20090 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EE–2007–BT–STD–0016] 

RIN 1904–AB50 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) and public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes 

energy conservation standards for 

various consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including fluorescent lamp ballasts 

(ballasts). EPCA also requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine if amended standards for 

ballasts are technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy, and to 

determine whether to adopt standards 

for additional ballasts not already 

covered by Federal standards. In this 

NOPR, DOE proposes amended energy 

conservation standards for those ballasts 

currently subject to standards, and new 

standards for certain ballasts not 

currently covered by standards. This 

NOPR also announces a public meeting 

to receive comment on these proposed 

standards and associated analyses and 

results. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on May 10, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

in Washington, DC. The meeting will 

also be broadcast as a webinar. See 

section 0, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than June 10, 2011. See section 0, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this NOPR for 

details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room GE–086, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. Please note that foreign 

nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures. Any foreign national 

wishing to participate in the meeting 

should advise DOE as soon as possible 

by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945 to initiate the necessary 

procedures. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Fluorescent 

Lamp Ballasts and provide docket 

number EE–2007–BT–STD–0016 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

number 1904–AB50. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: 

ballasts.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. Include 

the docket number and/or RIN in the 

subject line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy through the methods listed 

above and by e-mail to 

Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section 0 of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

framework documents, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Not all 

documents listed in the index may be 

publicly available, such as information 

that is exempt from public disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

residential/ 

fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html. This 

web page will contain a link to the 

docket for this notice on 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

web page contains simple instructions 

on how to access all documents, 

including public comments, in the 

docket. See section 0 for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit or review public comments or 

participate in the public meeting, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or e-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Tina Kaarsberg, 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) 287–1393. E-mail: 

Tina.Kaarsberg@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7796. E-mail: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

3. Compliance Date 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

for Which DOE Is Proposing Standards 

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement That DOE 

Consider Standards for Additional 

Ballasts 

2. Identification of the Additional Ballasts 

for Which DOE Proposes Standards 

3. Summary of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

to Which DOE Proposes To Extend 

Coverage 

B. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy 

Consumption Standards 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

V. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

2. Product Classes 

3. Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Approach 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20091 

1 DOE uses discount rates of 7 and 3 percent 

based on guidance from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB Circular A–4, section E, 

Continued 

2. Representative Product Classes 

3. Baseline Ballasts 

4. Selection of More Efficient Ballasts 

5. Efficiency Levels 

6. Price Analysis 

7. Results 

8. Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed 

D. Markups To Determine Product Price 

1. Distribution Channels 

2. Estimation of Markups 

3. Summary of Markups 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Use 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Energy Price Projections 

6. Replacement and Disposal Costs 

7. Product Lifetime 

8. Discount Rates 

9. Compliance Date of Standards 

10. Ballast Purchasing Events 

G. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. Annual Energy Consumption per Unit 

2. Shipments 

3. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

H. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. GRIM Analysis 

3. Discussion of Comments 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

J. Employment Impact Analysis 

K. Utility Impact Analysis 

L. Environmental Assessment 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

VI. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

3. National Impact Analysis 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

C. Proposed Standards 

1. Trial Standard Level 3 

D. Backsliding 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed 

Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VIII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.; EPCA or the 

Act), as amended, requires that any new 

or amended energy conservation 

standard DOE prescribes for certain 

products, such as fluorescent lamp 

ballasts (ballasts), 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)) Furthermore, the 

new or amended standard must result in 

a significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with 

these and other statutory provisions 

discussed in this notice, DOE proposes 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards for ballasts. The proposed 

standards are shown in Table I.1. These 

proposed standards, if adopted, would 

apply to all products listed in Table I.1 

and manufactured in, or imported into, 

the United States on or after June 30, 

2014. 

TABLE I.1—PROPOSED STANDARDS

Product class * Proposed standard ** 

Percent improvement 

over current standard 

or baseline + 

IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

4-foot MBP lamps .......................... 1.32 * Ln (total lamp arc power) + 86.11 ........................................................... 1.9 to 13.4. 

8-foot slimline lamps ......................

PS ballasts that operate: 

4-foot MBP lamps .......................... 1.79 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 83.33 ............................................................ 9.3 to 12.6. 

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ................

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ................

IS and RS ballasts that operate 8-foot 

HO lamps.

1.49 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 84.32 ............................................................ 34.7. 

PS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO 

lamps.

1.46 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 82.63 ............................................................ 32.0. 

Ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps 

in cold temperature outdoor signs.

1.49 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 81.34 ............................................................ 31.7. 

* IS = instant start; RS = rapid start; MBP = medium bipin; PS = programmed start; SO = standard output; HO = high output. 

** The proposed standards are based on an equation that is a function of the natural logarithm (ln) of the total lamp arc power operated by the 

ballast. + Range is applicable to the representative ballasts analyzed. 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

proposed standards would save a 

significant amount of energy—an 

estimated 3.7–6.3 quads of cumulative 

energy over 30 years (2014 through 

2043). This amount is equivalent to the 

annual energy use of approximately 18.5 

million to 31.5 million U.S. homes. 

The cumulative national net present 

value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the proposed standards for 

products shipped in 2014–2043, in 

2009$, ranges from $8.1 billion (at a 7- 

percent discount rate) to $24.7 billion 

(at a 3-percent discount rate).1 The NPV 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

September 17, 2003). See section IV.G for further 

information. 

2The LCC is the total consumer expense over the 

life of a product, consisting of purchase and 

installation costs plus operating costs (expenses for 

energy use, maintenance and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating 

costs to the time of purchase and sums them over 

the lifetime of the product. 

3A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. 

4 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to 

the most recent version of the Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) Reference case forecast. As noted in 

chapter 16 of the TSD, this forecast accounts for 

regulatory emissions reductions through 2008, 

including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 

FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), but not the Clean Air 

Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005)). 

Subsequent regulations, including the proposed 

CAIR replacement rule and the proposed Clean Air 

Transport Rule (75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010)), do 

not appear in the forecast. 

5 DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to 

determine the appropriate range of values used in 

evaluating the potential economic benefits of 

reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent valuation and 

reporting of Hg emissions before it once again 

monetizes Hg in its rulemakings. 

6 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in the same year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. To 

calculate the present value, DOE used discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table I.2. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the corresponding time-series of 

fixed annual payments over a 30-year period 

starting in the same year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. The fixed 

annual payment is the annualized value. Although 

DOE calculated annualized values, this does not 

imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from 

which the annualized values were determined 

would be a steady stream of payments. 

is the estimated total value of future 

operating-cost savings during the 

analysis period, minus the estimated 

increased product costs, discounted to 

2011. The industry net present value 

(INPV) is the sum of the discounted 

cash flows to the industry from the base 

year through the end of the analysis 

period (2014 to 2043). Using a real 

discount rate of 7.4 percent, DOE 

estimates that INPV for manufacturers of 

all fluorescent lamp ballasts in the base 

case ranges from $853 million to $1.24 

billion in 2009$. If DOE adopts the 

proposed standards, it expects that 

manufacturer INPV may change from a 

loss of 7.7 percent to a loss of 34.7 

percent, or approximately a loss of $95.3 

million to a loss of $296.2 million. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate, the 

NPV of consumer costs and savings 

from today’s proposed standards would 

amount to 27–119 times the total 

estimated industry losses. Using a 3- 

percent discount rate, the NPV would 

amount to 53–246 times the total 

estimated industry losses. 

The projected economic impacts of 

the proposed standards on individual 

consumers are generally positive. For 

example, the estimated average lifecycle cost (LCC) savings are 

approximately $11–$25 for 2-lamp IS 

and RS ballasts that operate common 4- 

foot T8 lamps in the commercial sector.2

When more than one baseline existed 

for a representative ballast type, DOE 

performed separate LCC analyses 

comparing replacement lamp-andballast systems to each baseline. 

Because T8 systems are generally more 

efficient than T12 systems, the 

incremental energy savings in a T8 

baseline case are considerably lower 

than when comparing the same 

efficiency levels to a T12 baseline. It 

was only in these dual-baseline (i.e., 

T12 and T8) cases that DOE observed 

negative economic impacts at the 

proposed standard levels, as the 

incremental energy and operating cost 

savings in the T8 baseline cases were 

not sufficient to offset the increased 

prices of more efficient replacements. 

In addition, the proposed standards 

would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy saved is in the form 

of electricity, and DOE expects the 

energy savings from the proposed 

standards to eliminate the need for 

approximately 4.37–7.22 gigawatts (GW) 

of generating capacity by 2043. The 

savings would result in cumulative 

(undiscounted) greenhouse gas emission 

reductions of approximately 40–121 

million metric tons (MMt) 3 of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) between 2014 and 2043. 

During this period, the proposed 

standards would result in undiscounted 

emissions reductions of approximately 

32–44 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and 0.59–1.67 tons of mercury 

(Hg).4 DOE estimates the net present 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reduction is between $0.18 and $6.67 

billion, expressed in 2009$ and 

discounted to 2011, based on a range of 

discount rates discussed in section 0. 

DOE also estimates the net present 

monetary value of the NOX emissions 

reduction, expressed in 2009$ and 

discounted to 2011, is between $19 and 

$35 million at a 7-percent discount rate, 

and between $42 and $65 million at a 

3-percent discount rate.5

The benefits and costs of today’s 

proposed standards, for products sold in 

2014–2043, can also be expressed in 

terms of annualized values. The 

annualized monetary values shown in 

Table I.2 are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value, 

expressed in 2009$, of the benefits from 

consumer operation of products that 

meet the proposed standards (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from 

using less energy, minus increases in 

equipment purchase and installation 

costs, which is another way of 

representing consumer NPV), and (2) 

the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.6

The value of the CO2 reductions, 

otherwise known as the Social Cost of 

Carbon (SCC), is calculated using a 

range of values per metric ton of CO2

developed by a recent interagency 

process. The monetary costs and 

benefits of emissions reductions are 

reported in 2009$ to permit 

comparisons with the other costs and 

benefits in the same dollar units. The 

derivation of the SCC values is 

discussed in section 0. 

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 emission 

reductions provides a useful 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use quite different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

ballasts shipped between 2014 and 

2043. The SCC values, on the other 

hand, reflect the present value of all 

future climate-related impacts resulting 

from the emission of one ton of CO2 in 

each year. These impacts go well 

beyond 2100. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate and 

the SCC value of $21.40/ton in 2010 (in 

2007$), which was derived using a 3- 

percent discount rate (see note below 

Table I.2), the cost of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule is $276 

million–437 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

annualized benefits are $931 million– 

1,359 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $44 million– 

111 million in CO2 reductions, and $1.6 

million–2.8 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $701 million–1,036 million 

per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate 

and the SCC value of $21.40/ton in 2010 

(in 2007$), the cost of the standards 

proposed in today’s rule is $311 

million–539 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $1,153 million–1,800 

million per year in reduced operating 

costs, $44 million–111 million in CO2

reductions, and $2.1 million–3.3 million 

in reduced NOX emissions. At a 3- 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20093 

7This part was titled Part B in EPCA, but was 

subsequently codified as Part A in the U.S. Code for 

editorial reasons. 

8Ballasts are used primarily in the commercial 

and industrial sectors. While Part B includes a 

range of consumer products that are used primarily 

in the residential sector, such as refrigerators, 

dishwashers, and clothes washers, Part B also 

includes several products used primarily in the 

commercial sector, including fluorescent lamp 

ballasts. (Part C of Title III—Certain Industrial 

Equipment, codified in the U.S. Code as Part A–1, 

concerns products used primarily in the 

commercial and industrial sectors, such as electric 

motors and pumps, commercial refrigeration 

equipment, and packaged terminal air conditioners 

and heat pumps.) 

percent discount rate, the net benefit amounts to $887 million–1,376 million 

per year. 

TABLE I.2—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR BALLASTS FOR 2014–2043 ANALYSIS

PERIOD

Discount rate 

Monetized 

million 2009$/year 

Primary estimate 

Low estimate (emerging 

technologies, roll-up 

scenario) 

High estimate (existing 

technologies, shift 

scenario) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ........ 7% ....................................

3% ....................................

1,145 ................................

1,477 ................................

931 ...................................

1,153 ................................

1,359. 

1,800. 

CO2 Reduction at $4.7/t * ...... 5% .................................... 20 ..................................... 12 ..................................... 28. 

CO2 Reduction at $21.4/t * .... 3% .................................... 78 ..................................... 44 ..................................... 111. 

CO2 Reduction at $35.1/t * .... 2.5% ................................. 122 ................................... 68 ..................................... 177. 

CO2 Reduction at $64.9/t * .... 3% .................................... 237 ................................... 134 ................................... 340. 

NOX Reduction at $2,519/t * 7% ....................................

3% ....................................

2.2 ....................................

2.7 ....................................

1.6 ....................................

2.1 ....................................

2.8. 

3.3. 

Total (Operating Cost Savings, CO2 Reduction and 

NOx Reduction)†.

7% plus CO2 range ..........

7% ....................................

3% ....................................

3% plus CO2 range ..........

1,167 to 1,384 ..................

1,225 ................................

1,557 ................................

1,499 to 1,716 ..................

945 to 1,067 .....................

977 ...................................

1,199 ................................

1,167 to 1,289 ..................

1,389 to 1,702. 

1,473. 

1,915. 

1,831 to 2,144. 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ... 7% ....................................

3% ....................................

357 ...................................

425 ...................................

276 ...................................

311 ...................................

437. 

539. 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Total (Operating Cost Savings, CO2 Reduction and 

NOx Reduction, Minus Incremental Product Costs)†.

7% plus CO2 range ..........

7% ....................................

3% ....................................

3% plus CO2 range ..........

810 to 1,027 .....................

868 ...................................

1,131 ................................

1,074 to 1,291 ..................

669 to 790 ........................

701 ...................................

887 ...................................

856 to 977 ........................

952 to 1,264. 

1,036. 

1,376. 

1,292 to 1,604. 

* The CO2 values represent global monetized values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.7, $21.4, and $35.1 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount 

rates, respectively. The value of $64.9 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. 

The value for NOx (in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is 

$21.4/ton in 2010 (in 2007$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOx benefits are 

calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values with the $4.7/ton value at the low end, 

and the $64.9/ton value at the high end. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

the proposed standards represent the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. DOE further 

notes that products achieving these 

standard levels are already 

commercially available for all product 

classes covered by today’s proposal. 

Ballasts are commercially available at 

the proposed standard level for all 

representative ballast types. Based on 

the analyses described above, DOE 

found the benefits of the proposed 

standards to the nation (energy savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefits, 

consumer LCC savings, and emission 

reductions) outweigh the burdens (loss 

of INPV for manufacturers and LCC 

increases for some consumers). 

