOE tentatively concluded that covering such lamps would maintain the coverage under DOE's energy conservation standards of GSFL serving general application purposes, and that the technological similarity between 6500 K and 7000 K lamps makes it possible to establish technologically feasible efficacy levels for 7000 K lamps. However, very few lamps with a CCT greater than 7000 K exist in the market, and the inherently ``blue'' color of these high-CCT lamps appears to prevent their widespread adoption as substitutes for standard CCT lamps (e.g., 4100 K). In addition, the materials used in the manufacture of such lamps, as well as the design trade-offs in developing them, would differ from those applicable to current products serving this market. Thus, DOE tentatively concluded that it could not determine whether a particular standard level would be technologically feasible for lamps with a higher CCT, and that these lamps would not be expected to be a potential loophole to standards it was considering in this rulemaking. For these reasons, which DOE discussed in greater detail in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to modify the definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' by raising the upper CCT limit for lamps excluded from that term from 6600 K to 7000 K, and including in that term all lamps (regardless how the lamp is designated and marketed) with a CCT greater than 7000 K. 74 FR 16920, 16931-32 (April 13, 2009). Both EEI and NEMA agreed with the proposed definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp.'' (EEI, No. 45 at p. 2, NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 46-47; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7) However, ACEEE pointed out that at an earlier stage of the rulemaking process, NEMA had identified an 8000 K lamp and claimed that lamps at high CCT values were capturing an increasing market share of general service applications. ACEEE argued that, if this is true, lamps with a CCT up through 8000 K should be included in coverage. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 48). NEMA responded that it is not aware of an 8000 K lamp gaining market share in the general service lighting market because such a lamp would be too blue and not suitable for general service applications. (NEMA, [[Page 34094]] Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 49-50) ACEEE also suggested that DOE should reinsert the phrase ``and not designed or marketed for general illumination applications'' in the definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' to ensure that only specialty lamps are excluded from the definition of ``general service fluorescent lamp.'' (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 48-49; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 4) In response, DOE agrees that the intention of the exemption for colored fluorescent lamps is to exclude only specialty lamps from standards. DOE believes that the amended definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' should not become a loophole for fluorescent lamps that are used in general service applications, and, therefore, should be subject to energy conservation standards. However, DOE also maintains that there are enough lamps available with CCTs greater than 7000 K to determine technologically feasible energy conservation standards. In addition, DOE believes that the inherently ``blue'' color of these lamps may prevent widespread adoption as substitutes for standard CCT lamps (e.g., 4100 K). Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is modifying the definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' as follows. DOE has decided to incorporate the phrase ``and not designed or marketed for general illumination applications'' into the definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp.'' This phrase will apply to those lamps with CCTs greater than 7000 K, as well as lamps with a CRI less than 40 and lamps with a CCT under 2500 K. However, because DOE believes that there are insufficient data to determine whether amended standards for lamps with CCTs greater than 7000 K would be technologically feasible, DOE is modifying the range of CCTs for which it is adopting standards. As a result, lamps referred to as possessing high CCTs in this standard-setting rulemaking are now being classified as those with a CCT greater than 4500 K and less than or equal to 7000 K (rather than simply greater than 4500 K). DOE is implementing these changes in this manner because of the anti-backsliding provision in EPCA. Because lamps with CCTs greater than 7000K that are not designated and marketed as colored lamps are currently subject to energy conservation standards, exempting all lamps with a CCT above 7000 K through inclusion in the definition of ``colored fluorescent lamp'' would prescribe a standard which impermissibly ``decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295 (o)(1)) Thus, if lamps with CCTs greater than 7000 K are used in general service applications, they will not be covered by the standards adopted by this final rule, although they will continue to be subject to the existing energy conservation standards (which have not been eliminated, despite being superseded in terms of efficacy levels for most--but not all, as demonstrated here-- of those lamps upon the effective date of the updated GSFL standards). In conclusion, DOE adopts the following definition for ``colored fluorescent lamp'' as set out in the regulatory text of this final rule. D. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy Consumption Standards Section 310(3) of EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require energy conservation standards adopted for a covered product after July 1, 2010 to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Although the final rule in this standards rulemaking is scheduled for publication by June 2009 (i.e., before this statutory deadline), DOE nonetheless did a preliminary analysis of the potential for energy savings associated with the regulation of standby mode and off mode energy use in covered lamps. DOE tentatively determined that current technologies for the GSFL and IRL that are the subjects of this rulemaking do not use a standby mode or off mode, so it is neither feasible nor necessary to incorporate energy use in these modes into the energy conservation standards for GSFL and IRL. Therefore, DOE did not propose amendments to the standards to address lamp operation in such modes. 73 FR 13620, 13627 (March 13, 2008); 74 FR 16920, 16932-33 (April 13, 2009). DOE did not receive any comments regarding this subject, so DOE concludes that standby mode and off mode are not applicable to these products. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not adopting provisions to address lamp operation in off mode or standby mode as part of the energy conservation standards that are the subject of this rulemaking. E. Color Rendering Index Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps EPCA specifies minimum levels of both lumens per watt and CRI that GSFL must meet. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)) However, EPCA authorizes DOE to consider and adopt only energy conservation standards that consist of energy performance requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6291(6)) In the March 2008 ANOPR, commenters suggested that it may be necessary for DOE to amend the existing CRI standards to prevent the possible emergence of loopholes in the product class structure and standards levels. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE concluded that it does not have the authority to change the CRI standard because CRI is not a measure of energy consumption or efficacy, but rather a measure of the color quality of the light. 74 FR 16920, 16933 (April 13, 2009). In written comments, Earthjustice argued that DOE has the authority to amend EPCA's Color Rendering Index (CRI) for GSFL, stating that DOE ignored the context of the duties that Congress imposed in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6295(i)(3). Earthjustice correctly noted that Congress included a table specifying both lamp efficacy and CRI standards for GSFL. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)). The commenter also correctly stated that Congress provided that all GSFL ``shall meet or exceed the [specified] lamp efficacy and CRI standards'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)), and directed DOE to ``determine if the standards in paragraph (1) should be amended.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3)). From there, Earthjustice took the position that Congress did not intend to require DOE to assess only the ``energy conservation standards'' established in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1), but instead to review all ``standards'' established in that paragraph, which include both lamp efficacy and CRI standards. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at pp. 3-4) The Green Lighting Campaign also argued that DOE should place restrictions on the CRI of covered GSFL because CRI can be used to enhance a lamp's visual acuity, thereby enabling substitution of lower-wattage lamps in a given lamp application without sacrificing utility. Therefore, the commenter argued that CRI affects energy efficiency and that DOE should screen out lamps with a CRI below 80. (Green Lighting Campaign, No. 74 at p. 2, 4) Furthermore, Earthjustice stated that the relevant discussion in the preamble of DOE's April 2009 NOPR did not clarify whether DOE believes that amendment of the CRI standards is foreclosed by EPCA's plain language (which Earthjustice disputed for the reasons above), or that is DOE's interpretation of an ``allegedly ambiguous provision'' (which Earthjustice asserted would be arbitrary and capricious). Earthjustice also commented that DOE's rationale on this point in the April 2009 NOPR explanation cannot be reconciled with the purposes of the statute and the intent of Congress, which enacted EPCA to ``conserve energy supplies through energy conservation programs'' and ``provide for improved energy efficiency of * * * consumer products.'' 42 U.S.C. [[Page 34095]] 6201(4) and (5). Finally, Earthjustice argued that DOE must consider amending EPCA's CRI standards if an efficacy-only standard is not sufficient to capture all technologically feasible and economically justified energy savings. (Earthjustice, No. 60 at pp. 3-4) In response, DOE disagrees with the Green Lighting Campaign and Earthjustice's interpretation of the relevant statutory language. Despite the overarching energy-savings purposes of EPCA, Congress promulgated a highly detailed statute (both initially and through subsequent amendments) with numerous provisions specifying (or restricting) DOE's authority. In general, Congress did not provide DOE unfettered discretion to set standards, but instead established detailed criteria, definitions, and other limitations on DOE's authority. Consequently, when DOE faces specific provisions which limit its authority, it seems clear that Congress did not intend the general energy-savings provisions of EPCA to override such limitations. Instead, DOE interprets its mandate as to maximize energy savings within the confines of its statutory authority. With that said, DOE continues to believe that it does not have the authority to regulate CRI standards for the reasons discussed in the NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16933 (April 13, 2009). That is, the language in the statute does not provide DOE with the authority to amend the CRI standard because it is not an energy performance standard. In implementing the amended standards rulemaking required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3), DOE must abide by the criteria for prescribing new or amended standards set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). In relevant part, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) provides that any new or amended ``energy conservation standard'' must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. More specifically, as discussed in the NOPR, according to 42 U.S.C. 6291(6), ``energy conservation standard'' means either: (1) A performance standard which prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use; or (2) a design requirement (only for specifically enumerated products). Although CRI is a performance requirement, it is not an energy performance requirement within the meaning of the term ``energy conservation standard.'' Because, in the case of GSFL, DOE has the authority to regulate only energy conservation standards (i.e., energy performance requirements), DOE is not amending the existing minimum CRI requirements in this final rule. Even if DOE did have authority to amend the minimum CRI requirements, DOE does not believe any modification would have impacted the potential energy savings of this final rule. CRI does not affect energy consumption or efficacy and, therefore, would not affect any of the results of DOE's analysis that are summarized in section VII. IV. General Discussion A. Test Procedures DOE's test procedures for fluorescent and incandescent lamps are set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R.\8\ These test procedures provide detailed instructions for measuring GSFL and IRL performance, as well as performance attributes of GSIL, largely by incorporating several industry standards. As explained in the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16933 (April 13, 2009)), DOE published a test procedure NOPR that proposed to update the current test procedure's references to industry standards for fluorescent and incandescent lamps, as well as to propose adoption of test procedure amendments to address lamps to which coverage was extended by EISA 2007 or to which DOE was considering extending coverage through rulemaking. 73 FR 13465, 13467-68 (March 13, 2008)(the test procedure NOPR). The test procedure NOPR also proposed the following: (1) A small number of definitional and procedural modifications to the test procedure to accommodate technological migrations in the GSFL market and approaches DOE has considered in this standards rulemaking; (2) revision of the reporting requirements for GSFL, such that all covered lamp efficacies would be reported with an accuracy to the tenths decimal place; and (3) adoption of a testing and calculation method for measuring the CCT of fluorescent and incandescent lamps. Id. at 13472-74. The March 2008 ANOPR also contains a detailed discussion of these proposals and related matters. 73 FR 13620, 13627-28 (March 13, 2008). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring Average Lamp Efficiency (LE) and Color Rendering Index (CRI) of Electric Lamps.