Based on consideration of the public 

comments DOE receives in response to 

this notice and related information 

collected and analyzed during the 

course of this rulemaking effort, DOE 

may adopt energy use levels presented 

in this notice that are either higher or 

lower than the proposed standards, or 

some combination of level(s) that 

incorporate the proposed standards in 

part. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s proposal as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts. 

A. Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part B of Title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other than 

Automobiles.7 EPCA covers consumer 

products and certain commercial 

equipment (referred to collectively 

hereafter as ‘‘covered products’’), 

including the types of fluorescent lamp 

ballasts that are the subject of this 

rulemaking.8 (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(13)) 

EPCA prescribes energy conservation 

standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20094 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6295(g)(5), (6), and (8)), and also 

requires that DOE conduct two 

rulemakings to determine (1) whether 

EPCA’s original standards for ballasts in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(5) should be 

amended, including whether such 

standards should apply to the ballasts in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(6) and other 

fluorescent ballasts; and (2) whether the 

standards then in effect for ballasts 

should be amended, including whether 

such standards should apply to 

additional ballasts. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(7)(A)–(B)) As explained in 

further detail in section II.C, 

‘‘Background,’’ this rulemaking is the 

second of the two required rulemakings. 

In this rulemaking, DOE considers 

whether to amend the existing standards 

for ballasts, including those in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(8), and also considers standards 

for additional ballasts. See section 0 for 

a discussion of additional fluorescent 

lamp ballasts DOE considered for 

coverage. In addition, under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m), DOE must periodically review 

established energy conservation 

standards for covered products. 

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is primarily 

responsible for labeling, and DOE 

implements the remainder of the 

program. EPCA authorizes DOE, subject 

to certain criteria and conditions, to 

develop test procedures to measure the 

energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of each 

covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 

Manufacturers of covered products must 

use the prescribed DOE test procedure 

as the basis for certifying to DOE that 

their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA and 

when making representations to the 

public regarding the energy use or 

efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE 

must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with standards adopted under EPCA. Id. 

The test procedures for ballasts 

currently appear at title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, 

subpart B, appendix Q. 

EPCA provides criteria for prescribing 

amended standards for covered 

products. As indicated above, any 

amended standard for a covered product 

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)) Furthermore, 

EPCA precludes DOE from adopting any 

standard that would not result in a 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may 

not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain 

products, including ballasts, if no test 

procedure has been established for the 

product, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the proposed standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) 

EPCA also provides that, in determining 

whether a proposed standard is 

economically justified, DOE must 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must do so after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and 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 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy, or as applicable, water, 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 and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

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

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents the Secretary from prescribing 

any amended standard that either 

increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, 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 covered product 

type (or class) of 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)) 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard 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 savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii). 

EPCA requires DOE to specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to a type or class of 

products for any group of covered 

products that have the same function or 

intended use if DOE determines that 

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. (42 U.S.C. 

6294(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE 

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 the Act. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Finally, EPCA requires that energy 

conservation standards address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)) Specifically, when DOE 

adopts a standard for a covered product 

after July 1, 2010, DOE must, if justified 

by the criteria for adoption of standards 

in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

into the standard, if feasible. If 

incorporation is not feasible, DOE must 

adopt a separate standard for such 

energy use for that product, if justified 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE has determined 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20095 

that ballasts do not operate in an ‘‘off 

mode’’ as defined by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6291(gg)(1)(A)(ii)), and that the only 

ballasts that consume power in a 

‘‘standby mode’’ as defined by EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6291(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) are those that 

incorporate an electronic circuit 

enabling the ballast to communicate 

with and be part of a lighting control 

system. DOE’s current test procedures 

for ballasts address such standby mode 

energy use. 74 FR 54455 (October 22, 

2009); 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix Q, section 3.5. In this 

rulemaking, as discussed in section 0, 

DOE has not proposed amended 

standards for dimming ballasts currently 

covered by standards (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(8)) because DOE has not found 

any of these covered products in the 

marketplace. As the scope of coverage 

does not include any additional 

dimming ballasts, this NOPR does not 

include energy conservation standards 

for standby mode energy use. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for ballasts are 

set forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2 

below. The standards in Table II.1 were 

adopted in a final rule published on 

September 19, 2000, 65 FR 56739, 

which completed the first of the two 

rulemakings required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(7) to consider amending the 

standards for ballasts (hereafter referred 

to as the 2000 Ballast Rule). The 

standards in Table II.2 were established 

by amendments to EPCA in the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), 

Public Law 109–58. 

TABLE II.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FROM THE 2000 BALLAST RULE

Application for operation of Ballast input 

voltage 

Total nominal 

lamp watts 

Ballast efficacy 

factor 

One F40T12 lamp ........................................................................................................................ 120 40 2.29 

277 40 2.29 

Two F40T12 lamps ...................................................................................................................... 120 80 1.17 

277 80 1.17 

Two F96T12 lamps ...................................................................................................................... 120 150 0.63 

277 150 0.63 

Two F96T12HO lamps ................................................................................................................ 120 220 0.39 

277 220 0.39 

10 CFR 430.32(m)(3). 

TABLE II.2—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FROM EPACT 2005 

Application for operation of Ballast input 

voltage 

Total nominal 

lamp watts 

Ballast efficacy 

factor 

One F34T12 lamp ........................................................................................................................ 120/277 34 2.61 

Two F34T12 lamps ...................................................................................................................... 120/277 68 1.35 

Two F96T12/ES lamps ................................................................................................................ 120/277 120 0.77 

Two F96T12/HO/ES lamps .......................................................................................................... 120/277 190 0.42 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(8)(A); 10 CFR 

430.32(m)(5)) 

In summary, as reflected in the 

foregoing two tables, the ballasts 

currently regulated under EPCA consist 

of ballasts that are designed to operate: 

• One and two nominally 40-watt (W) 

and 34W 4-foot T12 medium bipin 

(MBP) lamps (F40T12 and F34T12); 

• Two nominally 75W and 60W 

8-foot T12 single-pin (SP) slimline 

lamps (F96T12 and F96T12/ES); and 

• Two nominally 110W and 95W 

8-foot T12 recessed double contact high 

output lamps (F96T12 and F96T12/ES) 

at nominal input voltages of 120 or 277 

volts (V) with an input current 

frequency of 60 hertz (Hz). 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

EPCA establishes energy conservation 

standards for certain ballasts and 

requires that DOE conduct two cycles of 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend the standards for ballasts, 

including whether to adopt standards 

for additional ballasts. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(5)–(8)) As indicated above, DOE 

completed the first of these rulemaking 

cycles in the 2000 Ballast Rule. 65 FR 

56740 (Sept. 19, 2000). In this 

rulemaking, the second rulemaking 

cycle required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7), 

DOE considers whether to amend the 

existing standards for ballasts and 

whether to adopt standards for 

additional ballasts. 

DOE initiated this rulemaking on 

January 14, 2008 by publishing in the 

Federal Register a notice announcing 

the availability of the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Framework Document for Fluorescent 

Lamp Ballasts.’’ (A PDF of the 

framework document is available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

ballast_ 

framework_011408.pdf. In this notice, 

DOE also announced a public meeting 

on the framework document and 

requested public comment on the 

matters raised in the document. 73 FR 

3653 (Jan. 22, 2008). The framework 

document described the procedural and 

analytical approaches that DOE 

anticipated using to evaluate energy 

conservation standards for the ballasts, 

and identified various issues to be 

resolved in conducting this rulemaking. 

DOE held the public meeting on 

February 6, 2008, where it: presented 

the contents of the framework 

document; described the analyses it 

planned to conduct during the 

rulemaking; sought comments from 

interested parties on these subjects; and 

in general, sought to inform interested 

parties about, and facilitate their 

involvement in, the rulemaking. 

Interested parties at the public meeting 

discussed the active mode test 

procedure and several major analyses 

related to this rulemaking. At the 

meeting and during the period for 

commenting on the framework 

document, DOE received many 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20096 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

9Under the consolidated Consent Decree in New 

York v. Bodman, No. 05 Civ. 7807 (S.D.N.Y. filed 

Sept. 7, 2005) and Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. Bodman, No. 05 Civ. 7808 (S.D.N.Y. filed 

Sept. 7, 2005) the U.S. Department of Energy is 

required to publish a final rule amending energy 

conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts 

no later than June 30, 2011. 

comments that helped identify and 

resolve issues involved in this 

rulemaking. 

DOE then gathered additional 

information and performed preliminary 

analyses to help develop potential 

energy conservation standards for 

ballasts. DOE published in the Federal 

Register an announcement of the 

availability of the preliminary technical 

support document (the preliminary 

TSD) and of another public meeting to 

discuss and receive comments on the 

following matters: the product classes 

DOE planned to analyze; the analytical 

framework, models, and tools that DOE 

was using to evaluate standards; the 

results of the preliminary analyses 

performed by DOE; and potential 

standard levels that DOE could 

consider. 75 FR 14319 (March 24, 2010) 

(the March 2010 notice). DOE also 

invited written comments on these 

subjects. Id. The preliminary TSD is 

available at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

fluorescent_ 

lamp_ballasts_ecs_prelim_tsd.html. In 

the notice, DOE requested comment on 

other relevant issues that would affect 

energy conservation standards for 

ballasts or that DOE should address in 

this notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR). Id. at 14322. 

The preliminary TSD provided an 

overview of the activities DOE 

undertook in developing standards for 

ballasts, and discussed the comments 

DOE received in response to the 

framework document. It also described 

the analytical framework that DOE uses 

in this rulemaking, including a 

description of the methodology, the 

analytical tools, and the relationships 

among the various analyses that are part 

of the rulemaking. The preliminary TSD 

presented and described in detail each 

analysis DOE performed up to that 

point, including descriptions of inputs, 

sources, methodologies, and results. 

These analyses were as follows: 

• A market and technology 

assessment addressed the scope of this 

rulemaking, identified the potential 

product classes for ballasts, 

characterized the markets for these 

products, and reviewed techniques and 

approaches for improving their 

efficiency; 

• A screening analysis reviewed 

technology options to improve the 

efficiency of ballasts, and weighed these 

options against DOE’s four prescribed 

screening criteria; 

• An engineering analysis estimated 

the manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) 

associated with more energy-efficient 

ballasts; 

• An energy use analysis estimated 

the annual energy use of ballasts; 

• A markups analysis converted 

estimated MSPs derived from the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices; 

• A life-cycle cost analysis calculated, 

for individual consumers, the 

discounted savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the product, compared to any increase 

in installed costs likely to result directly 

from the imposition of a given standard; 

• A payback period (PBP) analysis 

estimated the amount of time it takes 

individual consumers to recover the 

higher purchase expense of more energy 

efficient products through lower 

operating costs; 

• A shipments analysis estimated 

shipments of ballasts over the time 

period examined in the analysis, which 

was used in performing the national 

impact analysis (NIA); 

• A national impact analysis assessed 

the national energy savings, and the 

national net present value of total 

consumer costs and savings, expected to 

result from specific, potential energy 

conservation standards for ballasts; and 

• A preliminary manufacturer impact 

analysis took the initial steps in 

evaluating the effects on manufacturers 

of new efficiency standards. 

The public meeting announced in the 

March 2010 notice took place on April 

26, 2010. At this meeting, DOE 

presented the methodologies and results 

of the analyses set forth in the 

preliminary TSD. Interested parties 

discussed the following major issues at 

the public meeting: the pros and cons of 

various efficiency metrics; how test 

procedure variation might affect 

efficiency measurements; special 

requirements for electromagnetic 

interference (EMI)-sensitive 

environments; product class divisions; 

MSPs and overall pricing methodology; 

markups; the maximum technologically 

feasible ballast efficiency; cumulative 

regulatory burden; and shipments. The 

comments received since publication of 

the March 2010 notice, including those 

received at the April 2010 public 

meeting, have contributed to DOE’s 

proposed resolution of the issues in this 

rulemaking. This NOPR responds to the 

issues raised in the comments received. 

Since the April 2010 public meeting, 

additional changes have been proposed 

to the active mode test procedure that 

have directly impacted this rulemaking. 

After reviewing comments submitted in 

response to the active mode test 

procedure NOPR (75 FR 14287, March 

24, 2010) and conducting additional 

research, DOE issued a supplemental 

NOPR (SNOPR) proposing a lamp-based 

ballast efficiency metric instead of the 

resistor-based metric proposed in the 

NOPR. 75 FR 71570 (November 24, 

2010). DOE believes the lamp-based 

metric more accurately assesses the reallife performance of a ballast. In the 

SNOPR, DOE sought additional 

comment on this approach. This NOPR 

evaluates standards for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts in terms of the new metric 

proposed in the active mode test 

procedure SNOPR. Please refer to 

section 0 for more details. 

3. Compliance Date 

EPCA contains specific guidelines 

regarding the compliance date for any 

standards amended by this rulemaking. 

EPCA requires DOE to determine 

whether to amend the standards in 

effect for fluorescent lamp ballasts and 

whether any amended standards should 

apply to additional ballasts. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(7)(B)). As stated above, the 

existing standards for ballasts are the 

standards established in the 2000 

Ballast Rule and the standards 

established through the EPCA 

amendments to EPACT 2005. EPCA 

specifies that any amended standards 

established in this rulemaking shall 

apply to products manufactured after a 

date that is five years after—(i) The 

effective date of the previous 

amendment; or (ii) if the previous final 

rule did not amend the standards, the 

earliest date by which a previous 

amendment could have been effective; 

except that in no case may any amended 

standard apply to products 

manufactured within three years after 

publication of the final rule establishing 

such amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(7)(C)). DOE is required by 

consent decree to publish any amended 

standards for ballasts by June 30, 2011.9

As a result, and in compliance with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(C), DOE expects the 

compliance date to be 3 years after the 

publication of any final amended 

standards, by June 30, 2014. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20097 

10 Documents for the 2009 Lamps Rule are 

available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

incandescent_lamps.html. 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional Fluorescent Lamp 

Ballasts for Which DOE Is Proposing 

Standards 

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement That 

DOE Consider Standards for Additional 

Ballasts 

As discussed above, amendments to 

EPCA established energy conservation 

standards for certain fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(5), (6), and 

(8)) and directed DOE to conduct two 

rulemakings to consider amending the 

standards. The first amendment was 

completed with the publication of the 

2000 Ballast Rule. This rulemaking 

fulfills the statutory requirement to 

determine whether to amend standards 

a second time. EPCA specifically directs 

DOE, in this second amendment, to 

determine whether to amend the 

standards in effect for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts and whether such standards 

should be amended so that they would 

be applicable to additional fluorescent 

lamp ballasts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(B)) 

The preliminary TSD notes that a 

wide variety of fluorescent lamp ballasts 

are not currently covered by energy 

conservation standards, and they are 

potential candidates for coverage under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7). DOE encountered 

similar circumstances in a recent 

rulemaking that amended standards for 

general service fluorescent and 

incandescent reflector lamps (hereafter 

referred to as the 2009 Lamps Rule).10

74 FR 34080, 34087–8 (July 14, 2009). 

In that rule, DOE was also directed by 

EPCA to consider expanding its scope of 

coverage to include additional products: 

General service fluorescent lamps 

(GSFL). EPCA defines general service 

fluorescent lamps as fluorescent lamps 

that can satisfy the majority of 

fluorescent lamp applications and that 

are not designed and marketed for 

certain specified, non-general lighting 

applications. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) As 

such, the term ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ is defined by 

reference to the term ‘‘fluorescent lamp,’’ 

which EPCA defines 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 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)) To construe ‘‘general 

service fluorescent lamp’’ in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(5) as limited by those types of 

fluorescent lamps 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. 

Therefore, DOE concluded that the 

term ‘‘additional general service 

fluorescent lamps’’ in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(5) allows DOE to set standards 

for GSFL other than the four 

enumerated lamp types specified in the 

EPCA definition of ‘‘fluorescent lamp.’’ 

As a result, the 2009 Lamps Rule 

defined ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ to include: 

(1) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly 

referred to as 4-foot medium bipin lamps) 

with medium bipin bases of nominal overall 

length of 48 inches and rated wattage of 25 

or more; 

(2) Any U-shaped lamp (commonly 

referred to as 2-foot U-shaped lamps) with 

medium bipin bases of nominal overall 

length between 22 and 25 inches and rated 

wattage of 25 or more; 

(3) Any rapid start lamp (commonly 

referred to as 8-foot high output lamps) with 

recessed double contact bases of nominal 

overall length of 96 inches; 

(4) Any instant start lamp (commonly 

referred to as 8-foot slimline lamps) with 

single pin bases of nominal overall length of 

96 inches and rated wattage of 52 or more; 

(5) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly 

referred to as 4-foot miniature bipin standard 

output lamps) with miniature bipin bases of 

nominal overall length between 45 and 48 

inches and rated wattage of 26 or more; and 

(6) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly 

referred to 4-foot miniature bipin high output 

lamps) with miniature bipin bases of nominal 

overall length between 45 and 48 inches and 

rated wattage of 49 or more. 

10 CFR 430.2 

In this rulemaking, DOE is directed to 

consider whether any amended 

standard should be applicable to 

additional fluorescent lamp ballasts. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(B)) EPCA defines a 

‘‘fluorescent lamp ballast’’ as ‘‘a device 

which is used to start and operate 

fluorescent lamps by providing a 

starting voltage and current and limiting 

the current during normal operation.’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(29)(A)) For this rule, 

DOE proposes to reference the 

definition of fluorescent lamp adopted 

by the 2009 Lamps Rule. This definition 

allows DOE to consider expanding 

coverage to include additional 

fluorescent lamp ballasts while not 

eliminating coverage of any ballasts for 

which standards already exist. 

2. Identification of the Additional 

Ballasts for Which DOE Proposes 

Standards 

In considering whether to amend the 

standards in effect for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts so that they apply to 

‘‘additional’’ fluorescent lamp ballasts as 

specified in section 325(g)(7)(B) of 

EPCA, DOE will consider all fluorescent 

lamp ballasts (for which standards are 

not already prescribed) that operate 

fluorescent lamps, as defined in 10 CFR 

430.2. For each additional fluorescent 

lamp ballast, DOE considers potential 

energy savings, technological feasibility 

and economic justification when 

determining whether to include them in 

the scope of coverage. In its analyses, 

DOE assessed the potential energy 

savings from market share estimates, 

potential ballast designs that improve 

efficiency, and other relevant factors. 

For market share estimates, DOE used 

both quantitative shipment data and 

information obtained during 

manufacturer interviews. DOE also 

assessed the potential to achieve energy 

savings in certain ballasts by 

considering whether those ballasts 

could serve as potential substitutes for 

other regulated ballasts. 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

considered extending the scope of 

coverage to several additional ballast 

types including those that operate: 

Additional numbers and diameters of 4- 

foot MBP lamps, additional numbers 

and diameters of 8-foot high output 

(HO) lamps, additional numbers and 

diameters of 8-foot slimline lamps, 4- 

foot miniature bipin (miniBP) standard 

output (SO) lamps, 4-foot miniBP high 

output lamps, and 8-foot high output 

cold temperature lamps commonly used 

in outdoor signs. DOE also considered 

whether to extend coverage to dimming 

ballasts, but determined that those 

ballasts represent a very small portion of 

the overall market and are unlikely to be 

substituted for covered products due to 

their high first cost. The California 

investor-owned utilities (the California 

Utilities), and the Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC) agreed with the 

expanded scope of coverage presented 

in the preliminary TSD. In particular, 

the California Utilities commented that 

there is a wide range of efficiencies 

among the products included in the 

proposed coverage and that costeffective standards will lead to 

significant energy savings. The National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) generally agreed with the 

expanded scope of coverage, but 

requested a specific exemption for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20098 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

11A notation in the form ‘‘NEMA, No. 29 at p. 2’’ 

identifies a written comment that DOE has received 

and has included in the docket of this rulemaking. 

This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) 

Submitted by NEMA; (2) in document number 29 

of the docket, and (3) on page 2 of that document. 

12When DOE refers to an electronic ballast 

throughout this document, it is referring to a high 

frequency ballast as defined by as defined in ANSI 

C82.13–2002. Similarly, when DOE refers to a 

magnetic ballast, it is referring to a low frequency 

ballast as defined by the same ANSI standard. 

magnetic ballasts that operate in EMIsensitive applications. (NEMA, No. 29 at 

p. 2; California Utilities, No. 30 at p. 1; 

NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 2) 11 The 

sections below discuss the comments 

received in more detail. 

a. Dimming Ballasts 

Historically, energy conservation 

standards have exempted ballasts 

designed for dimming to 50 percent or 

less of their maximum output. (10 CFR 

430.32(m)(4, 6–7)) However, in 2010, 

exemptions included in EPACT 2005 

expired for dimming ballasts that 

operate certain reduced-wattage lamps. 

(10 CFR 430.32(m)(6–7)) DOE research 

has revealed no dimming ballasts 

currently on the market that operate 

these lamps because the gas 

composition of reduced-wattage lamps 

makes them undesirable for use in 

dimming applications. Additionally, 

dimming ballasts employ cathode 

heating to facilitate dimming and 

therefore operate lamps with two pins. 

Because 8-foot slimline lamps have only 

a single pin, these lamps are not suitable 

for use with dimming ballasts. Based on 

data from the 2005 U.S. Census and 

interviews with manufacturers, DOE 

determined in the preliminary TSD that 

dimming ballasts of all types had less 

than 1 percent market share. DOE also 

concluded that these ballasts are already 

used in energy-saving systems. After 

examining the potential for substitution 

from other ballast types, DOE believed 

there was little risk of dimming ballasts 

becoming a substitute for other covered 

ballast types. Dimming ballasts are more 

expensive than comparable fixed-lightoutput ballasts. Moreover, dimming 

ballasts require specialized control 

systems, resulting in additional up-front 

cost. For all of these reasons, DOE did 

not consider expanding coverage of 

dimming ballasts in the preliminary 

TSD. 

NEMA, the California Utilities, and 

the NEEA and NPCC agreed with the 

exclusion of additional dimming 

ballasts. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 2; 

California Utilities, No. 30 at p. 1; NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 3) Philips and 

Osram Sylvania emphasized that 

dimming ballasts are part of highefficiency systems that realize greater 

energy savings than fixed-light-output 

systems. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 122–123; OSI, 

No. 34, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

34 at pp. 124–125) The California 

Utilities and the NEEA and NPCC also 

cited the lack of an industry-standard 

test procedure as a potential barrier to 

including dimming ballasts in this 

rulemaking. NEMA concurred, stating 

that industry has not agreed on the 

appropriate dimmed level for evaluation 

and that measuring at many levels is 

burdensome. (California Utilities, No. 30 

at p. 1; NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 

3; NEMA, No. 29 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees that dimming ballasts 

have a very small market share and are 

already used in energy-saving systems. 

They are unlikely to become a substitute 

for fixed-light output ballasts due to 

their high up-front cost. The lack of an 

industry-standardized test procedure for 

newer dimming products makes it 

difficult for DOE to determine whether 

energy conservation standards for 

additional dimming ballasts are 

technologically feasible. For these 

reasons, DOE is not proposing to expand 

the coverage of dimming ballasts in this 

NOPR. However, the dimming ballasts 

that operate the four reduced-wattage 

lamp combinations described in 10 CFR 

430.32(m)(5) (EPACT 2005 standards) 

will continue to be covered by existing 

energy conservation standards. 

b. Sign Ballasts 

Current energy conservation 

standards exclude ballasts designed to 

operate two F96T12HO lamps at 

ambient temperatures of 20 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) or less and for use in an 

outdoor sign. (10 CFR 430.32(m)) In the 

preliminary TSD, DOE considered 

whether to include these ballasts in the 

scope of coverage for this rulemaking. 

DOE found that the market share of cold 

temperature sign ballasts was about 1 

percent in 2005. Despite their relatively 

small market share, the energy savings 

potential per ballast is substantial due to 

their operation of large numbers of high 

output lamps. Replacing a magnetic 

with an electronic 12 sign ballast could 

reduce energy consumption by as much 

as 25 percent to 35 percent. Given that 

sign ballasts exist at more than one level 

of efficiency, DOE has determined it is 

technologically feasible to improve the 

energy efficiency of sign ballasts. 

Preliminary results from the LCC and 

NIA analyses indicated that setting 

standards would be economically 

justified. For these reasons, DOE 

included them in the scope of coverage 

in the preliminary TSD. 

The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) and the NEEA and NPCC 

agreed with DOE’s decision to expand 

coverage to include cold temperature 

outdoor sign ballasts. Although these 

products comprise a relatively small 

percentage of overall fluorescent ballast 

shipments, the NEEA and NPCC note 

that these ballasts have much higher 

energy use compared to other covered 

ballast types due to their high system 

input power and low efficiency of 

present systems. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 121–122; 

NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 3) DOE 

received no comments suggesting that 

DOE should not include these ballasts 

in the scope of coverage for this 

rulemaking. Therefore, for the reasons 

set forth above, DOE proposes to 

include them in the scope of coverage 

for this NOPR. Cold temperature ballasts 

for outdoor signs are typically designed 

to operate a range of lamp lengths and 

numbers of lamps. Based on product 

catalogs and conversations with 

manufacturers, DOE found that a single 

sign ballast can be designed to operate 

a range of loads including HO lamps 

between 1.5 feet and 10 feet with one to 

six lamps per ballast. Because only 8- 

foot HO lamps are included in the 

definition of fluorescent lamp (10 CFR 

430.2), DOE proposes to include sign 

ballasts that can operate 8-foot HO 

lamps in the scope of coverage. 

c. T5 Ballasts 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

considered whether to expand the scope 

of coverage to include ballasts that 

operate standard output and high output 

4-foot miniBP T5 lamps. The U.S. 

Census reports that T5 HO ballasts 

comprised about 4 percent of the ballast 

market in 2005. Shipment data are 

available only for T5 high output 

ballasts, so the actual market share is 

likely larger. T5 ballast shipments have 

been steadily increasing since the 

shipments were first reported in 2002. 

Furthermore, DOE research indicates 

that T5 high output ballasts are rapidly 

taking market share from metal halide 

systems used in high-bay industrial 

applications. The shipment analysis 

confirms that T5 SO and T5 HO ballasts 

represent a significant portion of the 

market. Because higher-efficiency 

versions of some of these ballasts are 

already present in the market, DOE 

concluded that standards to increase the 

energy efficiency of these ballasts were 

technologically feasible. Based on LCC 

and NIA results in the preliminary TSD, 

coverage of T5 ballasts would be 

economically justified. For these 

reasons, DOE included T5 ballasts in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20099 

scope of coverage in the preliminary 

TSD. 

DOE did not receive any adverse 

comment to its inclusion of T5 ballasts 

in the scope of coverage for the 

preliminary TSD. Therefore, for the 

reasons stated above, DOE proposes to 

include them in the scope in this NOPR. 

DOE found that T5 ballasts and lamps 

exist in a variety of lengths and 

wattages. Although standard T5 lamps 

include wattages ranging from 14W to 

80W, and lengths ranging from 

nominally 2 feet to 6 feet, the primary 

driver of T5 ballast and lamp market 

share growth is substitution for 

currently regulated 4-foot T8 MBP 

ballasts and lamps. Therefore, DOE 

proposes to cover ballasts designed to 

operate nominally 4-foot lengths of 

standard output and high output T5 

miniBP lamps. 

d. Residential Ballasts 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

considered whether to include 

residential ballasts in the scope of 

coverage. Residential ballasts, defined 

as ballasts that have a power factor less 

than 0.9 and are designed for use only 

in residential building applications, are 

currently exempt from existing energy 

conservation standards. Only magnetic 

residential ballast shipments are 

reported in the U.S. Census. The market 

for residential magnetic ballasts held 

steady at about 7 percent between 1995 

and 2002, and then decreased to about 

1.5 percent in 2005. In the preliminary 

TSD, DOE stated its belief that the 2005 

market share and total shipments of 

residential ballasts was much higher 

than the 1.5 percent reported for 

magnetic residential ballasts in the U.S. 

census. First, many residential ballasts 

are manufactured overseas by foreign 

companies that do not share shipment 

data with the U.S. Census. Second, 

electronic ballasts are a common option 

for residential fluorescent lighting 

fixtures, but they were not reported in 

the Census data. Because of these 

omissions, DOE believes residential 

ballasts represent a more sizeable 

portion of the overall ballast market and 

represent significant potential energy 

savings. 

DOE also found that residential 

ballasts exist at a range of efficiencies. 

They can be magnetic or electronic and 

exist for both T8 and T12 lamps. 

Therefore, DOE believed standards to 

increase the energy efficiency of 

residential ballasts were technologically 

feasible. Preliminary results in the LCC 

and NIA indicated that standards for 

residential ballasts were economically 

justified. For these reasons, DOE 

included residential ballasts in the 

scope of coverage in the preliminary 

TSD. 