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In response to the test procedure NOPR, NEMA commented that it strongly opposed establishing test procedures for lamps to which coverage has not yet been extended by the energy conservation standards rulemaking. NEMA was concerned that specifying mandatory test conditions prior to inclusion of coverage would inadvertently prevent new, high-efficient lamp designs from entering the market. (NEMA, No. 25 at p. 6-8) \9\ In response, in the June 2009 test procedure Final Rule previously published (hereafter the test procedure Final Rule)), DOE agreed with NEMA's suggestion and proceeded to finalize all other aspects of the lamps test procedure amendments but deferred consideration of test procedures for potentially new covered products until DOE establishes, by final rule, the lamps to which it is extending energy conservation standards coverage. Therefore, today's final rule simultaneously adopts both energy conservation standards and test procedures for these ``additional'' GSFL. In setting test procedures for these additional GSFL, DOE is also responding to the public comments on that topic submitted in response to the March 2008 test procedure NOPR, as discussed below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps; Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-TP-0013; RIN number 1904-AB72. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As discussed in section III.A, DOE has decided to adopted standards for the following additional GSFL: (1) 2-foot U-shaped; (2) 4-foot MBP; (3) 8-foot SP slimline; (4) 8-foot RDC HO; (5) 4-foot MiniBP SO; and (6) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps. For the additional 2-foot U-shaped and 4- foot MBP lamps, 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R already contains adequate test procedures (either through existing test procedures or those newly adopted in the test procedure final rule). Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not adopting new test procedures for those lamps. However, for the added 8-foot SP slimline, 8-foot RDC HO, 4-foot MiniBP SO, and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps, DOE has determined that several new provisions need to be added to the existing test procedures for GSFL. These provisions pertain to the adoption of reference ballast settings for lamps not listed in ANSI C78.81-2005 nor in ANSI C78.901- 2005, as proposed in the test procedure NOPR. In response to that test procedure proposal, NEMA stated that instituting generic test conditions, particularly reference ballast settings, without knowing the specific GSFL to which the conditions may apply could have unexpected consequences. In particular, NEMA argued that such test procedures could constrain innovation by affecting the introduction of new lamps into the market. NEMA also committed to developing standardized test conditions that DOE could consider for several covered lamp types for which no test [[Page 34096]] conditions currently exist. (NEMA, No. 25 at p. 6-8) \10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Service Incandescent Lamps; Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-TP-0013; RIN number 1904-AB72. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOE does not agree that imposing test conditions for future covered products would limit innovation in the lighting industry. DOE maintains a test procedure waiver process specifically for this reason. Under 10 CFR 430.27, DOE's regulations state, ``Any interested person may submit a petition to waive for a particular basic model any requirements of Sec. 430.23, or of any appendix to this subpart, upon the grounds that the basic model contains one or more design characteristics which either prevent testing of the basic model according to the prescribed test procedures, or the prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics, or water consumption characteristics (in the case of faucets, showerheads, water closets, and urinals) as to provide materially inaccurate comparative data.'' (10 CFR 430.27(a)(1)) This waiver process exists to avoid constraining innovation in the industry. Thus, DOE believes it is not preventing the introduction of future products into the market by specifying generic test conditions in this final rule. While DOE appreciates NEMA's offer to develop additional standardized test procedure provisions, the organization did not set a timeframe for developing the new test conditions, and DOE believes that this final rule needs to establish test conditions for all lamps subject to energy conservation standards. In addition, DOE believes that the test conditions set forth in the March 2008 NOPR are appropriate for most commercially-available lamps. DOE arrived at the ballast settings for these lamps by determining the appropriate lamp replacement that exists in the relevant industry standard and using the corresponding reference ballast settings for all lamps that fall into that category. However, if NEMA supplies test conditions for industry standards, DOE will consider incorporating them into its test procedure regulations in a subsequent rulemaking. Thus, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the following reference ballast settings for those additional GSFL for which it is setting standards, as proposed in the test procedure NOPR: For any 8-foot SP slimline lamp not listed in the updated ANSI C78.81-2005, the lamp should be tested using the following reference ballast settings: T12 lamps: 625 volts, 0.425 amps, and 1280 ohms. T8 lamps: 625 volts, 0.260 amps, and 1960 ohms. For any 8-foot RDC HO lamp not listed in the updated ANSI C78.81- 2005, the lamp should be tested using the following reference ballast settings: T12 lamps: 400 volts, 0.800 amps, and 415 ohms. & T8 lamps: 450 volts, 0.395 amps, and 595 ohms. For any 4-foot MiniBP standard output or high output lamp that is not listed in ANSI C78.81-2005, the lamp should be tested using the following reference ballast settings: Standard Output: 329 volts, 0.170 amps, and 950 ohms. High Output: 235 volts, 0.460 amps, and 255 ohms. B. Technological Feasibility 1. General As stated above, any standards that DOE establishes for GSFL and IRL must be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (o)(3)(B)) DOE considers a design option to be technologically feasible if it is in use by the respective industry or if research has progressed to the development of a working prototype. ``Technologies incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.'' 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i). This final rule considers the same design options as those evaluated in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16933-34 (April 13, 2009) As discussed in section VI.B.2.c, DOE additionally considers integrally-ballasted low voltage IRL as a design option to improve IRL efficacy. (See the final rule TSD accompanying this notice, chapter 3.) Except for trial standard level (TSL) 1 for IRL, products are commercially available in the market at all of the TSLs evaluated for today's rule. As to TSL1 for IRL, DOE used a design option (i.e., higher-efficiency gas fills) to model the performance of lamps that would meet this TSL, and received input from manufacturers to verify that such a design option is technologically feasible. Therefore, DOE determined that all of the efficacy levels evaluated in this notice are technologically feasible. 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels As required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1), in developing the April 2009 NOPR, DOE identified the efficacy levels that would achieve the maximum improvements in energy efficiency that are technologically feasible (max-tech levels) for GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 16920, 16933-35 (April 13, 2009). (See chapter 5 of the TSD) For GSFL, DOE considered five TSLs in the April 2009 NOPR, with TSL5 being the most stringent level for which DOE performed full analyses. 74 FR 16920, 16979-82 (April 13, 2009). It is noted that DOE also considered the potential for a standard level beyond TSL5 that would require GSFL to use a higher-efficiency gas fill composition, which would have been the maximum technologically feasible level. Although more-efficient fill gases (often including higher molecular weight gases) are appropriate for and are currently used in some lamp applications, DOE is also aware employing this technology can cause lamp instability resulting in striations or flickering in some circumstances. DOE's research indicated that a potential standard level that would require the use of higher-efficiency fill gases would significantly reduce (or in some cases eliminate) the utility and performance of the covered GSFL, DOE concluded on this basis that a level with such an adverse impact on product utility would not be economically justified.\11\ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV) and (3)(B)) Having made this determination, there was no need or benefits to performing additional analyses relevant to the other statutory criteria. (See section I.A.2 for additional detail.) Consequently, TSL5 represents the most-efficient level analyzed for GSFL. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ DOE notes that it did not eliminate higher-efficiency fill gases from further consideration as a technology under the screening analysis, because that technology may be appropriate for low-wattage lamp applications. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For IRL, as explained in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE believes that the maximum technologically feasible efficacy level incorporates the highest-efficiency technologically feasible reflector, halogen infrared coating, and filament design. Id. Combining all three of these high- efficiency technologies simultaneously results in the maximum technologically feasible level. However, this level is dependent on the use of a silver reflector, which is a proprietary technology. Because DOE is unaware of any alternate technology pathways to achieve this efficacy level, DOE did not consider it in its analysis. Instead, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE based the highest efficacy level analyzed for IRL on a commercially-available IRL which employs a silver reflector, an improved (but not most efficient) IR [[Page 34097]] coating, and a filament design that results in a lifetime of 4,200 hours. Although this commercially-available lamp uses silver technology, DOE believes that there are alternate pathways to achieve this level. A combination of redesigning the filament to achieve higher temperature operation (and thus reducing lifetime to 3,000 hours), employing other non-proprietary high-efficiency reflectors, and applying a higher-efficiency IR coating has the potential to result in an IRL that meets an equivalent efficacy level (for more information regarding these technologies, see chapter 3 of the TSD). Therefore, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE concluded that TSL5 is the maximum technologically feasible level for IRL that is not dependent on the use of a proprietary technology. Id. In response to the April 2009 NOPR, DOE received several comments on the efficiency levels analyzed and the maximum technologically feasible levels. For further discussion of these comments see section VI.B. For today's final rule, the max-tech levels are provided in Table IV.1 and Table IV.2 below. Table IV.1--Max-Tech Levels for GSFL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Max-tech Lamp type CCT efficacy lm/W ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-foot medium bipin............ <=4,500K............... 93 >4,500K and <=7,000K... 92 2-foot U-shaped................ <=4,500K............... 87 >4,500K and <=7,000K... 85 8-foot single pin slimline..... <=4,500K............... 98 >4,500K and <=7,000K... 94 8-foot recessed double contact <=4,500K............... 95 HO. >4,500K and <=7,000K... 91 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO... <=4,500K............... 90 >4,500K and <=7,000K... 85 4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO... <=4,500K............... 76 >4,500K and <=7,000K... 72 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table IV.2--Max-Tech Levels for IRL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Diameter (in Max-tech Lamp wattage Lamp type inches) Voltage efficacy lm/W ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40W-205W.............................. Standard-spectrum....... >2.5 >=125V 7.4P\0.27\ <125V 6.4P\0.27\ <=2.5 >=125V 6.2P\0.27\ <125V 5.4P\0.27\ 40W-205W.............................. Modified-spectrum....... >2.5 >=125V 6.3P\0.27\ <125V 5.4P\0.27\ <=2.5 >=125V 5.3P\0.27\ <125V 4.6P\0.27\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note 1: P is equal to the rated lamp wattage, in watts. Note 2: Standard Spectrum means any incandescent reflector lamp that does not meet the definition of ``modified spectrum'' in 430.2. C. Energy Savings DOE forecasted energy savings in its national impact analysis (NIA) through the use of an NIA spreadsheet tool, as discussed in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16935, 16958-72 (April 13, 2009). One of the criteria that governs DOE's adoption of standards for covered products is that the standard must result in ``significant conservation of energy.