ASAP and the NEEA and NPCC 

agreed with DOE’s decision to expand 

coverage to include residential ballasts. 

The NEEA and NPCC noted that the 

residential ballast market is expected to 

grow substantially as residential lighting 

energy codes become more stringent. 

They noted that California, Oregon, and 

Washington have codes that require 

fluorescent or higher-efficacy systems. 

Similarly, the 2009 International Energy 

Conservation Code requires that 50 

percent of all permanently installed 

lighting in residences have a minimum 

efficacy of 45 lumens per watt. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

121–122; NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at pp. 

2–3) DOE did not receive any adverse 

comments regarding coverage of 

residential ballasts. Therefore, for the 

reasons stated above, DOE proposes to 

include residential ballasts that operate 

4-foot medium bipin or 2-foot U-shaped 

lamps in the scope of coverage for this 

NOPR. 

e. Ballasts That Operate T8 4-Foot MBP 

and 2-Foot U-Shaped Lamps 

Existing energy conservation 

standards do not apply to ballasts that 

operate T8 lamps. In the preliminary 

TSD, DOE considered whether to extend 

coverage to these types of ballasts. 

Ballasts that operate 4-foot T8 MBP and 

2-foot T8 U-shaped lamps exhibit a 

range of efficiencies, indicating that 

standards to increase the energy 

efficiency of these ballasts are 

technologically feasible. According to 

the U.S. Census, the market share of 4- 

foot T8 MBP and 2-foot T8 U-shaped 

ballasts represented 55 percent of 

shipments in 2005. In addition, due to 

existing energy conservation standards 

promulgated for T12 ballasts, shipments 

of T8 ballasts have been increasing. T8 

ballasts are being purchased and 

installed in applications previously 

popular for T12 systems. Thus, there is 

potential for significant energy savings 

by regulating the 4-foot T8 ballast 

market. Furthermore, preliminary 

results in the LCC and NIA 

demonstrated the potential for 

significant economic savings, indicating 

that standards for these ballasts would 

be economically justified. For these 

reasons, DOE included ballasts that 

operate 4-foot T8 MBP and 2-foot T8 Ushaped lamps in the scope of coverage 

in the preliminary TSD. 

DOE did not receive any adverse 

comments regarding coverage of these 

ballasts. Therefore, for the reasons 

stated above, DOE proposes to include 

ballasts that operate 4-foot T8 MBP and 

2-foot T8 U-shaped lamps in the scope 

of coverage for this NOPR. 

f. Ballasts That Operate T8 8-Foot 

Slimline Lamps 

Similar to ballasts that operate 4-foot 

T8 MBP and 2-foot T8 U-shaped lamps, 

ballasts that operate 8-foot T8 slimline 

lamps are also not subject to existing 

energy conservation standards. 

According to the U.S. Census, 8-foot 

slimline T8 ballasts had about 2 percent 

market share in 2005, while 8-foot 

slimline T12 ballasts had about 3 

percent market share. Although the 

market share for 8-foot slimline T8 

ballasts as reported by the U.S. Census 

is relatively small, the 2009 Lamps Rule 

will eliminate all currently 

commercially available T12 lamps in 

2012, further increasing demand for T8 

lamp-and-ballast systems. In addition, 

while some 8-foot slimline T12 systems 

are being replaced by two 4-foot T8 

systems, others are being replaced by 8- 

foot slimline T8 systems. In addition, 

given that these ballasts exist at a range 

of efficiencies, DOE believes that energy 

conservation standards are 

technologically feasible. Thus, DOE 

believes there is potential for significant 

energy savings by covering ballasts that 

operate 8-foot slimline T8 lamps. Based 

on DOE’s preliminary LCC and NIA 

results for these ballasts, coverage of 

these ballasts would be economically 

justified. For these reasons, in the 

preliminary TSD, DOE included ballasts 

that operate 8-foot SP slimline T8 lamps 

in the scope of coverage. 

DOE did not receive any adverse 

comments regarding coverage of these 

ballasts. Therefore, for the reasons 

stated above, DOE proposes to include 

ballasts that operate 8-foot SP slimline 

T8 lamps in the scope of coverage for 

this NOPR. 

g. Ballasts That Operate T8 8-Foot HO 

Lamps 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

considered whether to cover ballasts 

designed to operate recessed double 

contact (RDC) HO T8 lamps. According 

to the U.S. Census, the market share of 

8-foot HO (T8 and T12) ballasts 

(excluding cold temperature sign 

ballasts) was about 0.5 percent in 2005. 

Because shipments of 8-foot RDC HO 

lamps are mostly T12 lamps, DOE 

believes most of the 8-foot HO ballasts 

currently shipped are T12. However, 

according to analysis conducted for the 

2009 Lamps Rule, most currently 

commercially available T12 HO lamps 

do not meet energy conservation 

standards that come into effect in 2012. 

Therefore, DOE believes that T8 HO 

ballast shipments will increase in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20100 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

13 Department of Defense MIL-STD-461F is 

available at http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/pdf/MIL– 

STD–461F.pdf. 

response to those standards. There is a 

range of efficiency levels for 8-foot T8 

HO ballasts currently in the market; 

therefore, energy conservation standards 

to increase the energy efficiency of these 

ballasts are technologically feasible. In 

addition, preliminary LCC and NIA 

results demonstrated the potential for 

significant economic savings. Based on 

these findings, DOE included 8-foot HO 

T8 ballasts in the scope of coverage in 

the preliminary TSD. 

DOE did not receive any adverse 

comments regarding coverage of these 

ballasts. Therefore, for the reasons 

stated above, DOE proposes to include 

ballasts that operate 8-foot RDC HO T8 

lamps in the scope of coverage for this 

NOPR. 

h. Ballasts That Operate in EMISensitive Environments 

At the public meeting, Philips 

commented that magnetic ballasts are 

currently used in certain EMI-sensitive 

environments, and that the proposals in 

the preliminary TSD would not allow 

these types of ballasts to exist in the 

future. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 125–126) GE 

agreed with Philips and cited critical 

care suites, surgery suites, airport 

control towers, and nuclear medicine 

laboratories as examples of situations 

where ballasts that generate low or no 

EMI are needed. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at p. 126) In written 

comments, NEMA stated that DOE 

needs to address an exemption for 

magnetic ballasts in EMI-sensitive 

applications and proposed that they 

should be high-performance T8 ballasts, 

which would be more expensive than 

electronic ballasts (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 

2). 

DOE conducted research and 

interviews with fluorescent lamp ballast 

and fixture manufacturers to identify 

the following applications as potentially 

sensitive to EMI: Medical operating 

room telemetry or life support systems; 

airport control systems; electronic test 

equipment; radio communication 

devices; radio recording studios; 

correctional facilities; clean rooms; 

facilities with low signal-to-noise ratios; 

and aircraft hangers or other buildings 

with predominantly metal construction. 

To understand the specifications that 

ballast consumers require for different 

applications, DOE researched existing 

regulations for EMI. DOE identified EMI 

standards for general applications such 

as commercial buildings, residential 

buildings, naval vessels, and other 

spaces. These standards include (1) the 

Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) standards in 47 CFR part 18 for 

conducted EMI and (2) Department of 

Defense MIL–STD–461F 13 CE102 limits 

for all applications for conducted 

emissions from power leads between 

10kHz and 10MHz. Table III.1 below 

shows the existing FCC and military 

standards for conducted electromagnetic 

interference. The frequency column 

indicates the frequency of the 

electromagnetic interference rather than 

the frequency at which the ballast 

operates. 

TABLE III.1—CONDUCTED EMI REQUIREMENTS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

Frequency 

(MHz) 

FCC Title 47 Part 18 

conducted EMI, Maximum RF 

line voltage measured with a 

50 micro Henry (μH)/50 ohm 

line impedance stabilization 

network 

(LISN) micro volt (μV) 

CE 102 MIL–STD 461F, 

limit level for conducted 

emissions for all 

applications 

(μV) 

Non-consumer equipment: 

0.45 to 1.6 ........................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 

1.6 to 30 .............................................................................................................. 3,000 1,000 *Applies up to 10 

MHz 

Consumer equipment: 

0.45 to 2.51 ......................................................................................................... 250 1,000 

2.51 to 3.0 ........................................................................................................... 3,000 1,000 

3.0 to 30 .............................................................................................................. 250 1,000 *Applies up to 10 

MHz 

In addition to using low-frequency 

magnetic ballasts in fixtures, DOE 

researched other ways that fixture 

manufacturers can reduce EMI. It is 

possible to install an external EMI filter 

on the input side of the ballast to limit 

conducted EMI that escapes the ballast 

from continuing to propagate through 

the building wiring. In addition, a grid 

lens can be installed to cover the lamp 

chamber to increase the impedance to a 

specific frequency or to bring radiated 

EMI to ground. DOE received mixed 

feedback from manufacturers 

concerning whether inline filters, 

special lenses, grounding cages, fixture 

design, and other external filters would 

be sufficient to reduce EMI from 

electronic ballasts to acceptable levels 

for EMI-sensitive applications. 

Electronic ballasts typically operate at a 

frequency above 20 kHz, which can turn 

the fluorescent lamp arc into an emitter 

of high-frequency electromagnetic 

waves. The switch mode power supply 

within electronic ballasts can also 

radiate high-frequency electromagnetic 

waves. Because the intensity of EMI is 

directly proportional to its frequency, 

the EMI from lighting systems 

containing high-frequency electronic 

ballasts may penetrate grid lenses and 

may affect other equipment over a 

farther range than the EMI from 

magnetic ballasts. 

DOE learned from manufacturer 

interviews that magnetic ballasts are 

typically recommended for situations in 

which EMI has been or is expected to be 

a concern. These manufacturers believe 

the engineering investment to develop 

specialty electronic ballasts for EMIsensitive applications would be 

burdensome and not economically 

justifiable given the very limited 

demand. Furthermore, manufacturers 

indicated uncertainty over the 

effectiveness of these measures for each 

individual application. DOE was also 

unable to determine whether EMI 

related issues with electronic ballasts 

could be eliminated with the methods 

described above. Manufacturers 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20101 

14The 2009 Lamps Rule adopted a new definition 

for rated wattage that can be found in 10 CFR 430.2. 

suggested that an exemption for T8 

magnetic ballasts would not constitute a 

risk for magnetic ballast substitution in 

current electronic ballast applications 

because magnetic ballasts are generally 

heavier, more expensive, and use more 

energy than electronic ballast 

alternatives. Customers generally prefer 

magnetic ballasts only in situations 

where EMI is a particular concern. 

Based on its analysis of EMI-sensitive 

ballast applications, DOE proposes that 

T8 magnetic ballasts designed and 

labeled for use in EMI-sensitive 

environments only and shipped by the 

manufacturer in packages containing 

not more than 10 ballasts be exempt 

from the standards established in this 

NOPR. Because of the diversity in 

magnetic T8 ballast applications, DOE 

has designed the exemption similar to 

the previous fluorescent lamp ballast 

exemptions for replacement ballasts. 

DOE believes the exemption is 

necessary because in some 

environments, EMI can pose a serious 

safety concern that is best mitigated 

with magnetic ballast technology. DOE 

does not believe magnetic ballasts 

would likely be used as substitutes in 

current electronic ballast applications 

due to their higher cost and weight. See 

appendix 5E of the TSD for more 

details. 

3. Summary of Fluorescent Lamp 

Ballasts to Which DOE Proposes To 

Extend Coverage 

With the exception of the comments 

discussed above, DOE received no other 

input related to coverage of fluorescent 

lamp ballasts. In addition, DOE’s 

revised analyses indicate that energy 

conservation standards for the ballasts 

to which DOE preliminarily decided to 

extend coverage in the preliminary TSD 

are still expected to be technologically 

feasible, economically justified, and 

would result in significant energy 

savings. Therefore, in summary, DOE is 

proposing to cover the following 

additional fluorescent lamp ballasts: 

(1) Ballasts that operate 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps with a rated 

wattage 14 of 25W or more, and an input 

voltage at or between 120V and 277V; 

(2) Ballasts that operate 2-foot 

medium bipin U-shaped lamps with a 

rated wattage of 25W or more, and an 

input voltage at or between 120V and 

277V; 

(3) Ballasts that operate 8-foot high 

output lamps with an input voltage at or 

between 120V and 277V; 

(4) Ballasts that operate 8-foot 

slimline lamps with a rated wattage of 

52W or more, and an input voltage at or 

between 120V and 277V; 

(5) Ballasts that operate 4-foot 

miniature bipin standard output lamps 

with a rated wattage of 26W or more, 

and an input voltage at or between 120V 

and 277V; 

(6) Ballasts that operate 4-foot 

miniature bipin high output lamps with 

a rated wattage of 49W or more, and an 

input voltage at or between 120V and 

277V; 

(7) Ballasts that operate 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps with a rated 

wattage of 25W or more, an input 

voltage at or between 120V and 277V, a 

power factor of less than 0.90, and are 

designed and labeled for use in 

residential applications; and 

(8) Ballasts that operate 8-foot high 

output lamps with an input voltage at or 

between 120V and 277V, and operate at 

ambient temperatures of 20 degrees F or 

less and are used in outdoor signs. 

B. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy 

Consumption Standards 

EPCA requires 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)) Because DOE is 

required by consent decree to publish a 

final rule establishing any amended 

standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts 

by June 30, 2011, this rulemaking is 

subject to this requirement. DOE 

determined that it is not possible for the 

ballasts at issue in this rulemaking to 

meet the off-mode criteria because there 

is no condition in which a ballast is 

connected to the main power source and 

is not in a mode already accounted for 

in either active or standby mode. In the 

test procedure addressing standby mode 

energy consumption, DOE determined 

that the only ballasts that consume 

energy in standby mode are those that 

incorporate an electronic circuit that 

enables the ballast to communicate with 

and be part of a lighting control 

interface (e.g., DALI-enabled ballasts). 

74 FR 54445, 54447–8 (October 22, 

2009). DOE believes that the only 

commercially available ballasts that 

incorporate an electronic circuit to 

communicate with a lighting control 

interface are dimming ballasts. 

As discussed in section 0, DOE does 

not propose to expand the scope of 

coverage to include additional dimming 

ballasts. Therefore, the only covered 

dimming ballasts are the products that 

operate the four reduced-wattage lamp 

combinations specified in 10 CFR 

430.32(m)(5). DOE research has not 

revealed any dimming ballasts currently 

on the market that operate these lamps 

because the gas composition of reducedwattage lamps makes them undesirable 

for use in dimming applications. 

Additionally, these ballasts employ 

cathode heating to facilitate dimming 

and therefore operate lamps with two 

pins. Because 8-foot slimline lamps 

have only a single pin, these lamps are 

not suitable for use with dimming 

ballasts. Because DOE did not discover 

any dimming products that are covered 

by existing standards, DOE was not able 

to characterize standby mode energy 

consumption. Thus, DOE is not able to 

set standards for standby mode energy 

consumption for these ballasts in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE 

did not receive any comments regarding 

this subject in response to the 

preliminary TSD. Therefore, for the 

reasons stated above, DOE does not 

propose to adopt provisions to address 

ballast operation in standby mode as 

part of the energy conservation 

standards that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

As noted above, DOE’s current test 

procedures for ballasts appear at 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix Q. DOE 

issued a NOPR in which it proposed 

revisions to these test procedures. 75 FR 

14288 (March 24, 2010). The principal 

change DOE proposed to the existing 

test methods, in an effort to reduce 

measurement variation, was to eliminate 

photometric measurements used to 

determine ballast efficacy factor (BEF). 

Instead, DOE proposed to use electrical 

measurements to determine ballast 

efficiency (BE), which could then be 

converted to BEF using empirically 

derived transfer equations. The 

proposed changes also specified that the 

ballast operate a resistive load rather 

than a lamp load during performance 

testing. No changes were proposed for 

the measurement of ballast factor 

(which required photometric 

measurements) for consistency with 

previous methods. Finally, DOE also 

proposed an update to an industry 

standard referenced in the existing test 

procedure. Id. at 14290, 14308. DOE 

also proposed to add methods for testing 

ballasts that are not currently covered 

by energy conservation standards, but 

that DOE is considering for standards in 

this rulemaking. Id. at 14289–91. 

Finally, DOE proposed provisions for 

manufacturers to report to DOE on the 

compliance of their ballasts with 

applicable standards. Id. at 14289, 

14290, 14309. 

More recently, DOE published a 

supplementary NOPR in which it 

proposed revisions to its test procedures 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20102 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

for fluorescent lamp ballasts established 

under EPCA. 75 FR 71570 (Nov. 24, 

2010). This test procedure proposes to 

measure a new metric, ballast luminous 

efficiency (BLE), which more directly 

assesses the electrical losses in a ballast 

compared to the existing ballast efficacy 

factor (BEF) metric. Rather than testing 

a ballast while operating a resistive 

load, the BLE test procedure measures 

the performance of a ballast while it is 

operating a fluorescent lamp. DOE 

found that a resistive load can model 

the effective resistance of a lamp 

operated only at a particular ballast 

factor, requiring multiple ballast factor 

specific resistors to be specified and 

increasing the testing cost to 

manufacturers. In written comments in 

response to the NOPR, NEMA suggested 

that ballast factor be calculated using a 

combination of electrical measurements 

and reference lamp arc power values 

from ANSI C78.81–2010. The SNOPR 

proposal outlines a new method for 

determination of ballast factor which 

requires only electrical measurements. 

DOE also notes that EPCA requires 

DOE to amend its test procedures for all 

covered products, including those for 

ballasts, to include the measurement of 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, except where current test 

procedures fully address such energy 

consumption or where an integrated or 

separate standard is technically 

infeasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)) As 

indicated above, ballasts do not operate 

in the off mode and DOE has already 

amended its test procedures for ballasts 

to address standby mode energy use. 74 

FR 54445 (Oct. 22, 2009). As a result, 

DOE’s current test procedure 

rulemaking for ballasts does not address 

standby or off mode energy use. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each standards rulemaking, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information it has gathered on all 

current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such 

analysis, DOE develops a list of design 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of these 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(i). 

Once DOE has determined that 

particular design options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each of these design options 

in light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. Section 0 of this notice 

discusses the results of the screening 

analysis for ballasts, particularly the 

designs DOE considered, those it 

screened out, and those that are the 

basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) 

in this rulemaking. For further details 

on the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see Chapter 4 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, DOE 

determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max tech’’) 

ballast efficiency in the engineering 

analysis, using the design options 

identified in the screening analysis (see 

chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD). 

As a first step to identifying the 

maximum technologically feasible 

efficiency level, DOE conducted testing 

of commercially available ballasts. In 

the preliminary analysis, DOE was not 

able to identify working prototypes that 

had a higher efficiency than the tested 

products. Therefore, the ‘‘max tech’’ 

level determined for the preliminary 

analysis was based on the most efficient 

commercially available ballasts tested. 

DOE presented additional research in 

appendix 5D of the preliminary TSD to 

explore whether technologies used in 

products similar to ballasts could be 

used to improve the efficiency of 

ballasts currently on the market. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding its determination of max tech 

ballast efficiency. These comments are 

discussed in section 0. For this NOPR, 

DOE conducted additional analysis to 

determine the appropriate max tech 

levels for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

Based on the additional testing 

conducted for this NOPR, DOE has 

determined that TSL 3 represents the 

highest efficiency level that is 

technologically feasible for a sufficient 

diversity of products (spanning several 

ballast factors, number of lamps per 

ballast, and types of lamps operated) 

within each product class. Table IV.1 

presents the max tech efficiency levels 

for each product class. 

TABLE IV.1—MAX TECH LEVELS

Product class Equation*

IS and RS ballasts that operate ............................................................... 1.32 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 86.11. 

4-foot MBP lamps.

8-foot slimline lamps.

PS ballasts that operate ........................................................................... 1.79 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 83.33. 

4-foot MBP lamps.

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps.

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps.

IS and RS ballasts that operate ............................................................... 1.49 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 84.32. 

8-foot HO lamps.

PS ballasts that operate ........................................................................... 1.46 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 82.63. 

8-foot HO lamps.

Ballasts that operate ................................................................................. 1.49 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 81.34. 

8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor signs.

*Equation includes 0.8 percent reduction for testing variation. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20103 

Although DOE identified certain 

ballasts that achieved efficiencies higher 

than TSL 3, these ballasts were suitable 

for only a limited range of applications 

within their product class. DOE does 

not have sufficient data at this time to 

determine that a higher efficiency level 

is technologically feasible for the full 

range of ballast applications with 

alternate ballast factors, numbers of 

lamps, and lamp types. Before making 

this determination, DOE evaluated the 

possibility of improving the efficiency 

of three selected ballasts by inserting 

improved components in the place of 

existing components of commercially 

available ballasts. DOE’s experiments 

with improving ballast efficiency 

through component substitution did not 

result in prototypes with improved 

overall ballast efficiency. 

DOE is still considering whether an 

efficiency level higher than TSL 3 is 

technologically feasible for a sufficient 

diversity of lamp types, ballast factors, 

and numbers of lamps within each 

product class. Although DOE was 

unable to improve the efficiency of 

commercially available ballasts, DOE 

recognizes that component substitution 

is not the only method available for 

incrementally improving ballast 

efficiency. For example, further 

improvements may be possible through 

the incorporation of newly designed 

integrated circuits into the new ballast 

designs. 

In Appendix 5F of the NOPR TSD, 

DOE presents additional analysis on the 

potential for an instant-start ballast 

efficiency level that exceeds TSL 3. DOE 

requests comments on its selection of 

the maximum technologically feasible 

level and whether it is technologically 

feasible to attain such higher 

efficiencies for the full range of instant 

start ballast applications. Specifically, 

DOE seeks quantitative information 

regarding the potential change in 

efficiency, the design options employed, 

and the associated change in cost. Any 

design option that DOE considers to 

improve efficiency must meet the four 

criteria outlined in the screening 

analysis: technological feasibility; 

practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service; adverse impacts on product 

or equipment utility to consumers or 

availability; and adverse impacts on 

health or safety. DOE also requests 

comments on any technological barriers 

to an improvement in efficiency above 

TSL 3 for all or certain types of ballasts. 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet to 

estimate energy savings from new or 

amended standards for the ballasts that 

are the subject of this rulemaking. (The 

NIA spreadsheet model is described in 

section 0 of this notice and in chapter 

11 of the TSD.) DOE forecasted energy 

savings beginning in 2014, the year that 

compliance with any new and amended 

standards is proposed to be required, 

and ending in 2043 for each TSL. DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between the standards case and the base 

case. The base case represents the 

forecast of energy consumption in the 

absence of new and amended 

mandatory efficiency standards, and 

considers market demand for higherefficiency products. For example, DOE 

models a shift in the base case from 

covered fluorescent lamp ballasts 

toward emerging technologies such as 

light emitting diodes (LEDs). 

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates 

the electricity savings in ‘‘site energy’’ 

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site 

energy is the energy directly consumed 

by ballasts at the locations where they 

are used. DOE reports national energy 

savings on an annual basis in terms of 

the aggregated source (primary) energy 

savings, which is the savings in energy 

used to generate and transmit the site 

energy. (See NOPR TSD chapter 11) To 

convert site energy to source energy, 

DOE derived conversion factors, which 

change with time, from the model used 

to prepare the Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA’s) Annual Energy 

Outlook 2010 (AEO2010). 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted above, under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) DOE is prohibited from 

adopting a standard for a covered 

product if such standard would not 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

While the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

defined in the Act, the 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.’’ The energy 

savings for all of the TSLs considered in 

this rulemaking are nontrivial, and 

therefore DOE considers them 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 

section 325 of EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted in section II.B, EPCA 

provides seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The 

following sections discuss how DOE 

addresses each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a new 

or amended standard on manufacturers, 

DOE first determines the quantitative 

impacts using an annual cash-flow 

approach. This includes both a shortterm assessment—based on the cost and 

capital requirements during the period 

between the announcement of a 

regulation and when the regulation 

comes into effect—and a long-term 

assessment over the 30-year analysis 

period. The impacts analyzed include 

INPV (which values the industry based 

on of expected future cash flows), cash 

flows by year, changes in revenue and 

income, and other measures of impact, 

as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes 

and reports the impacts on different 

types of manufacturers, including an 

analysis of impacts on small 

manufacturers. Third, DOE considers 

the impact of standards on domestic 

manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

DOE also takes into account cumulative 

impacts of different DOE regulations 

and other regulatory requirements on 

manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and the PBP associated with new 

or amended standards. The LCC, which 

is separately specified as one of the 

seven factors to consider when 

determining the economic justification 

for a new or amended standard, (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)), is discussed 

in the following section. For consumers 

in the aggregate, DOE calculates the net 

present value from a national 

perspective of the economic impacts on 

consumers over the forecast period used 

in a particular rulemaking. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy and maintenance and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

savings for the considered efficiency 

levels are calculated relative to a base 

case that reflects likely trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

The LCC analysis required a variety of 

inputs, such as product prices, product 

energy consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and consumer discount rates. 

DOE assumed in its analysis that 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20104 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

consumers purchase the product in 

2014. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in specific inputs, such as 

product lifetime and discount rate, DOE 

uses a distribution of values with 

probabilities attached to each value. A 

distinct advantage of this approach is 

that DOE can identify the percentage of 

consumers estimated to achieve LCC 

savings or experiencing an LCC 

increase, in addition to the average LCC 

savings associated with a particular 

standard level. In addition to identifying 

ranges of impacts, DOE evaluates the 

LCC impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable sub-groups of consumers 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard. 

c. Energy Savings 

While significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a 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)) 

DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet results in 

its consideration of total projected 

savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE seeks to develop standards that 

would not lessen the utility or 

performance of the products under 

consideration. The efficiency levels 

considered in today’s NOPR will not 

affect any features valued by consumers, 

such as starting method, ballast factor, 

or cold temperature operation. 

Therefore, DOE believes that none of the 

TSLs presented in section 0 would 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

ballasts considered in the rulemaking. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from standards. It directs the Attorney 

General to determine the impact, if any, 

of any lessening of competition likely to 

result from a proposed standard and to 

transmit such determination to the 

Secretary, not later than 60 days after 

the publication of a proposed rule, 

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)) DOE has 

transmitted a copy of today’s proposed 

rule to the Attorney General and has 

requested that the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) provide its determination on this 

issue. DOE will address the Attorney 

General’s determination in any final 

rule. 

f. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

The non-monetary benefits of the 

proposed standards are likely to be 

reflected in improvements to the 

security and reliability of the nation’s 

energy system. Reduced demand for 

electricity may also result in reduced 

costs for maintaining the reliability of 

the nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. 

Energy savings from the proposed 

standards are also likely to result in 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with 

energy production. DOE reports the 

environmental effects from the proposed 

standards—and from each TSL it 

considered for ballasts—in the 

environmental assessment contained in 

the NOPR TSD. DOE also reports 

estimates of the economic value of 

reduced emissions reductions resulting 

from the considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

The Act allows the Secretary of 

Energy to consider any other factors he 

or she deems relevant in determining 

whether a standard is economically 

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

Under this provision, DOE considered 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

adversely affected by the standards 

proposed in this rule. DOE specifically 

assessed the impact of standards on 

low-income consumers, institutions of 

religious worship, and institutions that 

serve low-income populations. In 

considering these subgroups, DOE 

analyzed variations on electricity prices, 

operating hours, discount rates, and 

baseline ballasts. See section 0 of this 

notice for further detail. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA provides for a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy (and, as 

applicable, water) savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s 

LCC and PBP analyses generate values 

that calculate the payback period for 

consumers of potential new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable presumption test. However, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts 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 evaluate definitively the 

economic justification for a potential 

standard level (thereby supporting or 

rebutting the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section 0 of this NOPR. 

V. Methodology and Discussion 

DOE used two spreadsheet tools to 

estimate the impact of today’s proposed 

standards. The first spreadsheet 

calculates LCCs and payback periods of 

potential new energy conservation 

standards. The second provides 

shipments forecasts and then calculates 

national energy savings and net present 

value impacts of potential new energy 

conservation standards. The Department 

also assessed manufacturer impacts, 

largely through use of the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). 

Additionally, DOE estimated the 

impacts of energy efficiency standards 

on utilities and the environment. DOE 

used a version of EIA’s National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility 

and environmental analyses. The NEMS 

model simulates the energy sector of the 

U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to 

prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a 

widely known baseline energy forecast 

for the United States. The version of 

NEMS used for appliance standards 

analysis is called NEMS–BT, and is 

based on the AEO2010 version with 

minor modifications. The NEMS–BT 

offers a sophisticated picture of the 

effect of standards, because it accounts 

for the interactions between the various 

energy supply and demand sectors and 

the economy as a whole. 