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) While EPCA does not define the term ``significant,'' a U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings in this context to be savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' DOE's estimates of the energy savings for energy conservation standards at each of the TSLs considered for GSFL and IRL for today's rule indicate that the energy savings each would achieve are nontrivial. Therefore, DOE considers these savings ``significant'' within the meaning of Section 325 of EPCA. D. Economic Justification 1. Specific Criteria As noted earlier, EPCA provides seven factors to evaluate in determining whether an energy conservation standard for covered products is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in evaluating efficiency standards for GSFL and IRL. a. Economic Impact on Consumers and Manufacturers DOE considered the economic impact of potential standards on consumers and manufacturers of GSFL and IRL. For consumers, DOE measured the economic impact on consumers as the change in installed cost and life-cycle operating costs (i.e., the LCC). (See sections V.C and VII.C.1.a, and chapter 8 of the TSD accompanying this notice.) DOE investigated the impacts on manufacturers through the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). (See section VII.C.2, and chapter 13 of the TSD accompanying this notice.) The MIA is discussed in detail in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16972-77 (April 13, 2009). [[Page 34098]] b. Life-Cycle Costs DOE considered life-cycle costs of GSFL and IRL, as discussed in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16950-58 (April 13, 2009). DOE calculated the sum of the purchase price and the operating expense-- discounted over the lifetime of the equipment--to estimate the range in LCC benefits that consumers would expect to achieve due to standards. c. Energy Savings Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA also requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a proposed standard, to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As in the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009)), for today's final rule DOE used the NIA spreadsheet results in its consideration of total projected savings that are directly attributable to the standard levels DOE considered. d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products In considering standard levels, DOE sought to avoid new standards for GSFL and IRL that would lessen the utility or performance of such products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)); 74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009)). e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition DOE considers any lessening of competition that is likely to result from standards. Accordingly, as discussed in the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009)) and as required under EPCA, DOE requested that the Attorney General transmit to the Secretary a written determination of the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from the standards proposed in the April 2009 NOPR, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) Note also that the National Impact Analysis does not consider the possibility of lessened competition effects, and so, depending on their magnitude, such effects may negatively impact the Net Present Value of the standards. To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination, DOE provided the Department of Justice (DOJ) with copies of the April 2009 NOPR and the TSD for review. The Attorney General's response is discussed in section VII.C.5 below, and is reprinted at the end of this rule. For IRLs, DOJ concluded that the proposed TSL 4 could adversely affect competition. DOJ requested that DOE consider the possibility of new technology for IRLs as it settles on standards in this field (DOJ, No. 77 at pp. 1-2). Although DOJ did not evaluate the impacts on competition of TSL 4 for GSFL, DOE believes that TSL 4 does not raise competitive issues. f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy In considering standards for GSFL and IRL, the Secretary must consider the need of the Nation to conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The Secretary recognizes that energy conservation benefits the Nation in several important ways. The non-monetary benefits of standards are likely to be reflected in improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system. As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR and in section VII.C.6 of this final rule, DOE has considered these factors in considering whether to adopt standards for GSFL and IRL. 74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009). g. Other Factors The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is economically justified, considers any other factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In adopting today's standards, the Secretary considered the potential for GSFL and IRL standards to adversely affect low-income consumers, institutions of religious worship, historical facilities, institutions that serve low- income populations, and consumers of T12 electronic ballasts. In considering these subgroups, DOE analyzed variations on electricity prices, operating hours, discount rates, and baseline lamps. 74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009). The impact on these subgroups is summarized in section VII.C.1.b. 2. Rebuttable Presumption Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA states that there is a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically justified if the increased installed cost for a product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy savings resulting from the standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and payback period (PBP) analyses generate values that calculate the payback period for consumers of potential energy conservation standards, which includes, but is not limited to, the three-year payback period contemplated under the rebuttable presumption test discussed above. However, DOE routinely conducts a full economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts, including those to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic justification). V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Methodology DOE used several analytical tools that it developed previously and adapted for use in this rulemaking. One is a spreadsheet that calculates LCC and PBP. Another tool calculates national energy savings and national NPV that would result from the adoption of energy conservation standards. DOE also used the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), along with other methods, in its MIA to determine the impacts of standards on manufacturers in light of other cumulative regulatory requirements. Finally, DOE developed an approach using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate impacts of standards for GSFL and IRL on utilities and the environment. The April 2009 NOPR discusses each of these analytical tools in detail. 74 FR 16920, 16958, 16972, 16978-79, 16982 (April 13, 2009). As a basis for this final rule, DOE has continued to use the spreadsheets and approaches explained in the April 2009 NOPR. DOE used the same general methodology as applied in the NOPR, but revised some of the assumptions and inputs for the final rule in response to public comments. The following paragraphs discuss these revisions. A. Market and Technology Assessment When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on publicly available information. DOE presented various subjects in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking. (See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.) These include product definitions, product classes, manufacturers, quantities and types of products sold and offered for [[Page 34099]] sale, retail market trends, and regulatory and nonregulatory programs. As discussed below, commenters raised a variety of issues related to the market and technology assessment, to which DOE responds in the following sections. 1. Product Classes In general, in evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered products into classes by the type of energy used, capacity, or other performance-related features that affect efficiency, and factors such as the utility of the product to users. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) a. General Service Fluorescent Lamps In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish product classes for GSFL based on the following three attributes that have differential utility and affect efficacy: (1) Physical constraints of lamps (i.e., lamp shape and length); (2) lumen package (i.e., standard versus high output); and (3) correlated color temperature. 74 FR 16920, 16936 (April 13, 2009). Based on these criteria, DOE proposed to separate coverage into six lamp types: (1) 4-foot medium bipin; (2) 2-foot U- shaped; (3) 8-foot single pin slimline; (4) 8-foot recessed double contact high output; (5) 4-foot miniature bipin T5 standard output; and (6) 4-foot miniature bipin T5 high output. DOE also proposed to establish separate product classes for those lamps with CCT less than or equal to 4,500 kelvin (K) and lamps with CCT greater than 4,500 K. In total, therefore, DOE proposed 12 product classes for GSFL. In general stakeholders expressed overall agreement with the GSFL product class structure proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. However, DOE did receive several comments requesting additional product classes for specific lamps or lamp types, as discussed below. i. Modified-Spectrum Fluorescent Lamps In response to the April 2009 NOPR, GE commented that it is currently researching and developing a 4-foot MBP modified-spectrum fluorescent lamp that imitates the color quality of modified-spectrum incandescent lighting. Although not yet commercially-available, GE expects to release such a product before 2012, the effective date of the energy conservation standard that is being established by this final rule. Expecting that these lamps may not be able to meet minimum efficacy requirements as amended by this rulemaking, GE recommended that DOE either set separate lower efficacy standards for ``modified- spectrum fluorescent lamps'' or exempt these lamps from standards altogether. (GE, No. 80 at pp. 3-6) In response, DOE believes that it does not have the authority to exempt modified spectrum fluorescent lamps from standards. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), DOE cannot prescribe an amended standard which ``decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, of a covered product.'' Although no such product currently exists, DOE notes that if they did, modified-spectrum fluorescent lamps fall under the definition of ``general service fluorescent lamp,'' so they would already be subject to the statutory minimum efficacy requirements. Therefore, if DOE were to exempt these lamps from any standards, this would constitute backsliding from the minimum efficacy requirements, which is impermissible, as noted above. With regard to setting lower minimum efficacy requirements for modified-spectrum fluorescent lamps, DOE generally sets separate efficiency standards for products deemed to be in separate product classes. While these lamps may in the future provide a distinct utility to consumers (a basis on which product classes may be established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)), at this time, DOE has no evidence that this utility in fact exists or is even required of the general service fluorescent market, because there is no such product yet developed. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not establishing a separate product class for modified-spectrum fluorescent lamps. However, DOE notes that if the company successfully develops its modified-spectrum fluorescent lamp and believes that it warrants exemption from DOE's amended standards, it may be possible for GE to seek exception relief from DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 1003. i. 25 Watt 4-Foot MBP Lamps In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE established one product class for 4- foot MBP lamps (of a single CCT category) that spanned the full range of covered lamp wattages (i.e., greater than or equal to 25W). The effects of doing this were such that at TSL5, as considered in the NOPR, the 25W 4-foot MBP T8 lamp was expected to be eliminated from the market, as it would not meet the minimum efficacy requirements. In response to the April 2009 NORP, the California Stakeholders and ACEEE suggested DOE should establish a separate product class for the 25W 4- foot T8 MBP because it represents a significant energy-savings opportunity. While DOE recognizes that the availability of the 25W 4- foot T8 MBP lamp provides additional energy savings opportunities to consumers, DOE does not believe that this alone is a basis to establish a separate product class for this lamp. As noted above, DOE establishes product classes only when a product type either: (1) Consumes a different type of energy, or (2) has a capacity or other performance- related feature which justifies a higher or lower standard level. In making such a determination, DOE considers whether there is a differential utility which affects efficacy. To DOE's knowledge, the 25W 4-foot MBP lamp does not provide any additional utility over that which its 32W full-wattage counterpart provides. Therefore, DOE has not established a different product classes for 25W lamps. ii. Summary of GSFL Product Classes Because DOE received no other comments on the GSFL product classes proposed in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE is not making any changes in this final rule related to GSFL product classes. Table V.1 summarizes the GSFL product classes for this final rule. Table V.1--Final Rule Product Classes for GSFL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lamp type CCT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-Foot Medium Bipin........................................ <=4500 K >4500 K 2-Foot U-Shaped............................................ <=4500 K >4500 K 8-Foot Single Pin Slimline................................. <=4500 K >4500 K 8-Foot RDC HO.............................................. <=4500 K >4500 K 4-Foot Miniature Bipin SO.................................. <=4500 K >4500 K 4-Foot Miniature Bipin HO.................................. <=4500 K >4500 K ------------------------------------------------------------------------ b. Incandescent Reflector Lamps For incandescent reflector lamps, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to base its product class structure on: (1) Lamp spectrum (modified versus standard spectrum); (2) lamp diameter (greater than 2.5 inches or less than or equal to 2.5 inches); and (3) rated voltage (less than 125V or greater than or equal to 125V). DOE received several comments on these product classes. The following sections summarize and address those public comments. i. Modified-Spectrum Lamps Modified-spectrum lamps provide a unique performance-related feature to consumers, in that they offer a different spectrum of light from the typical incandescent lamp. These lamps offer [[Page 34100]] benefits such as ensuring better color discrimination and often appearing more similar to natural daylight, possibly resulting in psychological benefits. In addition to providing a unique performance feature, DOE also understands that the technologies that modify the spectral emission from these lamps also decrease their efficacy, because a portion of the light emission is absorbed by the coating. Therefore, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish a separate product class for modified-spectrum lamps based on their unique performance feature and the impact of this performance feature on product efficacy. 74 FR 16920, 16938-39 (April 13, 2009). NEMA supported DOE's proposal for separate product classes based on modified spectrum. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 60; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 12) Conversely, ASAP, ACEEE, and the California Stakeholders commented that separate product classes based on spectrum are unnecessary because existing technologies such as LEDs and phosphor-based lamps (e.g., CFLs) can deliver the same utility to consumers that modified-spectrum IRL offer. ASAP stated that DOE should evaluate the unique utility of a product rather than the technology providing it. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4, at pp. 68-69; California Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 2, 25) In response, DOE agrees that other technologies could produce modified spectrum light. However, DOE reiterates the point it made in the NOPR that the governing statutory provision directs DOE to maintain performance-related features for a covered product type. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) If DOE were to regulate modified-spectrum lamps within the same product class as standard-spectrum lamps, this could result in an energy conservation standard that would eliminate the modified-spectrum utility from the IRL market. Furthermore, DOE believes some consumers may find a unique utility in modified-spectrum IRL that does not exist in CFL or LED lamps that emit modified spectra. For example, modified- spectrum IRL have a higher CRI than many of their potential substitutes (e.g., CFL), thereby providing a different, and in some cases a preferable, quality of light. In addition, DOE cannot confirm that a full range of lumen outputs are currently commercially available from LED reflector lamps. This could potentially eliminate the modified spectrum utility for some consumers requiring specific lumen packages (e.g., high-lumen lamps). PG&E, NRDC, ASAP, and the California Stakeholders also commented that no efficacy allowance is necessary for modified-spectrum lamps for two main reasons. First, they argued that incandescent reflector technology that results in modified-spectrum efficacies greater that the highest standard-spectrum standard level (TSL5) already exists. They demonstrated these efficacies in prototypes utilizing advanced IR coatings and silver reflectors. Second, the stakeholders argued that there are other means (beyond the use of absorptive elements within the glass cover) to produce modified-spectrum lamps. They suggested that reflective coatings, similar to the infrared ones that already exist, could, in principle, be used to create a modified spectrum in a much more efficient way. (California Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 2, 25; PG&E, NRDC, ASAP, No. 59 at p. 15-16; NRDC, No. 82 at pp. 2, 4) DOE reiterates that it establishes product classes based on whether a given product has unique performance features that affect the efficacy of the product, not on whether it is technologically feasible for the product to meet another product class's efficacy levels. Therefore, the absolute efficacy of a given modified-spectrum IRL does not play a role in whether DOE should or should not establish a distinct product class. Then once it is determined that a separate class is appropriate under the statute, an appropriate level is set based upon examination of lamps within that class, rather than a comparison to different types of lamps. What is relevant is whether there is a change in efficacy that is caused by a unique performance feature. DOE maintains that at this time modified spectrum IRL cannot achieve an equivalent maximum technologically feasible level as standard-spectrum IRL. To this point, the stakeholders themselves acknowledge in their comments that lenses used to modify the spectrum of IRL result in at least a 10 percent decrease in efficacy as compared to standard-spectrum lamps. (PG&E, NRDC, ASAP, No. 59 at p. 2) Although the stakeholders have demonstrated that modified-spectrum IRL might potentially be able to achieve efficacies exceeding that of the highest efficacy level analyzed for standard-spectrum lamps, DOE believes that there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the efficacies of the prototypes provided. Therefore, DOE is not establishing minimum efficacy requirements based solely on these prototype efficacies. DOE further addresses its consideration of these prototype efficacies in section VI.B.2. On the stakeholders' second point, DOE agrees that, in principle, there may be other means of producing modified-spectrum lamps. However, at present, DOE is unaware of any commercially-available IRL or working IRL prototype using the alternative methods suggested by stakeholders. For all of the above reasons, DOE has decided to establish a separate product class for modified-spectrum incandescent reflector lamps. Also related to modified-spectrum IRL, Tailored Lighting, a specialty lighting company, commented that it produces specialty lamps that alter the spectrum, differently than modified-spectrum lamps, which the commenter claims better simulates daylight. Due to the different spectra of light that are filtered in Tailored Lighting's lamps relative to modified-spectrum lamps, Tailored Lighting argued that their product would not qualify under the statutory definition of ``modified spectrum.'' Therefore, Tailored Lighting recommended that DOE should either specifically exempt their product from regulation or amend the definition of ``modified spectrum'' so as to include their products, thereby allowing them to have reduced minimum efficacy requirements. (Tailored Lighting, No. 73 at p. 11) Eiko Ltd, a manufacturer of Tailored Lighting's products supported the same amendments to the definition of ``modified spectrum.'' (Eiko, No. 79 at p. 1) While DOE acknowledges that many of Tailored Lighting's products may not fall under the definition of ``modified spectrum,'' DOE notes that ``modified spectrum'' is a statutory definition, defined by EISA 2007 for incandescent lamps, which includes both general service incandescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(W); 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(F)) Therefore, DOE lacks the authority to amend the definition of ``modified spectrum.'' In addition, adopting Tailored Lighting's recommended amendment would not only affect minimum efficacy requirements for IRL, but would also result in an amendment to the general service incandescent lamp standards prescribed by Congress. For these reasons, DOE is leaving the definition of ``modified spectrum'' unchanged from that presented in the April 2009 NOPR. In addition, DOE notes that according to the comment, even though Tailored Lighting also sells 12-volt MR-16 lamps with these special daylight qualities, these lamps do not fall under the definition of ``incandescent reflector lamp.'' Tailored Lighting requested an [[Page 34101]] exemption (or lowered minimum efficacy requirement) for its forthcoming PAR lamp, that would fall under the definition of ``incandescent reflector lamp'' and is currently under development. (Tailored Lighting, No. 73 at p. 4)) However, according to interviews and Tailored Lighting's Web site, this lamp is not yet for sale. In response, DOE generally sets separate efficiency standards for products deemed to be in separate product classes. While PAR-shaped Tailor Lighting lamps may in the future provide a distinct utility to consumers (a basis on which product classes are established), at this time, because there is no product yet developed, DOE has no evidence that this utility in fact exists or is even required of the incandescent reflector lamp (or PAR-shaped) market. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not establishing a separate product class for Tailored Lighting's products. However, DOE notes that if Tailored Lighting successfully develops its PAR lamp and believes that it warrants exemption from DOE's amended standards, it may be possible for Tailored Lighting to seek exception relief from DOE's OHA pursuant to 10 CFR Part 1003. ii. Lamp Diameter As mentioned above, DOE also proposed separate product classes for smaller-diameter lamps (i.e., lamps with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 inches). Such lamps provide a distinct utility (such as the ability to be installed in smaller fixtures) which generally results in lower efficacy because they have an inherently lower optical efficiency than larger-diameter lamps of similar filament size. Both NEMA and the California Stakeholders supported DOE's proposal to establish a separate product class for small-diameter lamps. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7, p. 12; GE Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 60; California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 22) Because DOE received no other comments on this issue, DOE continues to set separate product classes for lamps of diameter less than or equal to 2.5 inches. iii. Voltage Current DOE test procedures provide for lamps rated at 130 volts (V) to be tested at 130 V and for lamps rated at 120 V to be tested at 120 V. However, DOE is aware that a large number of consumers actually operate 130 V lamps at 120 V, which results in longer lifetime but lower efficacy. With a single efficacy level for lamps rated at each voltage, this situation would effectively lead to a lower efficacy requirement for these 130 V lamps that are run at 120 V, compared to 120 V lamps run at 120 V. These 130V lamps would not require the same level of technology as 120 V-rated lamps to meet the same standard, and, thus, they would be cheaper to produce. Therefore, setting higher standards for IRL without accounting for voltage differences could result in increased migration to the 130 V lamps and possible lost energy savings. For these reasons, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed to set separate standards for 130 V lamps. Specifically, DOE proposed to establish two separate product classes: (1) Lamps with a rated voltage less than 125 V, and (2) lamps with a rated voltage greater than or equal to 125 V. 74 FR 16920, 16940 (April 13, 2009). DOE also requested comment on the alternative approach of having all IRL be tested at 120 V, the most common application voltage in the market. Id. Philips commented that setting a 130 V-lamp efficacy level that was 15 percent higher than the level for 120 V lamps, as DOE proposed in the NOPR, would drive 130 V lamps from the market because such a level would be technologically infeasible. In addition, Philips and GE stated that it is not uncommon for consumers to run lamps at 130 V in certain regions of the country. Therefore, NEMA and Philips stated, with 130 V lamps gone from the marketplace, some consumers may be forced to run 120 V lamps at 130 V, which could cut lamp lifetime in half and cause a loss of utility for these consumers. For those reasons, manufacturers argued, there should be no separate product class for voltage. Instead, manufacturers argued that DOE should test IRL at their rated voltages and subject the lamps to the same standard. Supporting this idea, GE noted that even if one operates a 130 V lamp at 120 V, power is reduced proportionally, meaning there would be lower energy consumption. (GE and Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 61-62, 67; NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 4, 7-8) Conversely, the California Stakeholders, EEI and ACEEE argued that 130 V lines are very rare. EEI stated that many utilities must follow agreements to maintain voltages in the residential sector within a 5 percent range of 120 V (114 V to 126 V) and agreed with DOE's approach. The California Stakeholders commented that utilities are trending toward lower line voltage to minimize transmission losses. In addition, they stated that FTC labeling requirements already require manufacturers to provide power and light output for 120 V, even if the lamps are designed to be run at 130 V. Therefore, the California Stakeholders argued, all lamps should be regulated based on testing at 120 V. (ACEEE and EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 63- 64, 66; EEI, No. 45 at p. 3; California Stakeholders, No. 63 at p. 25- 26) GE argued that while utilities do face line voltage regulation, there are cases in which the voltage is higher than that prescribed in ANSI C-84.1, ``American National Standard for Electric Power Systems and Equipment-Voltage Ratings (60 Hertz),'' (the source of the prescribed voltage range that EEI referenced in the above comment). Therefore, the 130 V lamps have utility for consumers in these cases. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 67) In response, DOE remains concerned that the operation of 130 V lamps at 120 V has the potential to significantly affect energy savings. As discussed above, when operated under 120 V conditions, lamps rated at 130 V and in compliance with existing IRL efficacy standards are generally less efficacious than lamps using equivalent technology rated at 120 V. Because of this inherent difference in efficacy, it may be less costly to manufacture a lamp rated and tested at 130 V that complies with a standard than a similar 120 V lamp complying with the same standard. If DOE does not establish a separate product class and standard for lamps rated at 130 V, more consumers may purchase 130 V lamps because they may be less expensive, as they would require less costly technology. When consumers operate these lamps at 120 V, in order to obtain sufficient light output, they may migrate to higher wattages and use more energy than standards-compliant 120 V lamps. DOE also believes, as commenters pointed out, that 130 V conditions in the residential sector are very rare. Indeed, in many cases such sustained voltages would violate electrical codes. As NEMA commented earlier, 130 V lamps ``are almost always used by customers to achieve `double life' by operating them at 120 V, resulting in performance below 1992 EPACT levels.'' (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 16) DOE acknowledges that in very rare cases, some consumers with 130 V power may be forced to realize shorter lifetimes. However, based on stakeholder comments and research into electrical codes, DOE does not believe the rare instances of consumers with 130 V power experiencing shortened lifetimes offsets the benefit in energy savings from closing this potential loophole. In addition, as discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, because DOE considers lifetime [[Page 34102]] an economic issue rather than a utility issue, DOE does not believe it is eliminating any unique utility of feature from the market by setting increased efficacy requirements for lamps rated greater than or equal to 125 V. 74 FR 16920, 16939 (April 13, 2009) Finally, stakeholders have not provided any compelling arguments for why DOE should amend the test procedure to test all lamps at 120 V rather than set higher efficacy standards for these lamps. Therefore, in this final rule DOE is maintaining separate product classes for lamps with rated voltages less than 125 V and lamps with rated voltages greater than or equal to 125 V. iv. IRL Summary In summary, DOE is not making any changes in this final rule related to IRL product classes from those proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 17027 (April 13, 2009). Table V.2 summarizes the IRL product classes for this final rule. Table V.2--Final Rule Product Classes for IRL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Diameter Spectrum (in Voltage inches) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Standard Spectrum................................. >2.5 >=125 V <125 V <=2.5 >=125 V <125 V Modified Spectrum................................. >2.5 >=125 V <125 V <=2.5 >=125 V <125 V ------------------------------------------------------------------------ B. Engineering Analysis For each product class, the engineering analysis identifies potential, increasing efficacy levels above the level of the baseline model. Those technologies not eliminated in the screening analysis (design options) are inputs to this process. Design options consist of discrete technologies (e.g., infrared reflective coatings, rare-earth phosphor mixes). As detailed in the April 2009 NOPR, to ensure that efficacy levels analyzed are technologically feasible, DOE concentrated its efforts in the engineering analysis on developing product efficacy levels associated with ``lamp designs,'' based upon commercially- available lamps that incorporate a range of design options. 