The EIA approves the use of the name 

‘‘NEMS’’ to describe only an AEO 

version of the model without any 

modification to code or data. Because 

the present analysis entails some minor 

code modifications and runs the model 

under various policy scenarios that 

deviate from AEO assumptions, the 

name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the model as 

used here. (BT stands for DOE’s 

Building Technologies Program.) For 

more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An 

Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) (Feb. 

1998), available at: http:// 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20105 

15This comment is from the docket for the 

fluorescent lamp ballast active mode test procedure, 

which is docket number EERE–2009–BT–TP–0016. 

16A summary of the meeting is available at 

http://www.gc.energy.gov/documents/ 

Ex_parte_Meeting_NEMA_05_25_2010.pdf. 

17External power supplies perform a related 

function to fluorescent lamp ballasts in that they 

convert AC to DC, filter unwanted frequencies, and 

can step up or down voltage. 

tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/ 

forecasting/058198.pdf. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

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 on 

publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include product classes and 

manufacturers; historical shipments; 

market trends; regulatory and nonregulatory programs; and technologies 

or design options that could improve 

the energy efficiency of the product(s) 

under examination. See chapter 3 of the 

TSD for further discussion of the market 

and technology assessment. 

2. Product Classes 

In evaluating and establishing energy 

conservation standards, DOE divides 

covered products into classes by the 

type of energy used, or by capacity or 

other performance-related feature that 

justifies a different standard for 

products having such feature. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)) In deciding whether a 

feature justifies a different standard, 

DOE must consider factors such as the 

utility of the feature to users. Id. DOE 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for different product classes 

based on the criteria set forth in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

evaluated the performance of a ballast 

using the BEF metric. DOE considered 

several potential class-setting factors 

and ultimately separated product 

classes based on lamp length, ballast 

factor, lumen package, maximum 

number of lamps operated, starting 

method, and market sector. In general, 

when considering the above 

characteristics, DOE identified three 

main factors as affecting consumer 

utility: (1) The lumen package of the 

lamp-and-ballast system; (2) the 

physical constraints of the lamp-andballast system; and (3) the use of the 

ballast in an application for which other 

ballasts are not suitable. Philips, along 

with the NEEA and NPCC, generally 

agreed with DOE’s initial determination 

of the product class structure. (NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 3; Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

153–154) 

After the April 2010 public meeting, 

DOE received comments from interested 

parties that caused it to reevaluate the 

test method proposed in the active 

mode test procedure NOPR. As 

discussed in section 0, DOE published 

an SNOPR for the active mode test 

procedure on November 24, 2010. In 

that document, DOE proposed a lampbased test procedure for measuring 

ballast luminous efficiency. Thus, when 

considering product classes in this 

NOPR, DOE evaluates potential classsetting factors by considering features 

that affect BLE instead of BEF. 

a. Power Versus Efficiency Relationship 

As described in section 0, DOE 

undertook extensive testing of 

fluorescent lamp ballasts to evaluate the 

impact of numerous ballast 

characteristics on BLE. In its written 

comments on the active mode test 

procedure, NEMA suggested that a 

relationship existed between lamp arc 

power and BLE such that the product 

class structure from the preliminary 

TSD could be greatly simplified. NEMA 

suggested that instant start ballasts with 

input power less than or equal to 45 W, 

greater than 45 W and less than or equal 

to 125 W, and greater than 125 W could 

be subject to standards of 85 percent, 88 

percent, and 90 percent efficiency 

respectively. For programmed start 

ballasts, NEMA recommended standards 

for the same wattage bins, but with a 

downward adjustment of 3 percent 

compared to the instant start values. 

NEMA provided supplementary 

information showing that these standard 

levels in many cases were similar to the 

levels proposed by DOE in the 

preliminary TSD. NEMA noted it was 

only sharing a methodology that could 

be employed by DOE, not making a 

formal proposal. (NEMA, No. 15 at p. 9– 

10) 15 NEMA had previously discussed 

this methodology as a possible approach 

at a meeting with DOE in April 2010, 

subsequent to the public workshop.16

Although not a formal proposal for 

the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, this methodology was 

supported by several manufacturers 

during interviews for this NOPR. 

Manufacturers indicated that ballasts 

that operate similar lamp powers often 

share similar topologies and component, 

and thus, should have similar 

efficiencies. DOE analyzed its test data 

to attempt to characterize a relationship 

between BLE and lamp arc power. 

It is DOE’s understanding that there 

are both fixed and variable losses in any 

fluorescent ballast. Fixed losses consist 

of switching losses, due to components 

such as transistors, and fixed voltage 

drops across certain components, such 

as diodes. These components are 

necessary for proper ballast operation 

but will always contribute some amount 

to overall ballast losses. In ballasts that 

operate at low powers, fixed losses 

comprise a significant amount of the 

power lost. Variable losses consist 

primarily of resistive losses (also 

referred to as I2R losses) which increase 

as current increases. Ballasts that 

operate at higher powers also operate at 

a higher current and therefore have 

greater resistive losses. At a certain 

power level, resistive losses will be 

greater than fixed losses, as resistive 

losses continue to increase as power 

increases. 

Using test data, DOE empirically 

found a relationship between the BLE 

metric and the natural log of lamp arc 

power. The logarithmic relationship is 

consistent with current energy 

conservation standards for external 

power supplies.17 42 USC 6295(u)(3)(A). 

In general, as lamp arc power increases, 

BLE increases as well. DOE believes this 

is because the fixed losses of a ballast 

become proportionally less significant at 

higher lamp arc powers. Using this 

relationship has several benefits for 

determining product classes compared 

to DOE’s approach in the preliminary 

TSD. Equations allow DOE to set 

efficiency levels as a function of lamp 

arc power across a wide range, which 

simplifies the product class structure 

and the amount of scaling required 

between product classes. Furthermore, 

setting efficiency levels in this manner 

allows for greater flexibility regarding 

future innovation. For example, an 

equation would account for the 

introduction of new ballast factors. It 

would also not necessarily have to be 

revised if the test procedure were 

modified to require testing with 

reduced-wattage lamps. By contrast, 

other approaches could require separate 

product classes for factors that affect the 

total wattage operated by a ballast (such 

as lumen output, ballast factor, and 

number of lamps operated). 

The sections below discuss specific 

class-setting factors considered in the 

preliminary TSD and whether product 

classes based on these factors are 

necessary given the power-efficiency 

relationship. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20106 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

b. Starting Method 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

considered establishing separate 

product classes based on starting 

method. DOE found RS and PS ballasts 

to be inherently less efficient than IS 

ballasts because RS and PS ballasts 

provide filament power to the lamp. 

Although some PS ballasts cut out the 

filament power during normal operation 

(using the cathode cutout technology 

option discussed in chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD), the extra circuitry to 

remove this power still consumes some 

amount of power. Whereas RS and IS 

ballasts are commonly used as 

substitutes for each other, PS ballasts 

are not. Programmed start ballasts are 

commonly used in combination with 

occupancy sensors because of their 

ability to maintain the lifetime of the 

fluorescent lamp. The lifetime of a lamp 

operated on a PS ballast with occupancy 

sensors can be as much as three times 

longer than the lifetime of a lamp 

operated on an IS or RS ballast in the 

same application. Thus, DOE’s research 

indicates that use of instant start ballasts 

with occupancy sensors can result in a 

significant reduction in lamp lifetime. 

Because the application in which they 

are used significantly affects lamp 

lifetime, programmed start ballasts offer 

the user a distinct utility. In 

consideration of their affect on both BEF 

and utility, DOE established separate 

product classes for programmed start 

ballasts in the preliminary TSD. 

Philips agreed that RS and PS ballasts 

would have lower BEFs than IS ballasts. 

Philips stated that cathode heating of RS 

and PS ballasts would make the lamps 

more efficient, which would increase 

ballast factor and therefore increase 

overall system efficacy, or BEF. The 

corresponding increase in ballast input 

power for these ballasts, however, 

would offset any overall gain in BEF. 

Despite this difference in BEF for RS 

and PS ballasts compared to IS ballasts, 

Philips did not think NEMA would 

object to the inclusion of rapid and 

instant start ballasts in the same product 

class. Whereas IS and RS ballasts offer 

the consumer similar utility, Philips 

believed PS ballasts offered consumers 

unique utility because of the application 

in which they are used. Regarding the 

impact of starting method on ballast 

efficiency, Philips pointed out that a 

metric of lamp arc power divided by 

ballast input power would consider 

power used to heat cathodes as losses. 

GE and Philips believed that this should 

be considered when defining product 

classes and setting standards. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at p. 

43; Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 34 at pp. 44–46, 71–72) 

DOE agrees with GE and Philips that 

cathode heating is counted as a loss in 

the BLE metric because it does not 

directly contribute to the creation of 

light. Thus, similar to BEF, RS and PS 

ballasts have lower BLEs than 

comparable IS ballasts. Because starting 

method affects BLE in the same way it 

affects BEF, and DOE has already 

established a unique utility associated 

with PS ballasts, DOE proposes to 

maintain product class divisions for 

starting method in this NOPR and 

establish separate product classes for 

programmed start ballasts and instant 

and rapid start ballasts. 

c. Ballast Factor 

Ballast factor (BF) is the ratio of light 

output of a reference lamp operated by 

a ballast to the light output of the same 

lamp operated by a reference ballast. It 

is typically used to adjust the lumen 

package of a lamp-and-ballast system. 

The ballasts proposed for coverage in 

this rulemaking are available with a 

variety of ballast factors. In the 

preliminary TSD, DOE classified a low 

BF as less than or equal to 0.78, a 

normal BF as greater than 0.78 but less 

than 1.1, and a high BF as greater than 

or equal to 1.1. In its previous analysis, 

DOE found that ballasts with high or 

low BFs had lower BEFs than ballasts 

with a normal ballast factor. Because BF 

affected the lumen output of the lampand-ballast system, DOE observed that 

consumers tended to use ballasts with 

different ballast factors for different 

applications. DOE believed this 

behavior constituted a unique utility. 

Therefore, because of the impact on BEF 

and utility, DOE established separate 

product classes in the preliminary TSD 

for low, normal, and high ballast factor 

when these products existed for covered 

ballast types. In the preliminary TSD, 

however, DOE did not establish separate 

product classes for high, low, and 

normal BF for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO, 8- 

foot HO, residential, or sign ballasts 

because products in this category were 

predominantly offered in one ballast 

factor range. 

The California Utilities commented 

that DOE should divide residential 

ballasts into high, normal, and low BF 

categories because test results showed 

that residential products existed at more 

than one BF. (California Utilities, No. 30 

at p. 5) Philips commented that the 

range considered for normal BF was 

unreasonably large. For T8 ballasts, 

industry typically considers normal BF 

to be from 0.85 to 1.00, whereas for T5 

ballasts industry considers normal BF to 

be about 1.00. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at p. 136–137) 

Because DOE is evaluating a new 

metric for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the 

impact of ballast factor on BLE. During 

interviews, manufacturers stated that as 

ballast factor increases, BLE should also 

increase. This is the same observation as 

the one discussed in section 0, that BLE 

increases as overall lamp arc power 

increases, but on a smaller scale. As 

ballast factor increases, the ballast 

drives the lamp harder, which increases 

measured lamp arc power. Because the 

ballast operates at higher power, its 

fixed losses become proportionally less 

significant in comparison to lower BFs. 

Because BF affects the total power 

operated by a ballast, and DOE has 

established a relationship relating total 

lamp arc power to ballast efficiency, 

DOE believes the efficiency equation 

will account for any changes in BF. 

Thus, in this NOPR, DOE does not 

propose to establish separate product 

classes for high, low, or normal BF. 

d. Lumen Package 

Lumen package refers to the quantity 

of light that a lamp-and-ballast system 

provides to a consumer. To obtain a 

high lumen package, certain lamps are 

designed to operate with ballasts that 

run the lamps at high currents. For 

example, 8-foot HO lamps and 4-foot 

MiniBP HO lamps tend to operate at 

higher currents than 8-foot slimline 

lamps and 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps, 

respectively. This difference in 

operating design increases the quantity 

of light per unit of lamp length. High 

output lamps generally operate at higher 

wattages than comparable (same length, 

diameter) standard output lamps. In the 

preliminary TSD, DOE observed that 

this difference in lamp wattage caused 

ballasts that operate high output lamps 

to have lower BEFs than ballasts that 

operate comparable standard output 

lamps. 

In addition, consumers tend to use 

systems with different lumen packages 

for different applications. For example, 

high-lumen-output systems may be 

installed in certain high-ceiling or 

outdoor applications where large 

quantities of light are needed. 

Alternatively, standard-lumen-output 

systems might be installed in lowerceiling applications such as offices or 

hospitals, where the distance between 

the light source and the illuminated 

surface is not as large. Notable 

differences in the application of ballasts 

designed to operate SO lamps versus 

HO lamps indicate a difference in 

utility. Therefore, given the observed 

utility distinctions and notable 

efficiency differences, DOE established 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20107 

separate product classes in the 

preliminary TSD for ballasts that 

operate SO lamps and ballasts that 

operate HO lamps. 

DOE did not receive any adverse 

comment to its separation of ballasts 

that operate HO lamps from those that 

operate SO lamps due to the impact of 

larger input powers on BEF. In this 

NOPR, however, DOE proposes 

standards based on the BLE metric. 

Therefore, DOE evaluated the impact of 

HO lamp operation versus SO lamp 

operation on BLE. DOE found that BLE 

is not dependent on system light output, 

but rather on the total power operated 

by the ballast. As HO lamps have higher 

rated powers than SO lamps, DOE 

believes ballasts that operate HO lamps 

would be more efficient than 

comparable ballasts that operate SO 

lamps. An analysis of test data generally 

confirmed this prediction. Therefore, 

because the power-efficiency equation 

accounts for HO versus SO lamp 

operation, DOE does not propose to 

establish separate product classes for 

ballasts that operate HO lamps, with one 

exception as explained in the following 

paragraph. 

DOE found that ballasts that operate 

8-foot HO lamps did not follow the 

expected relationship. Compared to 8- 

foot slimline ballasts, DOE found that 8- 

foot HO ballasts exhibited lower BLEs 

although they operated higher lamp 

powers. DOE believes a separate 

product class is necessary for 8-foot HO 

ballasts because there is a significant 

change in lumen package accompanied 

by a decrease in BLE. Based on 

manufacturer interviews, DOE believes 

8-foot HO ballasts may have different 

topology, or circuit design, than other 

ballast types (e.g. 4-foot MBP and 8-foot 

slimline ballasts). Because DOE has 

established that lumen package offers a 

unique utility, and in this case a change 

in lumen package is accompanied by a 

change in BLE from what the efficiency 

equation would predict, DOE proposes 

to establish a separate product class for 

ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps. 

DOE requests comment on this decision 

in section 0. 

e. Lamp Diameter 

Differences in lamp diameter can be 

accompanied by differences in rated 

lamp wattage and lumen output. In the 

preliminary TSD, DOE observed that T8 

ballasts generally had higher BEFs than 

T12 ballasts due to T8 lamps having a 

lower rated wattage than T12 lamps. 

DOE noted, however, that T8 lamp-andballast systems are commonly used as 

substitutes for T12 lamp-and-ballast 

systems, suggesting that there was no 

unique utility associated with T12 

systems. Although the lamps have 

different wattages, the two systems often 

have the same lamp lengths and bases, 

offer comparable lumen output, and can 

fit within the same fixtures. For these 

reasons, DOE included T8 and T12 

ballasts in the same product class in the 

preliminary TSD. 

In contrast, DOE established separate 

product classes for ballasts that operate 

T5 lamps. DOE observed that 4-foot T5 

ballasts generally had lower input 

powers (due to the lower wattage of the 

test lamp), and therefore higher BEFs, 

than comparable T8 or T12 ballasts. T5 

lamp-and-ballast systems, however, are 

not always interchangeable with T8 and 

T12 systems. Because T5 lamps have 

similar total lumen output to T8 and 

T12 lamps over a significantly smaller 

surface area, T5 lamp-and-ballast 

systems are often marketed as too bright 

for use in direct lighting fixtures. 

Because of the impact on BEF and 

consumer utility, DOE established a 

separate product class in the 

preliminary TSD for ballasts that 

operate T5 lamps. 

The California Utilities and the NEEA 

and NPCC supported DOE’s conclusion 

in the preliminary TSD to include T8 

and T12 ballasts in the same product 

class based on their use as substitutes 

for one another. (California Utilities, No. 

30 at p. 1; NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at 

p. 3) However, Philips believed that 

because BEF includes a measure of light 

output, it should be used to compare 

ballasts of similar light output only. 

Philips noted that because F96T12HO/ 

ES lamps have a 13-percent greater 

lumen output than F96T8HO lamps, 

ballasts that operate these lamps should 

not be subject to the same BEF standard. 

NEMA agreed with Philips and 

supported different BEF standards for 

ballasts that operate these lamps. 

However, NEMA did comment that a 

single ballast efficiency standard could 

be set for ballasts that operate F96T8HO 

and F96T12HO/ES lamps. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

16, 50; NEMA, No. 29 at p. 3, 7) 

In this NOPR, DOE considered the 

impact of lamp diameter on the BLE 

metric. As described above, differences 

in lamp diameter can be accompanied 

by differences in rated lamp wattage and 

lumen output. Because the efficiency 

equation sets standards specific to the 

total lamp power operated by the ballast 

of interest, the equation will also 

account for the impact of lamp diameter 

if there is an associated change in lamp 

arc power (as is the case with T8HO 

versus T12HO lamps). In addition, DOE 

believes that T5HO ballasts operate 

similar total lamp powers and employ 

similar technologies to 4-lamp 4-foot 

MBP PS ballasts that are able to meet 

the most efficient levels. Furthermore, 

2-lamp 4-foot MBP PS ballasts operate 

similar total lamp power and employ 

similar technologies to 2-lamp T5 SO 

ballasts that are able to meet the most 

efficient levels. Therefore, DOE does not 

propose to establish separate product 

classes for ballasts that have different 

lamp diameters. 

f. Lamp Length 

Of the fluorescent ballasts DOE 

proposes to include in the scope of 

coverage, all are designed to operate 

lamps with lengths of 4 or 8 feet. As 

lamp length increases, lamp arc power 

tends to increase as well. In the 

preliminary TSD, DOE observed that 

this increase in lamp power resulted in 

lower BEFs for ballasts that operate 8- 

foot lamps as compared to those that 

operate 4-foot lamps. Furthermore, DOE 

concluded that because consumers are 

often physically constrained by their 

building ceiling layout, systems 

operating 8-foot and 4-foot lamps are 

not always substitutable for each other. 

Given the impact on both BEF and 

utility, DOE established separate 

product classes in the preliminary TSD 

for ballasts that operate different lamp 

lengths. 

In this NOPR, DOE evaluates impacts 

of lamp length on BLE. Test data 

showed that ballasts that operate 8-foot 

slimline lamps are more efficient than 

comparable ballasts that operate the 

same number of 4-foot MBP lamps due 

to the increased lamp wattage operated 

by these ballasts. As described in 

section 0, DOE has developed an 

efficiency equation for the relationship 

between BLE and lamp arc power, 

which accounts for differences in lamp 

length if there is an associated change 

in lamp arc power. Therefore, DOE does 

not propose to establish separate 

product classes for ballasts that operate 

4-foot versus 8-foot lamps. 

g. Number of Lamps 

Fluorescent lamp ballasts are 

designed to operate a certain maximum 

number of lamps. For example, ballasts 

designed to operate 4-foot MBP lamps 

can operate as few as one or as many as 

six lamps. In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

found that BEF decreased with each 

additional lamp operated because 

additional lamps increased the ballast’s 

input power. DOE determined that the 

ability to operate different maximum 

number of lamps impacts utility because 

this capacity affects the space required 

by fixtures (a four-lamp fixture requires 

more physical space than one-lamp 

fixture). Given the impact on both BEF 

and consumer utility, DOE established 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20108 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

18ANSI C82.77–2002 requires residential ballasts 

to have a minimum power factor of 0.5 and 

commercial ballasts to have a minimum power 

factor of 0.9. 

separate product classes in the 

preliminary TSD based on the 

maximum number of lamps operated by 

a ballast. 

Philips agreed that based on BEF data, 

1-lamp ballasts are less efficient than 4- 

lamp ballasts. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 137–139) In 

this NOPR, DOE analyzed the impact of 

operating different numbers of lamps on 

BLE. Test data generally showed that 

the more lamps a ballast operates the 

higher the BLE for that ballast. DOE 

believes this is because as a ballast 

operates a larger total lamp power, fixed 

losses are diluted over a greater power. 

DOE believes that this relationship is 

accounted for in the efficiency equation 

described in section 0, because an 

increase in the number of lamps 

operated is associated with an increase 

in total lamp arc power. Therefore, DOE 

does not propose to establish separate 

product classes for ballasts that operate 

different numbers of lamps. 

h. Residential Ballasts 

Separate minimum power factor and 

electromagnetic interference 

requirements exist for residential and 

commercial ballasts. Residential ballasts 

have more stringent (or lower maximum 

allowable) EMI requirements than 

commercial ballasts; they also have less 

stringent (or lower minimum allowable) 

power factor requirements.18 In the 

preliminary TSD, DOE concluded these 

requirements impact utility because 

they serve distinct market sectors and 

applications. In addition, DOE believed 

that the differing requirements caused 

residential ballasts to have lower BEFs 

than commercial ballasts. For these 

reasons, in the preliminary TSD, DOE 

established a separate product class for 

ballasts that are designed for use in the 

residential sector. 

Philips agreed that the FCC has more 

stringent EMI requirements for 

residential ballasts than commercial 

ballasts. The NEEA and NPCC 

commented that they have not seen 

evidence of any impact on efficiency 

due to the FCC EMI standards. Philips 

disagreed, stating that the FCC Class B 

requirements necessitate a more 

sophisticated EMI filter that results in 

greater losses than the commercial FCC 

requirements. Philips noted, however, 

these losses are offset by the difference 

in power factor requirements for the two 

market sectors. The power losses 

associated with the high power factor 

requirements in the commercial sector 

are greater than the losses associated 

with the more stringent EMI 

requirements in the residential sector. 

As evidence, Philips indicated that 

compliance data from the California 

Energy Commission (CEC) database 

indicates that some residential ballasts 

have higher BEFs than commercial 

ballasts. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at p. 134–6; NEEA 

and NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 34 at p. 135) 

In this NOPR, DOE evaluated the 

impact of the more stringent EMI and 

less stringent power factor requirements 

on the BLE of residential ballasts. DOE 

tested several residential ballasts 

including models with the highest 

reported BLEs in the CEC database. DOE 

found that residential ballasts achieved 

the same efficiencies as their 

commercial counterparts. DOE believes 

that because these two ballast types can 

achieve the same efficiency, it is not 

necessary to establish a separate product 

class for residential ballasts, and 

therefore does not propose to do so in 

this NOPR. 

i. Sign Ballasts 

Ballasts designed for use in cold 

temperature outdoor signs have slightly 

different characteristics than those 

ballasts that operate in the commercial 

sector. First, sign ballasts are designed 

to operate in cold temperature 

environments—as low as negative 20 

degrees Fahrenheit (F). Second, sign 

ballasts are classified by the total length 

(in feet) of lamps they can operate as 

well as the total number of lamps. To 

operate in cold temperature 

environments and to be able to handle 

numerous lamp combinations, sign 

ballasts contain more robust 

components compared to regular 8-foot 

HO ballasts in the commercial sector. 

Thus, sign ballasts are inherently less 

efficient. In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

concluded that regular 8-foot HO 

ballasts cannot serve as substitutes for 

sign ballasts due to their inability to 

operate in cold temperature 

environments. For these reasons, DOE 

believes that cold temperature sign 

ballasts offer the consumer a distinct 

utility. Therefore, DOE established a 

separate product class for cold 

temperature sign ballasts in the 

preliminary TSD. 

At the public meeting, DOE received 

several comments regarding which 

characteristics distinguish sign ballasts 

from regular ballasts designed to operate 

8-foot HO lamps. OSI stated that a ‘‘cold 

temperature starting’’ label means the 

ballast can start a lamp at temperatures 

typically as low as ¥20 degrees F. (OSI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

116–117) Philips stated that there are 

two UL safety ratings for outdoor 

environments: type 1 outdoor which 

requires a basic moisture resistant 

enclosure, and type 2 outdoor which 

requires a hermetic enclosure to prevent 

all moisture from entering the ballast. 

However, the outdoor rating is not of 

concern regarding efficiency. Instead, 

Philips stated that a cold-temperature 

sign ballast delivers increased ignition 

voltages to the lamp, resulting in more 

resistive losses in the secondary 

transformer. If two high output ballasts 

have the same input power but one has 

a higher open circuit voltage, the ballast 

with the higher open circuit voltage will 

generally be less efficient. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

118–119, 139–140) The California 

Utilities, however, questioned whether 

cold-temperature sign ballasts were 

inherently less efficient because they 

noted some regular 8-foot HO ballasts 

are capable of starting lamps at 

temperatures of negative 20 degrees F or 

lower. (California Utilities, No. 30 at p. 

2) 

In this NOPR, DOE reviewed whether 

sign ballasts had different BLEs than 

regular 8-foot HO ballasts. Based on its 

test data, DOE found that sign ballasts 

did not achieve the expected BLE 

predicted by the power-efficiency 

relationship. Test data indicated these 

ballasts were not as efficient as regular 

8-foot HO ballasts. DOE believes this is 

because sign ballasts are generally more 

robust and flexible. For example, sign 

ballasts are often specified to operate 

multiple-lamp-length combinations as 

well as both T12HO and T8HO lamps. 

As a result, a sign ballast is not 

optimized for the operation of a 

particular lamp whereas a regular 8-foot 

HO ballast is designed specifically for a 

T8HO or T12HO lamp. Regular 8-foot 

HO ballasts cannot always serve as 

substitutes for sign ballasts due to their 

lack of moisture seals and the more 

limited load specifications. For these 

reasons—and the associated differences 

in BLE compared to ballasts of similar 

lamp arc power—DOE proposes to 

establish separate a product class for 

sign ballasts. 

j. Premium Features 

During product research and 

manufacturer interviews, DOE found 

that several high-efficiency ballasts 

possess premium features such as a low 

temperature rating, type CC protection, 

lamp striation control, and small can 

size. Below DOE discusses each feature 

and considers whether to propose 

separate product classes for them. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20109 

Low Temperature Rating 

DOE surveyed the market and found 

that all ballast types covered by this 

rulemaking have cold temperature 

ratings. This rating was typically 

associated with high-performance 

products; standard-efficiency ballasts 

were less likely to have this feature. 

Ballasts with low temperature ratings 

(¥20 degrees F) can be used in 

applications such as parking garages, 

warehouses, and cold storage areas. In 

cold temperature environments, a 

fluorescent ballast must supply a higher 

starting voltage to establish the lamp 

arc. To create this higher voltage, the 

output transformer may have additional 

windings. In addition, components 

throughout the ballast must be able to 

withstand this higher voltage, even if 

only for a short amount of time. The 

additional windings and slightly 

different components may increase 

resistive losses. 

DOE conducted research to determine 

how this rating might impact BLE. DOE 

was unable to find pairs of the same 

ballasts in which one had a cold 

temperature rating and one did not. 

Thus, DOE looked at groups of ballasts 

that achieved the same efficiency level 

based on its test data. The data showed 

no clear trend of a cold temperature 

rating impacting BLE. In most cases, 

DOE found the most efficient ballast in 

a particular category had the lowest 

rated starting temperature. Thus, DOE 

believes that the rated starting 

temperature of a ballast does not 

substantively impact overall efficiency. 

Therefore, DOE does not propose to 

establish a separate product class based 

on this feature. 

Type CC 

Arcing can occur when a lamp is not 

well connected to its socket or when it 

is removed from a fixture. To prevent 

this phenomenon, UL 1598 requires 

luminaires using instant start ballasts 

with bipin lamp holders to: (1) Include 

ballasts identified as Type CC, or (2) be 

constructed with lampholders marked 

with a circle ‘‘I.’’ Ballasts labeled as Type 

CC include extra circuitry to monitor 

frequency and remove power to the 

lamp if any unwanted arcing is 

detected. Additional circuitry has the 

potential to increase resistive losses. 

A survey of the market found that 

ballasts with Type CC protection were 

available, although far fewer models 

were offered with this feature than 

without it. Analysis of catalog data 

found that ballasts with Type CC 

protection had slightly lower BEFs than 

ballasts without this feature. However, 

as UL 1598 can be met with different 

lampholders rather than adding 

circuitry within the ballast itself, DOE 

believes that Type CC protection does 

not provide a unique utility. Therefore, 

DOE does not propose to establish a 

separate product class for ballasts with 

a Type CC rating. 