74 FR 16920, 16941 (April 13, 2009). However, when necessary, DOE supplemented commercially-available product information with an examination of the incremental costs and improved performance attributable to discrete technologies so that a substitute lamp at each efficacy level would be available for each baseline lamp. In energy conservation standard rulemakings for other products, DOE often develops cost-efficiency relationships in the engineering analysis. However, for this rulemaking, DOE derived efficacy levels in the engineering analysis and end-user prices in the product price determination. By combining the results of the engineering analysis and the product price determination, DOE derived typical inputs for use in the LCC and NIA. See chapter 7 of the TSD for further details on the product price determination. 1. Approach For the final rule, DOE is using the same methodology for the engineering analysis that was detailed in the April 2009 NOPR. 74 FR 16920, 16941-47 (April 13, 2009). The following is a summary of the steps taken in the engineering analysis: • Step 1: Select Representative Product Classes • Step 2: Select Baseline Lamps • Step 3: Identify Lamp or Lamp-and-Ballast Designs • Step 4: Develop Efficacy Levels. A more detailed discussion of the methodology DOE followed to perform the engineering analysis can be found in the engineering analysis chapter of the TSD (chapter 5). 2. Representative Product Classes As discussed in section V.A.1 of this notice, DOE is establishing twelve product classes for GSFL and eight product classes for IRL. As detailed in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE did not analyze each and every product class. 74 FR 16920, 16941-42 (April 13, 2009). Instead, DOE selected certain product classes to analyze, and then scaled its analytical findings for those representative product classes to other product classes that were not analyzed. While DOE received several stakeholder comments regarding methods of scaling to product classes not analyzed (discussed in section V.C.7), DOE did not receive objections to the decision to scale to certain product classes or the representative product classes proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. Id. at 16941-42. Therefore, for this final rule, DOE analyzed the same product classes proposed for direct analysis in the April 2009 NOPR. For GSFL, the analyzed product classes included 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin slimline, 8-foot recessed double-contact high output, 4-foot MiniBP standard output, and 4-foot MiniBP high output GSFL product classes, all with CCTs less than or equal to 4,500K. DOE did not explicitly analyze U-shaped lamps, but instead scaled the results of the 4-foot medium bipin class analysis, as discussed in section V.B.5.a. For IRL, the representative product class DOE analyzed was IRL with standard spectrum, voltage less than 125 V, and diameter greater than 2.5 inches. For further information on representative product classes, see chapter 5 of the TSD. 3. Baseline Models Once DOE identified the representative product classes for analysis, DOE selected the representative units for analysis (i.e., baseline lamps) from within each product class. These representative units are generally what DOE believes to be the most common, least efficacious lamps in their respective product classes. For further discussion on baseline lamps and lamp-and-ballast systems chosen for analysis, see the April 2009 NOPR (74 FR 16920, 16942-45 (April 13, 2009)) and Chapter 5 of the TSD. In general, DOE decided to maintain the baseline models proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. However, DOE did receive a comment on its selection of the baseline model for 4-foot MiniBP lamps, as discussed and responded to below. In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE developed model T5 halophosphor lamps as the baselines for the 4-foot MiniBP SO and 4-foot MiniBP HO product classes. To create these model T5 lamps, DOE used efficacy data from short halophosphor fluorescent T5 lamps currently available and developed a relationship between length and efficacy. DOE validated this relationship by comparing it to previous industry research and efficacies of other halophosphor lamps. DOE then used this relationship to determine the efficacies of a halophosphor 4-foot miniature bipin standard output lamp and a halophosphor 4-foot halophosphor T5 miniature bipin HO lamp. The resulting baseline efficacies for 4-foot MiniBP SO and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps were 86.0 lm/W and 76.6 lm/W. 74 FR 16920, 16943 (April 13, 2009) In response to the April 2009 NOPR, NEMA and GE commented that baseline efficacies and efficacy levels for 4-foot MiniBP lamps should reflect testing at an ambient temperature of 25 [deg]C rather than 35 [deg]C, the temperature at which standards for 4-foot MiniBP lamps in the April 2009 NOPR were based. GE also stated that manufacturers test 4-foot [[Page 34103]] MiniBP lamps at 25 [deg]C and then use a relative measurement to estimate performance at 35 [deg]C. This additional information is provided in catalogs because many T5 lamps are operated in higher- temperature environments. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 72-73, 76-78, NEMA, No. 81 at p. 3, 7, 8, 9, 22) DOE has confirmed that test procedures for 4-foot MiniBP lamps in fact specify that the test should be performed at 25 [deg]C. While DOE agrees that the minimum efficacy standards (and therefore efficacy levels) should be based on this testing condition, DOE believes that the efficacies and lumen outputs of lamps analyzed in the engineering analysis (and thus LCC and NIA) should reflect typical operating conditions. It is DOE's understanding that 4-foot MiniBP lamps most often operate at 35 [deg]C. Therefore DOE bases all lamp efficacies and lumen outputs used in the engineering, LCC, and national impacts analyses on this operating condition. DOE discusses its approach to establishing 4-foot MiniBP efficacy levels based on testing at 25 [deg]C in section V.B.4.b. NEMA also commented that a more accurate and straightforward approach to modeling the 4-foot MiniBP halophosphor baseline lamp efficacies would be to base it on the ratio of halophosphor to triphosphor lamp efficacies in 4-foot T8 MBP lamps (0.78). (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 9) DOE believes that NEMA's suggested approach is valid. However, when using efficacies of commercially-available 4-foot MBP halophosphor lamps (77.9 lm/W) and triphosphor lamps (95.4 lm/W), DOE calculated an efficacy ratio of 0.82. Applying this ratio to 35 [deg]C catalog lamp efficacies results in baseline efficacies of 4-foot MiniBP SO and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps of 85.5 lm/W and 76.1 lm/W. Because these efficacies are within an acceptable margin of uncertainty relative to the baseline efficacies used in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE has not changed its 4-foot MiniBP baseline lamps. For more information about these and other baseline lamps, see chapter 5 and appendix 5B of the TSD. 4. Efficacy Levels a. GSFL Compliance Reports For the March 2008 ANOPR, DOE developed candidate standards levels for GSFL by dividing initial lumen output by the ANSI rated wattages of commercially-available lamps, thereby resulting in rated lamp efficacies.\12\ 74 FR 16920, 16945 (April 13, 2009). In response to the potential GSFL efficacy levels presented in the March 2008 ANOPR, NEMA commented on several reasons why the association believes that the efficacy levels need to be revised, including (1) the appropriateness of using ANSI rated wattages in the calculation of lumens per watt; (2) consideration of variability in production of GSFL; (3) manufacturing process limitations related to specialty products; (4) consideration of adjustments to photometry calibrations; and (5) the appropriateness of establishing efficacy levels to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. 74 FR 16920, 16945-46 (April 13, 2009). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ DOE used rated wattages listed in ANSI C78.81-2005 to determine lamp efficacies. DOE proposed a definition of ``rated wattage'' in section III.C.1 that referred to an ANSI standard to prevent manufacturers from circumventing standards by rating lamps at artificially low wattages. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- After considering NEMA's comments, DOE agreed that tolerances incorporated into ANSI rated wattages and variability in production of GSFL warranted changes to the efficacy levels presented in the March 2008 ANOPR. Therefore, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE revised the efficacy levels for GSFL by using lamp efficacy values submitted to DOE over the past 10 years for the purpose of compliance with existing energy conservation standards. Using compliance reports as a basis for efficacy standards allowed DOE to more accurately characterize the tested performance of GSFL, by accounting for the measured wattage effects and wattage and lumen output variability. 74 FR 16920, 16946-47 (April 13, 2009). DOE received several comments on its proposed efficacy levels in the NOPR. NEMA commented that the range of efficacy levels considered was appropriate. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 21) Both ACEEE and NEMA supported DOE's usage of compliance reports to establish efficacy levels. However, NEMA commented that it has additional data on variability that has been observed in lamp production. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 79-80; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 89-90) NEMA recommended a slight lowering of certain GSFL efficacy levels so that an assessment of multiple lamps in a product line would find that the lamps were in conformance when tested under the DOE GSFL test procedure. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 90-91) NEMA also claimed that required adjustments to photometry facilities used for NIST and NVLAP testing over time have resulted in a reduction of reported lumens for some products, which DOE did not account for in the April 2009 NOPR. NEMA therefore advised DOE to use only ``sufficiently current'' compliance data to determine efficacy levels. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 75-76; NEMA, No. 81 at p.10-11) To account for all of these factors, NEMA stated that DOE should adopt the efficacy levels NEMA recommended in response to the March 2008 ANOPR. These levels recommended by NEMA achieve the desired technology goals as outlined by DOE. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 1-2, 10-11, 23) ACEEE opposed a further downward adjustment of the efficiency levels, as it would allow less-efficacious products to remain on the market. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 80) While DOE is aware that manufacturers may have additional data on production variability, NEMA has not provided such data to DOE. Therefore, DOE has maintained its approach (as presented in the April 2009 NOPR) to develop GSFL efficacy levels. Additionally, DOE believes that by using the compliance reports it is accounting for variability in production as it exists today, for the reasons that follow. First, the product efficacy reported for compliance purposes is related to the lower limit of the 95-percent confidence interval. As explained in DOE's May 1997 lamps test procedure final rule, this interval represents variation over the whole population of production, not only the sample size. 62 FR 29222, 29230 (May 29, 1997). In addition, regarding any changes in calibration requirements that may have occurred that could affect reported lamp efficacy, DOE has reevaluated its efficacy levels based on the latest compliance reports, many of which were submitted to DOE after the NOPR analysis had been completed. Following the same methodology as presented in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE compared the efficacy values for each product class to all available compliance report data and assessed whether the April 2009 NOPR levels achieved the technology goals outlined in chapter 5 of the TSD. For 4- foot MBP lamps, DOE determined that the efficacy levels proposed in the April 2009 NOPR must be revised to accurately represent those goals. For 4-foot MBP lamps with CCTs less than or equal to 4500K, DOE adjusted the efficacy values because new compliance reports: (1) Provided recent data for an existing basic model; (2) provided data for a new basic model; or (3) provided 12-month average production data whereas only initial data had been previously reported. [[Page 34104]] NEMA also did not believe it was necessary to raise EL3 for 4-foot MBP lamps from their recommended 83 lumens per watt to 84 lumens per watt as proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. NEMA stated that this increase was not required to achieve the technology goal specified for TSL3 and, furthermore, would have significant consequences for the residential consumer because it eliminated nearly all T12 lamps. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 2) In response, DOE reassessed its efficacy levels based compliance report data from 2008 and 2009. As a result of this analysis, DOE determined that the efficacy values for 4-foot MBP low CCT EL3 and EL5 required adjustments. DOE also does not believe that the value for EL3 will have significant consequences for the residential consumer. See section V.C.8 for a discussion of this topic. For 8-foot SP slimline lamps and 8-foot RDC HO lamps, DOE analyzed recent compliance reports and determined that not enough data existed in those reports to maintain all of the levels proposed in the April 2009 NOPR. Therefore, DOE modified ELs 1, 2, and 5 for 8-foot SP Slimline lamps and EL2 for 8-foot RDC HO lamps to reflect the levels that NEMA recommended. The revised efficacy levels are shown in section VII.A.1. b. 4-Foot MiniBP Efficacy Levels As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE established efficacy levels for 4-foot MiniBP SO and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps based on catalog rated efficacies. 74 FR 16920, 16947 (April 13, 2009). Then, in order to account for manufacturer variation, DOE used the average reductions in efficacy values due to manufacturer variation calculated for the highest-efficacy 4-foot T8 medium bipin lamps, and applied those same reductions to the 4-foot miniature bipin rated efficacy values. DOE was unable to directly use 4-foot MiniBP lamp compliance data because these products have not been regulated in the past. As mentioned earlier, NEMA and GE commented that efficacy levels for these 4-foot MiniBP lamps should reflect testing at an ambient temperature of 25 [deg]C rather than 35 [deg]C, the temperature at which standards for 4-foot MiniBP lamps in the April 2009 NOPR were based. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 3, 7, 8, 9, 22; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 72-73) ACEEE agreed that 4-foot MiniBP lamps should be tested at 25 [deg]C. (ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 79) As stated earlier, DOE agrees that 4-foot MiniBP efficacy levels should be based on testing at 25 [deg]C and notes that based on catalog data, efficacies at 25 [deg]C are 10 percent lower than efficacies at 35 [deg]C. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE has revised the efficacy levels for the 4-foot MiniBP product classes accordingly. In addition, NEMA commented that reductions applied to the 4-foot MiniBP efficacy levels in the April 2009 NOPR were insufficient to fully account for variability in production. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 3, 9, 22) NEMA recommended that DOE adopt 86 lm/W and 76 lm/W as EL1 for the 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO product classes, respectively. DOE recognizes that because it does not have compliance report information for 4-foot MiniBP lamps, it may not be able to accurately assess the manufacturing tolerance required for these lamps. Based on DOE's calculations, NEMA's recommended efficacy levels represent manufacturer tolerances within the range required by other lamp types. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE has revised EL1 for 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO lamps to be 86 lm/W and 76 lm/W respectively. For consistency with those allowed manufacturer tolerances DOE has also revised EL2 for 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps to be 90 lm/W. For the purposes of comparison, DOE estimates that 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO halophosphor lamps would have efficacies of 77 lm/W and 69 lm/W when tested at 25 [deg]C. See Chapter 5 of the TSD for further detail on 4-foot MiniBP efficacy levels. c. IRL Manufacturing Variability For incandescent reflector lamps, in the April 2009 NOPR, DOE established efficacy levels based on commercially-available and prototype IRL technologies. 73 FR 16920, 16944 (April 13, 2009). In response to those efficacy levels, Philips commented that DOE did not account for manufacturing variability when developing the efficacy levels for incandescent reflector lamps and stressed the importance of accounting for this variability when setting minimum efficacy standards. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 102-103) Similarly, the International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) wrote that there are currently IRL on the market that meet TSL4 but only by very small amounts; these products could be eliminated if TSL4 is not carefully set. (IALD, No. 71 at p. 2) Philips also wrote that it is in support of TSL4 for IRL once it is lowered to account for manufacturing variability. (Philips, No. 75 at pp. 1-2) DOE supports the consideration of manufacturing variability in the development of efficacy requirements. In response, DOE examined IRL compliance reports submitted by manufacturers and discovered that reported efficacies of IRL do in fact vary from the catalog efficacies. Similar to GSFL, the efficacy reported for IRL product compliance is related to the lower limit of the 95-percent confidence interval. 62 FR 29222, 29230 (May 29, 1997). Therefore, in some cases, given significant variability in production, the reported efficacy of IRL may be lower than the long- term mean efficacy presented in lamp catalogs. The compliance reports also indicated that different efficacy levels (or technologies) require different efficacy reductions. Thus, similar to the approach taken in developing revised GSFL efficacy levels, DOE used IRL compliance report data to adjust the efficacy levels presented in the April 2009 NOPR downward to better reflect the observed efficacies of commercially- available lamps that feature the described technologies of each EL as discussed in chapter 5 of the TSD. Table VII.2 shows the final rule coefficients A in the equation A*P[caret]0.27, which represents the efficacy level requirement for IRL. P is the rated wattage of the lamp. See chapter 5 of the TSD for further detail on the compliance reports used in the analysis. 5. Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed a. 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE developed efficacy levels for 2-foot U-shaped GSFL by assessing the catalog efficacies of U-shaped lamps that utilize the same design options used for the 4-foot medium bipin GSFL lamps that DOE analyzed. 74 FR 16920, 16948 (April 13, 2009). To develop the April 2009 NOPR ELs for U-shaped lamps while taking into account manufacturing variability, DOE assessed compliance reports of U-shaped lamps. Where U-shaped lamp compliance report data was unavailable, DOE augmented its assessment of manufacturing variability with compliance report data for 4-foot medium bipin lamps due to the technological similarities between U-shaped and 4-foot medium bipin lamps. In the April 2009 NOPR, the maximum reduction in efficacy requirements for U-shaped lamps in comparison with the 4-foot medium bipin ELs was 7.7 percent at EL1 (the 4-foot medium bipin EL1 requirement of 78 lm/W vs. the U-shaped EL1 requirement of 72 lm/W). At the public meeting, GE commented that it is in general agreement with the approach that DOE used to develop the efficacy levels for 2- foot U-shaped lamps for the April 2009 NOPR. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. [[Page 34105]] 119-120) GE indicated, however, that the reduction in efficacy for U- shaped lamps compared to 4-foot medium bipin lamps should be approximately 8 percent, as the production of the bend in U-shaped lamps adds additional manufacturing variability. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 123-124) In writing, NEMA then commented that the assumptions that DOE used to develop U-shaped lamp reduction factors were incorrect; NEMA proposed that DOE set EL3 at 76 lm/W for U-shaped lamps with CCTs less than or equal to 4500K and 71 lm/W for U- shaped lamps with CCTs greater than 4500K. NEMA warned that an EL3 efficacy requirement higher than these would remove all T12 U-shaped lamps from the market and that the setting of EL4 or higher as a standard would negatively impact competition; according to comment, the setting of EL5 would eliminate from the market all energy-efficient U- shaped lamps that feature a 6-inch spacing and the ability to fit into 2x2-foot luminaires. (NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 2-3, 11) In response, DOE grouped U-shaped lamp compliance data sent to DOE in 2007 and 2008 into efficacy levels based on the design options featured in the 4-foot medium bipin lamps that DOE analyzed for the April 2009 NOPR, as follows: 700-series U-shaped 40W T12 lamps were grouped into EL1, and 800-series U-shaped 32W T8 lamps were grouped into either EL3, EL4, or EL5 based on catalog efficacy. DOE did not have any compliance reports from 2007 and 2008 for U-shaped 34W T12 lamps. DOE found that it did not have enough data at ELs 1 through 5 to confidently assess the manufacturing variability of U-shaped lamps on the market. For EL1 through EL3, DOE thus selected the levels proposed by NEMA in response to the March 2008 ANOPR. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7) For EL4 and EL5, NEMA did not propose levels for U-shaped lamps. Thus, DOE used NEMA's suggested 8-percent value as a scaling factor from the linear 4-foot medium bipin efficacy levels. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 123-124). The efficacy levels for low-CCT U-shaped lamps for this final rule are shown in chapter 5 of the TSD. DOE notes that two manufacturers currently produce U-shaped lamps that meet the EL4 proposed in the April 2009 NOPR and retained by DOE in this final rule. DOE acknowledges that currently, only one manufacturer produces U-shaped lamps that meet EL5. DOE is not aware of technological barriers or legal barriers (such as the utilization of a proprietary technology by this manufacturer) that would prevent other manufacturers from producing U-shaped lamps at EL5. For this reason, DOE is using 87 lm/W as the EL5 efficacy level requirement for U-shaped lamps in this final rule. b. Lamps With Higher CCTs Because DOE received a number of comments related to its determination of efficacy levels based on compliance reports, DOE decided to reevaluate its efficacy levels at higher CCT levels using the latest compliance report data. For 4-foot MBP lamps with CCTs greater than 4500K, DOE discovered that the efficacy values proposed in the April 2009 NOPR required significant revision to achieve the technology goals outlined in chapter 5 of the TSD. Therefore, to determine efficacy values for these lamps, DOE employed the same methodology as was used to determine efficacy values for 4-foot MBP lamps with CCTs less than or equal to 4500K. Thus, as summarized in section V.B.4.a, DOE selected commercially available lamps for each efficacy level that represented that level's desired technology goal. These revised efficacy levels are supported by data contained in compliance reports submitted in 2008. The updated efficacy values for these lamps are shown in chapter 5 of the TSD. DOE also compared NEMA's proposed efficacy levels for 8-foot lamps against its proposed efficacy levels in the April 2009 NOPR. For 8-foot SP Slimline lamps with CCTs greater than 4500 K, efficacy levels 1, 2, and 5 were higher than those levels proposed by NEMA. For 8-foot RDC HO lamps with high CCTs, only efficacy level 2 was greater than what NEMA proposed. DOE analyzed recent compliance reports submitted and determined that not enough data existed in those reports to maintain the levels proposed in the April 2009 NOPR for these lamps. Therefore, DOE modified ELs 1, 2, and 5 for 8-foot SP Slimline lamps and EL2 for 8-foot RDC HO lamps to reflect the levels that NEMA proposed. The revised efficacy levels are shown in section VII.A.1. For U-shaped lamps, NEMA proposed that DOE set EL1, EL2, and EL3 at 65, 67, and 71 lm/W, respectively, for U-shaped lamps with CCTs greater than 4500K. (NEMA, No. 26 at p. 7; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 2) DOE did not have enough recent compliance report data for U-shaped lamps with CCTs above 4500K to accurately assess the manufacturing variability of U- shaped lamps on the market. For this reason, DOE adopted NEMA's proposed requirements for this final rule. NEMA did not propose efficacy level requirements at EL4 and EL5. To develop requirements at these levels for U-shaped lamps with CCTs above 4500K, DOE used NEMA's suggested 8-percent value as a scaling factor and applied the factor to the high-CCT linear 4-foot medium bipin efficacy levels. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 123-124). The efficacy levels for high-CCT U-shaped lamps for the April 2009 NOPR and for this final rule are shown in section VII.A.1. c. Modified Spectrum IRL DOE received a number of comments on the reduction factor that DOE applied to the standard-spectrum IRL efficacy levels in order to develop efficacy levels for the modified-spectrum IRL product class. At the public meeting, NEMA commented that industry uses an efficacy reduction of 20 to 25 percent for modified-spectrum IRL (in comparison with standard-spectrum IRL of otherwise identical characteristics) and that the typical efficacy reduction is closer to 20 percent than 25 percent. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 128-129) After publication of the April 2009 NOPR, however, NEMA commented in writing that DOE's April 2009 NOPR analysis was based only on 50W modified-spectrum lamps and that DOE should choose a reduction factor of 25 percent for the modified-spectrum IRL product class in order to retain a diversity of modified-spectrum products on the market. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 12) On the other hand, PG&E, ASAP, ACEEE, and NRDC commented in writing that if DOE does retain a modified-spectrum IRL product class for the final rule, the class should feature an efficacy reduction of no greater than 10 percent from the standard-spectrum IRL efficacy requirements so that manufacturers cannot produce modified- spectrum IRL using technologies that are cheaper than technologies that would be needed to produced a standard-spectrum IRL of the same efficacy level, creating a loophole. (PG&E, ASAP, NRDC, No. 59 at p. 1- 2; NRDC, No. 82 at pp. 2, 4-5; ACEEE, No. 76 at p. 5) DOE generally does not believe that a modified-spectrum IRL product class will be utilized by manufacturers as a loophole that ultimately undermines energy savings. This is because DOE expects that designers of modified- spectrum IRL will likely utilize the same design options featured in standard-spectrum IRL that meet a particular efficacy requirement (such as improved HIR technologies at EL4). Thus, in response to the comments of EEI, PG&E, ASAP, and NRDC, DOE expects modified- [[Page 34106]] spectrum IRL to have a similar cost as standard-spectrum IRL that comply with standards, minimizing migration to modified-spectrum IRL on a first-cost basis. In addition, modified-spectrum IRL are of lower lumen output than standard-spectrum IRL that otherwise have the same characteristics (particularly rated wattage) due to the subtractive filtering that is employed for spectrum modification. Consumers replacing standard-spectrum IRL with modified-spectrum IRL of the same rated wattage are likely to experience lower light levels, further discouraging migration. DOE acknowledges, however, that some manufacturers may attempt to produce modified-spectrum IRL using cheaper technologies if the efficacy reduction for modified-spectrum IRL permits this to occur. For the April 2009 NOPR, DOE analyzed two modified-spectrum IRL and found an average efficacy reduction of approximately 19 percent, in general support of NEMA's comment concerning a 20 to 25 percent efficacy reduction utilized by industry. PG&E commented, however, that DOE should analyze more than two modified-spectrum IRL in order to determine an appropriate efficacy reduction for the product class. (PG&E, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 132-133) PG&E, ASAP, and NRDC commented in writing that it tested commercially-available modified-spectrum cover glasses with a variety of commercially- available IRL burner/reflector assemblies and found that one assembly produced a MacAdam step shift of more than six MacAdam steps, which is more than necessary to meet the modified-spectrum definition requirement of a four-MacAdam-step shift. The interested parties suggested that a smaller MacAdam-step shift would enable a more- efficacious lamp that still provides modified-spectrum utility. (PG&E, ASAP, NRDC, No. 59 at p. 2) DOE supports the notion that additional information could enable a more accurate determination of the average efficacy reduction featured by modified-spectrum lamps and prevent a possible loophole. DOE also agrees that greater MacAdam-step shifts inherently reduce lamp efficacy by greater amounts, as more subtractive filtering is necessary to produce a larger shift in color point; the setting of a standard that can be met by commercially-available technologies that produce color points near the four-MacAdam-step boundary would thus preserve modified-spectrum utility on the IRL market while reducing the chance of a loophole. However, DOE was unable to find more modified-spectrum lamps on the market than those already found and utilized for the April 2009 NOPR analysis. Thus, to assess the impact of varying degrees of spectrum modification through neodymium (which DOE found to be the most common method of modifying IRL spectra) in IRL cover glasses, DOE developed a model that correlated cover glass neodymium concentration with cover glass light output reduction and MacAdam-step shift in color point. Increasing neodymium concentrations produce greater light output reduction. DOE found that a 15-percent light output reduction correlated with a MacAdam-step shift slightly greater than four steps. To validate the model, DOE then obtained five commercially-available HIR IRL capsules and then assembled reflector lamps utilizing the capsules in combination with either standard-spectrum or modified- spectrum commercially-available IRL cover glasses and reflectors. DOE then tested the lamps with the two cover glass types and determined their efficacies. The reduction in efficacy between the standard- spectrum and modified-spectrum lamps utilizing the five commercially- available HIR capsules obtained by DOE, averaged across the lamps, was approximately 16 percent. DOE believes that this value is in line with the output of the neodymium concentration model that it developed for the analysis. DOE also believes that manufacturers will be able to vary the neodymium concentration for cover glasses associated with a variety of lamp shapes such that modified-spectrum utility is preserved while standards are met. Thus, DOE is implementing a 15-percent reduction in efficacy levels for the modified-spectrum IRL product class in this final rule. While PG&E, ASAP, and NRDC mentioned that no more than a 10 percent reduction would be necessary for a modified-spectrum product class, DOE believes that this value is specific to the IRL featuring prototype (not commercially-available) technologies that these interested parties tested with a modified-spectrum cover glass. In writing, the three interested parties acknowledged that commercially-available IRL burner/ reflector assemblies tested with the same cover glass did not meet the modified-spectrum definition. (PG&E, ASAP, NRDC, Appendix 1, No. 63 at pp. 11-12) Because PG&E, ASAP, and NRDC did not indicate the filament temperature of the prototype IRL nor specify color point data, DOE could not determine the color of the IRL lumen output when operated with either the standard-spectrum or the modified-spectrum glasses. Thus, DOE has insufficient data to determine whether a 10-percent efficacy reduction could be achieved by manufacturers producing currently-available modified-spectrum lamps or if such a reduction would instead eliminate currently-available modified-spectrum lamps from the market. For this reason, DOE has chosen to use an efficacy reduction of 15 percent for the modified-spectrum IRL product class in this final rule, based on commercially-available IRL technologies. d. Small Diameter IRL In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE recognized that the size of small- diameter (PAR20) lamps vs. PAR30 and PAR38 lamps provides a specific utility to consumers (e.g. the ability to fit into smaller fixtures) but also results in an inherent efficacy reduction. Thus, DOE established a separate product class for small-diameter lamps in order to preserve the small-diameter utility in the IRL marketplace in the face of standards. 74 FR 16920, 16939 (April 13, 2009). Based on a comparison between the efficacies of commercially-available PAR20 lamps and their PAR30 and PAR38 counterparts, DOE selected an efficacy reduction factor of 12 percent vs. the large-diameter IRL product class and utilized this factor to develop the efficacy levels for the small- diameter IRL product class. DOE received a number of comments on its choice of a 12-percent efficacy reduction factor for the small-diameter IRL product class. The California Stakeholders expressed that a 12-percent factor adequately describes the observed efficacy differences due to optics between PAR20 and larger-diameter lamps; the California Stakeholders also warned DOE that the selection of a larger reduction factor would allow small- diameter IRL to meet DOE's standards using less-efficient components, undermining DOE's energy savings goals. (California Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 2, 22) NEMA and GE, on the other hand, commented that the 12- percent reduction factor is inappropriate for the product class because 75W and 50W PAR20 lamps utilize single-ended halogen burner technologies and a double-ended burner (which is more efficacious than a single-ended burner) will not fit into a PAR20 lamp, thus eliminating PAR20 lamps from the market in the face of a TSL4 or TSL5 standard. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 7, pp. 12-13; GE, No. 80 at p. 6-7; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 60-61) Philips acknowledged that a 12-percent factor describes the observed [[Page 34107]] efficacy differences between PAR20 lamps and larger-diameter lamps, but the interested party concurred with GE and NEMA concerning technical limitations that prevent double-ended burners from being installed into PAR20 lamps. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 135- 136, p. 138) NEMA also commented that the smaller envelope featured on small-diameter lamps limits heat dissipation, which would cause such lamps to run hotter and increase the susceptibility to early failure if the highest-efficacy halogen IR burners were installed. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 13) In writing, NEMA recommended that DOE employ a reduction factor of 15 percent to 25 percent from the large-diameter efficacy levels for small-diameter lamps; the range represents the range of efficacies observed across small-diameter lamps on the market (considering a variety of manufacturers). (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 4) The California Stakeholders then commented in writing that PAR20 lamps will be able to accommodate double-ended burners by utilizing bent burner leads or cover glasses with a greater bulge and thus reach TSL5, as illustrated by two sources: A Philips MR16 lamp (which has a smaller diameter than a PAR20 lamp) on the European market that features a double-ended burner and bulged cover glass, and drawings from a lighting company that show the potential for a double-ended burner with a bent lead to be fitted into a PAR20 without a bulged cover glass. (California Stakeholders, No. 63 at pp. 22-24) Based on comments, DOE acknowledges that the installation of double-ended burners into small-diameter lamps could be problematic. DOE notes that the outer dimensions of a PAR20 lamp, including the shape of the bulge, are dictated by ANSI Standard C78.21 (most recently updated in 2003). DOE notes that it is unaware of any standard dictating the inner dimensions of a PAR20 lamp, nor is DOE aware of a standard dictating the dimensions of double-ended burners. Thus, DOE believes that some technical innovations may make the installation of a double-ended burner into a PAR20 lamp feasible. Interested parties did not provide additional data to DOE indicating the efficacy impacts of bending the lead of a double-ended burner so that it can be installed into a PAR20 lamp, however; DOE also could not obtain other data addressing these impacts. Also, DOE believes that manufacturers would not be able to position a double-ended burner at the optimum position for maximum efficacy in a PAR20 lamp due to the lamp's reduced size; thus, DOE believes that a greater reduction factor than 12 percent is warranted for PAR20 lamps at EL4 and EL5 even if a double-ended burner could be fitted into a PAR20 lamp. DOE acknowledges the Philips MR16 lamp that features a double-ended burner and also acknowledges that the MR16 format is smaller than the PAR20 format. The MR16 format, however, is a low-voltage format, and low-voltage lamps have different inherent characteristics than lamps designed for line-voltage operation. DOE thus does not believe that it can make assumptions about line-voltage small-diameter lamp designs by assessing low-voltage lamps. The California Stakeholders provided information showing a prototype low-voltage lamp with integrated transformer that can meet the April 2009 NOPR level of EL5 for IRL, but this interested party did not provide details about the lifetime of the lamp or the impacts of the transformer on efficacy. (CA Stakeholders, Appendix 4, No. 63 at pp. 1-5) While DOE is aware of low-voltage PAR20 lamps utilizing integrated transformers for direct connection to line- voltage sources, DOE does not have the data required to assess the impacts of such transformers on IRL efficacy; DOE thus could not confidently develop an efficacy level based on an IRL with an integrated transformer. See section VI.B.2.c for a further discussion of the integrated-transformer IRL design option. Because DOE cannot assess the effects of bent burner leads on lamp efficacy, acknowledges that double-ended burners cannot be optimally positioned in PAR20 lamps, cannot make design assumptions for line-voltage lamps based on low-voltage lamps, and cannot assess the impacts of an integrated transformer on lamp efficacy, DOE is revising its PAR20 EL4 and EL5 efficacy requirements in this final rule so that PAR20 lamps will not require double-ended burners to meet a standard established at EL4 or EL5. In order to determine the efficacy reduction that would result from using a single-ended burner instead of a double-ended burner in a lamp, DOE obtained a commercially-available single-ended HIR capsule and measured the location and dimensions of the lead wire inside of the capsule, which prevents a certain amount of energy from reaching the capsule wall and being reflected back to the capsule filament. (A double-ended burner features a lead wire outside of the capsule, where it does not interfere with the reflectance of energy from the capsule wall back to the capsule filament.) DOE then created a model to determine the efficacy impacts of the lead wire's presence inside of the capsule. DOE also simulated manufacturing variability by modeling the effects of changing the capsule dimensions and lead wire positioning. With the resulting data from the model, DOE determined the reduction in efficacy that results from the presence of the lead wire inside of a single-ended HIR capsule in comparison with a double-ended capsule, which features an external lead wire. This reduction was determined to be approximately 3.5 percent. For EL4 and EL5, DOE is thus changing the reduction factor for small-diameter lamps from the April 2009 NOPR value of 12 percent to the value of 15.5 percent for this final rule. This is within the reduction factor range proposed by NEMA for small-diameter IRL. (NEMA, No. 81 at p. 4) The small-diameter IRL reduction factors in the April 2009 NOPR and in this final rule are shown in Table V.3. 74 FR 16920, 16950 (April 13, 2009). Table V.3--Small-Diameter IRL Reduction Factors in the April 2009 NOPR and in This Final Rule ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Efficacy level NOPR Final rule ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EL1........................................... 12% 12% EL2........................................... 12% 12% EL3........................................... 12% 12% EL4........................................... 12% 15.5% EL5........................................... 12% 15.5% ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Concerning heat dissipation, DOE acknowledges that the smaller size of a PAR20 in comparison with larger-diameter lamps limits heat dissipation, which would cause a given filament to operate at a higher temperature if simply transplanted from a larger-diameter lamp to a PAR20 lamp without any other changes. DOE notes, however, that HIR R20 lamps currently exist on the market, thus proving that high temperature-HIR technology in small-diameter lamps is technologically feasible. In addition, in its research, DOE found no ANSI standard that indicated a required seal temperature. In fact on product specifications, DOE found that commercially-available lamps have a variety of seal temperatures. In consideration of all of these factors, DOE believes that the 15.5 percent reduction for EL4 and EL5 is appropriate for small-diameter lamps. e. IRL With Rated Voltages Greater Than or Equal to 125 Volts In the April 2009 NOPR, DOE proposed that covered IRL with rated [[Page 34108]] voltages greater than or equal to 125V must be 15 percent more efficacious than covered IRL with rated voltages less than 125V. At the public meeting, DOE received numerous comments on this proposal. NEMA commented that the proposed standard for 130V would not be technically feasible to achieve; 130V IRL are less efficacious than 120V IRL so that lifetime is preserved, and the effective elimination of 130V IRL would reduce utility for certain regions of the country with line voltages near 130V (since 120V IRL operated at 130V have reduced lifetimes). (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 60-62, 66-67, 139-140) NEMA instead requested the elimination of a 130V IRL product class and the development of standards based strictly upon lamps' rated voltages. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 61-62, 67; NEMA, No. 81 at pp. 7, 24) On the other hand, EEI commented in writing on its support of higher efficacy standards for lamps with rated voltages higher than 125V, while ACEEE commented at the public meeting that many 130V IRL are used on 120V lines as longer- life lamps. (EEI, No. 39 at p. 3; ACEEE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 65-66) Philips acknowledged that 130V IRL lose 15 percent in efficacy when operated at 120V but commented that there were other ways apart from separate product classes to prevent the usage of 130V IRL on 120V lines. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at pp. 62, 139-140) DOE shares ACEEE's concern that without a more-stringent 130V IRL product class, 130V IRL that meet a particular IRL efficacy requirement will be purchased and used on 120V lines as longer-life lamps that no longer meet the efficacy requirement. While DOE agrees with NEMA's comment that 130V lamps use less power than their rated power when operated at 120V, DOE also supports NEMA's comments that 130V lamps are less efficacious than 120V lamps. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 38.4 at p. 67; NEMA, No. 81 at p. 13) Specifically, a 130V lamp with a specific rated power, rated lumen output, efficacy, and rated lifetime will have lower power consumption, lower lumen output, lower efficacy, and longer lifetime when operated at 120V. By maintaining a separate product class for 130V IRL with a 15 percent increase in stringency relative to 120V IRL standards, DOE ensures that 130V IRL operated on 120V lines will be as efficacious during operation as 120V IRL that comply with standards. DOE acknowledges that designers of 130V IRL may have to make certain tradeoffs to meet the efficacy requirements, but DOE also believes that there are a number of ways to make compliant 130V IRL (such as by adjusting lamp lifetime). Therefore, DOE has kept the 130V IRL product class and its associated 15-percent stringency increase for the Final Rule. In writing, EEI also asked for clarification that the efficacy requirements shown in the April 2009 NOPR for IRL with rated voltages greater than or equal to 125V apply when the IRL are tested at 120V. (EEI, No. 39 at p. 3) In response, DOE notes that IRL must be tested for compliance according to the test procedure in section 4.3 of Appendix R to Subpart B of 10 CFR 430, which states in part that ``[l]amps shall be operated at the rated voltage.'' Thus, IRL rated at 130V should be operated at 130V during the efficacy measurement process. DOE believes that IRL operated at 130V are generally 15 percent more efficacious than when they are operated at 120V; thus, retaining a separate product class for 130V IRL, with a 15-percent increase over 120V IRL standards, allows DOE to take into account the efficacy reduction that 130V IRL will experience when operated at 120V. C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis This section describes the LCC and payback period analyses and the spreadsheet model DOE used for analyzing the economic impacts of possible standards on individual consumers. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 and appendix 8A of the TSD. DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analyses using a spreadsheet model developed in Microsoft Excel. When combined with Crystal Ball (a commercially-available software program), the LCC and PBP model generates a Monte Carlo simulation \13\ to perform the analysis by incorporating uncertainty and variability considerations. For further details on the LCC and PBP Monte Carlo simulations, see the TSD appendix 8B, in which probable ranges of LCC results are presented. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ Monte Carlo simulations model uncertainty by utilizing probability distributions instead of single values for certain inputs and variables. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The LCC analysis estimates the impact of a standard on consumers by calculating the net cost of a lamp (or lamp-and-ballast system) under a base-case scenario (in which no new energy conservation standard is in effect) and under a standards-case scenario (in which the proposed energy conservation regulation is applied). As part of the LCC and PBP analyses, DOE developed data that it used to establish product prices, sales taxes, installation costs, disposal costs, operating hours, product energy consumption, energy prices, product lifetime, and discount rates. As discussed in the April 2009 NOPR, the life-cycle cost of a particular lamp design is a function of the total installed cost (which includes manufacturer selling price, sales taxes, distribution chain mark-ups, and any installation cost), operating expenses (due to purchases of energy as well as repair and maintenance costs), product lifetime, and discount rate. 74 FR 16920, 16950 (April 13, 2009). DOE also incorporated a residual value calculation to account for any remaining lifetime of lamps (or ballasts) at the end of the analysis period. 74 FR 16920, 16950 (April 13, 2009). The residual value is an estimate of the product's value to the consumer at the end of the life- cycle cost analysis period, which embodies the assumption that a lamp system continues to function beyond the end of the analysis period. DOE calculates the residual value by linearly prorating the product's initial cost consistent with the methodology described in the Life- Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ Fuller, Sieglinde K. and Stephen R. Peterson, National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 135 (1996 Edition); Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program (Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy) (Feb. 1996). Available at: http://fire.nist.gov/ fire/firedocs/build96/PDF/b96121.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOE also calculates a payback period for each standards-case lamp or lamp-and-ballast system. The payback period is the change in total installed cost of the more-efficient product compared to the baseline product, divided by the change in annual operating cost of that product compared to the baseline product. Stated more simply, the payback period is the time period for which a consumer must operate a more- efficient product to recoup the assumed increased total installed cost (compared to the baseline product) through savings from reduced operating costs. DOE expresses this period in years. In addition, in the April 2009 NOPR and in today's final rule, DOE analyzes five types of events that would prompt a consumer to purchase a fluorescent lamp. These events account for the various economic impacts incurred by consumers depending upon the situations under which they are [[Page 34109]] purchasing a lamp., Described in detail in the April 2009 NOPR, these events are: Lamp Failure (Event I), Standards-Induced Retrofit (Event II), Ballast Failure (Event III), Ballast Retrofit (Event IV), and New Construction and Renovation (Event V). 74 FR 16920, 16958 (April 13, 2009). Although described primarily in the context of GSFL, lamp purchase events can be applied to IRL as well. However, considering that IRL are generally not used with a ballast, the only lamp purchase events applicable to IRL are lamp failure (Event I) and new construction and renovation (Event V). Table V.4 summarizes the approach and data that DOE used to derive the inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations for the April 2009 NOPR and the changes made for today's final rule. The following sections discuss the comments DOE received regarding its presentation of the LCC and PBP analyses in the April 2009 NOPR and the responses and changes DOE made to these analyses as a result. Table V.4--Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions Used in the NOPR and Final Rule LCC Analyses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inputs April 2009 NOPR Changes for the final rule ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consumer Product Price................ Applied discounts to manufacturer No change. catalog (``blue-book'') pricing in order to represent low, medium, and high prices for all lamp categories. Discounts were also applied to develop a price for ballasts. Sales Tax............................. Derived weighted-average tax values for Updated the sales tax using each Census division and four large the latest information from States from data provided by the Sales the Sales Tax Tax Clearinghouse.\2\ Clearinghouse.\3\ Updated population estimates using 2008 U.S. Census Bureau data.\4\ Installation Cost..................... Derived costs using the RS Means No change. Electrical Cost Data, 2007 \5\ to obtain average labor times for installation, as well as labor rates for electricians and helpers based on wage rates, benefits, and training costs. For GSFL, included 2.5 minutes of installation time to the new construction, major retrofit, and renovation events in the commercial and industrial sectors to capture the time needed to install luminaire disconnects. Disposal Cost......................... GSFL: Included a recycling cost of 10 No change. cents per linear foot in the commercial and industrial sectors. IRL: Not included....................... Annual Operating Hours................ Determined operating hours by Updated the regional associating building-type-specific distribution of residential operating hours data with regional buildings using the 2005 distributions of various building types Residential Energy using the 2002 U.S. Lighting Market Consumption Survey.\10\ Characterization \6\ and the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS),\7\ 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey,\8\ and 2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey.\9\ Product Energy Consumption Rate....... Determined lamp input power (or lamp-and- No change. ballast system input power for GSFL) based on published manufacturer literature. Used a linear fit of GSFL system power on several different ballasts with varying ballast factors in order to derive GSFL system power for all of the ballasts used in the analysis. Electricity Prices.................... Price: Based on EIA's 2006 Form EIA-861 Updated with EIA's 2007 Form data.\11\ EIA-861.\12\ Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 13 regions. Electricity Price Trends.............. Forecasted with EIA's Annual Energy Updated with EIA's April 2009 Outlook (AEO) 2008.\13\ AEO2009, which includes the impacts of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of February 2009.\14\ Lifetime.............................. Commercial and industrial sector ballast DOE added residential sector lifetime based on average ballast life GSFL LCC analysis scenarios of 49,054 from 2000 Ballast Rule; \15\ where a consumer preserves developed separate ballast lifetime the lamp during a fixture estimate for the residential sector replacement and installs the using measured life reports. Lamp preserved lamp on a new lifetime based on published fixture. The analysis periods manufacturer literature where for these scenarios are based available. DOE assumed a lamp operating on the full lifetime of the time of 3 hours per start. Where baseline lamp. manufacturer literature was not available, DOE derived lamp lifetimes as part of the engineering analysis. Residential GSFL: 4-foot medium bipin lamp lifetime is dependent on the fixture lifetime (i.e., for average residential lamp operating hours, the fixture reaches end of life before the lamp reaches end of life, and, thus, the lamp is retired before it fails.) Discount Rate......................... Residential: Approach based on the For the residential sector, finance cost of raising funds to included data from the 2007 purchase lamps either through the Survey of Consumer Finances financial cost of any debt incurred to and the Cost of Savings Index purchase product or the opportunity dataset covering 1984 to cost of any equity used to purchase 2008.\24\ equipment, based on the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances data \16\ for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. Commercial and industrial: Derived discount rates using the cost of capital of publicly-traded firms in the sectors that purchase lamps, based on data in the 2003 CBECS,\17\ Damodaran Online,\18\ Ibbotson's Associates,\19\ the 2007 Value Line Investment survey,\20\ Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94,\21\ 2008 State and local bond interest rates,\22\ and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.\23\ [[Page 34110]] Analysis Period....................... Commercial and industrial GSFL: Based on No change. the longest baseline lamp life in a product class divided by the annual operating hours of that lamp. Residential GSFL: Based on the useful lifetime of the baseline lamp. Lamp Purchasing Events................ Commercial and industrial sectors: DOE No change. assessed five events: lamp failure, standards-induced retrofit, ballast failure (GSFL only), ballast retrofit (GSFL only), and new construction/ renovation. Residential sector: DOE assessed three events: lamp failure, ballast failure (GSFL only), and new construction/ renovation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table Containing History of CPI-U U.S. All Items Indexes and Annual Percent Changes from 1913 to Present (Last accessed Feb. 20, 2009). Available at: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/ special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt. \2\ The four large States are New York, California, Texas, and Florida. \3\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax Rates (2009) (Last accessed Feb. 20, 2009). Available at: http://thestc.com/STrates.stm.The February 20, 2009 material from this Web site is available in Docket # EE- 2006-STD-0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. \4\ U.S. Census Bureau, Population change: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (NST-EST2008-popchg2000-2008). Last accessed February 20, 2009. Available at: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/files/NST-EST2008-popchg2000-2008.csv. \5\ R. S. Means Company, Inc., 2007 RS Means Electrical Cost Data (2007). \6\ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Final Report: U.S. Lighting Market Characterization, Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate (2002). Available at: www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/ lmc_vol1_final.pdf. \7\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey: Micro-level data, file 2 Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and Multi-building Facilities (2003). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/public_use.html. \8\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: File 1: Housing Unit Characteristic (2006). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/ publicuse2001.html. \9\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, Table 1.4: Number of Establishments by First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel) (2002). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2002/data02/shelltables.html. \10\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: File 1: Housing Unit Characteristics (2008). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse05/datafiles/RECS05file1.csv. \11\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861 for 2006 (2006). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. \12\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861 for 2007 (2007). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. \13\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030 (June 2008). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo08/index.html. \14\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook (April 2009). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/index.html. \15\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Research and Standards, Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamps Ballast Final Rule (Sept. 2000). Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/ residential/gs_fluorescent_0100_r.html. \16\ The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/scfindex.html. \17\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (2003). Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/. \18\ Damodaran Online, The Data Page: Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds, and Bills--United States (2006) (Last accessed Sept. 12, 2007). Available at: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~~adamodar. The September 12, 2007 material from this Web site is available in Docket # EE-2006-STD-0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945. \19\ Ibbotson's Associates, Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation, Valuation Edition, 2001 Yearbook (2001). \20\ Value Line, Value Line Investment Survey (2007). Available at: http://www.valueline.com.