Lamp Striation Control 

Lamp striations are a series of bright 

and dim regions in a fluorescent lamp 

and are considered an undesirable 

visual effect. Striations are most 

common when ballasts operate reducedwattage, energy-saving lamps due to 

their different fill-gas composition. To 

prevent this effect from occurring, 

ballasts with lamp striation control 

usually have additional circuitry, which 

has the potential to increase resistive 

losses. 

During manufacturer interviews, DOE 

learned that striation control is a 

necessary feature for ballasts that can 

operate reduced-wattage, energy-saving 

lamps. DOE observed that most ballasts 

already offer lamp striation control as a 

standard feature on both regular and 

high-efficiency product lines. Test data 

showed that the most efficient 4-foot 

MBP and 8-foot slimline ballasts already 

included lamp striation control. Thus, 

this feature does not prevent ballasts 

from reaching the highest efficiency 

levels identified by this rulemaking. 

Therefore, DOE does not propose to 

establish a separate product class for 

ballasts with lamp striation control. 

Small Case Size 

During interviews, DOE learned that 

smaller fixtures can have reduced 

material costs and higher optical 

efficiency. Optical efficiency describes 

the percentage of light emanated from 

the lamps that exits the fixture or 

reaches the desired surface. Therefore, 

ballast manufacturers are beginning to 

offer ballasts with smaller case sizes 

than what is offered as standard in the 

industry. A ballast with a small case 

size may use different components due 

to size restraints. 

With a limited number of small case 

size ballasts commercially available, 

DOE is uncertain of the relationship 

between ballast enclosure size and 

efficiency. Furthermore, interested 

parties did not provide comments on 

the product class structure put forward 

in the preliminary TSD suggesting that 

DOE should not include ballasts of all 

enclosure sizes in the same product 

class. Based on this uncertainty and 

absence of contrary comments in the 

preliminary TSD, DOE proposes to 

include ballasts of all enclosure sizes in 

the same product class. 

k. Summary 

In summary, after evaluating all 

potential class-setting factors, DOE 

decided to establish separate product 

classes based on starting method, 

ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps, 

and ballasts designed for use in coldtemperature outdoor signs. Table V.1 

summarizes the five product classes. 

TABLE V.1—FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST NOPR PRODUCT CLASSES

Description Product class number ** 

IS and RS ballasts that operate 

4-foot MBP lamps * ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 

8-foot slimline lamps 

PS ballasts that operate 

4-foot MBP lamps * ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps 

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps 

IS and RS ballasts that operate 

8-foot HO lamps ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 

PS ballasts that operate 

8-foot HO lamps ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Ballasts that operate 

8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor signs .................................................................................................... 5 

* Includes both commercial and residential ballasts. 

** Efficiency levels for all product classes are based on an equation. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20110 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

19 International Rectifier. International Rectifier 

Introduces Robust Self-Oscillating Electronic 

Ballast Lighting Control IC. November 22, 2005. (Last accessed October 25, 2010.) http:// 

www.irf.com/whats-new/nr051122.html 

3. Technology Options 

In the technology assessment, DOE 

identifies technology options that 

appear to improve product efficiency. 

This assessment provides the technical 

background and structure on which 

DOE bases its screening and engineering 

analyses. DOE received one comment on 

the technology options identified in the 

preliminary TSD. Philips agreed that ballasts that 

employ integrated circuits can have 

higher efficiencies but pointed out that 

the integrated circuit itself does not 

provide the efficiency, but rather 

integrated circuits are required by more 

efficient topologies. Philips also noted 

that integrated circuits are generally 

used with topologies that operate lamps 

in series rather than those that operate 

lamps in parallel. For parallel lamp 

operation, integrated circuits may be 

cost prohibitive. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 142– 

143) 

In response, DOE agrees with Philips 

that in many cases inclusion of an 

integrated circuit does not increase 

efficiency on its own. DOE believes, 

however, that some integrated circuits 

directly influence BLE. For example, 

there is an integrated circuit that can 

increase ballast efficiency by replacing 

transistors in the direct current (DC) to 

alternating current (AC) inverter.19

Therefore, DOE proposes to maintain 

integrated circuits as a technology 

option in this NOPR. Regarding the high 

cost of an integrated circuit, DOE does 

not evaluate technology options based 

on cost. Rather, DOE calculates prices 

for each efficiency level in the 

engineering analysis and evaluates 

economic impacts on consumers, 

manufacturers, and the nation in 

subsequent analyses. 

B. Screening Analysis 

As discussed in chapter 3 of the 

preliminary TSD, DOE consults with 

industry, technical experts, and other 

interested parties to develop a list of 

technology options for consideration. 

The purpose of the screening analysis is 

to determine which options to consider 

further and which to screen out. DOE 

uses the following four screening 

criteria to determine which design 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in a standards 

rulemaking: 

1. Technological feasibility. DOE will 

consider technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 

2. Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If mass production 

and reliable installation and servicing of 

a technology in commercial products 

could be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time compliance with the standard 

is required, then DOE will consider that 

technology practicable to manufacture, 

install, and service. 

3. Adverse impacts on product utility 

or product availability. If DOE 

determines a technology would have 

significant adverse impact on the utility 

of the product to significant subgroups 

of consumers, or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not consider this 

technology further. 

4. Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If DOE determines that a 

technology will have significant adverse 

impacts on health or safety, it will not 

consider this technology further. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

(4)(a)(4) and (5)(b). 

For the preliminary TSD analysis, 

DOE consulted with industry, technical 

experts, and other interested parties to 

develop a list of technology options for 

consideration. DOE identified the 

following technology options that could 

improve the efficiency of a ballast: 

TABLE V.2—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Technology option Description 

Electronic Ballast Use an electronic ballast design. 

Improved Components .................... Transformers ................................. Use grain-oriented silicon steel, amorphous steel, or laminated 

sheets of amorphous steel to reduce core losses. 

Use litz wire to reduce winding losses. 

Diodes ............................................ Use diodes with lower losses. 

Capacitors ...................................... Use capacitors with a lower effective series resistance. 

Transistors ..................................... Use transistors with low drain-to-source resistance. 

Improved Circuit Design .................. Cathode Cutout ............................. Remove filament heating after the lamp has started. 

Integrated Circuits ......................... Substitute discrete components with an integrated circuit. 

Starting Method ............................. Use IS instead of RS as a starting method for lamp operation. 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE screened 

out ‘‘using laminated sheets of 

amorphous steel’’ because this option 

increases the size and weight of the 

ballast and therefore is not ‘‘practicable 

to manufacture, install, and service.’’ 

Larger magnetic components could 

cause problems in installing and 

servicing ballasts because the ballast 

could be too large to fit in a fixture. DOE 

also stated that this technology option 

could have adverse impacts on 

consumer utility. Specifically, 

increasing the size and weight of the 

ballast could limit the places a 

consumer could use the ballast in a 

building. 

The NEEA and NPCC agreed with 

DOE’s decision to eliminate laminated 

sheets of amorphous steel as a design 

option. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 

4) Earthjustice commented, however, 

that size and weight constraints for 

ballasts needed to be defined before 

DOE could screen out a technology 

option based on increased size or 

weight. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at p. 148) Regarding 

size constraints, the NEEA and NPCC 

commented that new ballasts being 

installed during retrofits are 

significantly smaller than older ballasts 

being removed. They believe that 

technology options that would result in 

small increases in ballast size are not 

necessarily problematic for retrofits 

because new ballasts would still fit in 

the fixtures designed for older ballasts. 

(NEEA and NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 148–149) 

Philips disagreed with the idea that 

increasing ballast size was not 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20111 

20 In some instances (e.g., when switching from 

T12 to T8 ballasts), light output exceeds these 

limits. 

problematic, commenting that newer 

ballasts have smaller cross-sections than 

older ballasts. Smaller ballasts have 

allowed luminaire manufacturers to 

decrease the size and material 

requirements of their luminaires while 

also improving optics. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 149– 

150) Acuity Brands agreed with Philips 

that newer luminaires are designed 

around the smaller sizes of current 

ballasts and confirmed that the smaller 

designs have improved optics. Acuity 

Brands stated that a few luminaires 

could accommodate an increase in the 

length of the ballast, but that many 

luminaires are already designed around 

the smaller size of current ballasts. 

(Acuity Brands, Public Meeting 

Transcipt, No. 34 at p. 150) 

While older ballasts can be larger than 

newer ones, DOE’s research indicates 

that the overall market trend is to create 

increasingly smaller ballast sizes for use 

in smaller and more highly optimized 

fixtures. As the trend toward smaller 

fixtures has existed for a number of 

years, new building designs are already 

incorporating smaller plenum spaces. 

Thus, an increase in the size of a ballast 

could affect its ability to be used in 

certain existing buildings or in new 

construction. Accordingly, DOE 

considers any increase in the existing 

footprint of a ballast to have adverse 

impacts on product utility and product 

availability. 

Based on the above discussion, DOE 

maintains the elimination of laminated 

sheets of amorphous steel as a design 

option because it fails to meet the 

screening criteria of practicality to 

manufacture, install, and service, and 

adverse impacts on product utility. DOE 

considers the remaining technology 

options as design options in the 

engineering analysis. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Approach 

The engineering analysis develops 

cost-efficiency relationships to show the 

manufacturing costs of achieving 

increased efficiency. DOE has identified 

the following three methodologies to 

generate the manufacturing costs 

needed for the engineering analysis: 

(1) The design-option approach, which 

provides the incremental costs of adding 

to a baseline model design options that 

will improve its efficiency; (2) the 

efficiency-level approach, which 

provides the relative costs of achieving 

increases in energy efficiency levels, 

without regard to the particular design 

options used to achieve such increases; 

and (3) the cost-assessment (or reverse 

engineering) approach, which provides 

‘‘bottom-up’’ manufacturing cost 

assessments for achieving various levels 

of increased efficiency, based on 

detailed data as to costs for parts and 

material, labor, shipping/packaging, and 

investment for models that operate at 

particular efficiency levels. 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

determined that an efficiency level 

approach paired with reverse 

engineering cost estimates would yield 

the most realistic data. In this way, DOE 

would not rely solely on product lists or 

minimum cost data supplied by 

manufacturers. DOE conducted 

teardowns for unpotted ballasts and 

ballasts removed from a manufacturing 

facility before the potting procedure 

because potting (a tar-like fill material) 

inhibits visual observation of the 

components). Details of the engineering 

analysis are in NOPR TSD chapter 5. 

The following discussion summarizes 

the general steps of the engineering 

analysis: 

Determine Representative Product 

Classes. DOE first reviews covered 

ballasts and the associated product 

classes. When multiple product classes 

exist, DOE selects certain classes as 

‘‘representative’’ primarily because of 

their high market volumes. DOE 

extrapolates the efficiency levels (ELs) 

from representative product classes to 

those product classes it does not analyze 

directly. 

Select Baseline Ballasts. For each 

representative product class, DOE 

establishes baseline ballasts. The 

baseline serves as a reference point for 

each product class, against which DOE 

measures changes resulting from 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards. For ballasts subject to 

existing Federal energy conservation 

standards, a baseline ballast is a 

commercially available ballast that just 

meets existing standards and provides 

basic consumer utility. If no standard 

exists for that specific ballast type, the 

baseline ballast represents the typical 

ballast sold within a product class with 

the lowest tested ballast efficiency. To 

determine energy savings and changes 

in price, DOE compares each higher 

energy-efficiency level with the baseline 

unit. 

DOE tested a range of ballasts from 

multiple manufacturers to identify 

baseline ballasts and determine their 

BLE. Appendix 5C of the NOPR TSD 

presents the test results. DOE selects 

specific characteristics such as starting 

method, ballast factor, and input voltage 

to characterize the most common ballast 

at the baseline level. DOE also selects 

multiple baseline ballasts in certain 

product classes to ensure consideration 

of different ballast types and their 

associated consumer economics. 

Select Representative Ballasts. DOE 

selects commercially available ballasts 

with higher BLEs as replacements for 

each baseline ballast in the 

representative product classes by 

considering the design options 

identified in the technology assessment 

and screening analysis (NOPR TSD 

chapter 4). In general, DOE can identify 

the design options associated with each 

more efficient ballast. Where design 

options cannot be identified by the 

product number or catalog description, 

DOE determines the design options 

likely to be used in the ballast to 

achieve a higher BLE based on 

information gathered during 

manufacturer interviews. In identifying 

more efficient substitutes, DOE uses a 

database of commercially available 

ballasts. DOE then tests these ballasts to 

establish their appropriate BLE. 

Appendix 5C of the NOPR TSD presents 

these test results. 

Because fluorescent lamp ballasts are 

designed to operate fluorescent lamps, 

DOE considers properties of the entire 

lamp and ballast system in the 

engineering analysis. Though ballasts 

are capable of operating several different 

lamp wattages, DOE chooses the most 

common fluorescent lamp used with 

each ballast for analysis. DOE also 

includes two substitution cases in the 

engineering analysis. In the first case, 

the consumer is not able to change the 

spacing of the fixture and therefore 

replaces one baseline ballast with a 

more efficient ballast. This generally 

represents the lighting retrofit scenario 

where fixture spacing is predetermined 

by the existing installation. In this case, 

light output is generally maintained to 

within 10 percent of the baseline system 

lumen output.20 In the second case, the 

consumer is able to change the spacing 

of the fixture and either purchases more 

or fewer ballasts to maintain light 

output. This represents a new 

construction scenario in which the 

consumer has the flexibility to assign 

fixture spacing based on the light output 

of the new system. In this case, DOE 

normalizes the light output relative to 

the baseline ballast. 

Determine Efficiency Levels. DOE 

develops ELs based on two factors: (1) 

The design options associated with the 

specific ballasts studied; and (2) the 

maximum technologically feasible 

efficiency level. As discussed in section 

0, DOE’s efficiency levels are based on 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20112 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

21The MSP is the price at which the 

manufacturer can recover all production and nonproduction costs and earn a profit. Non-production 

costs include selling, general, and administration 

(SG&A) costs, the cost of research and development, 

and interest. 

test data collected from products 

currently on the market. 

Conduct Price Analysis. DOE 

generated a bill of material (BOM) by 

disassembling multiple manufacturers’ 

ballasts that spanned a range of 

efficiency levels for some of the 

representative ballast types. DOE 

generated BOMs for two- and four-lamp 

T8 MBP IS, two-lamp T8 MBP PS, and 

2-lamp, 8-foot slimline ballasts only 

because these ballasts were not filled 

with potting (a tar like substance). As 

stated previously, potting obscures the 

identification of individual components. 

The BOMs describe the products in 

detail, including all manufacturing steps 

required to make and/or assemble each 

part. DOE then developed a cost model 

that converts the BOMs for each 

efficiency level into manufacturer 

production costs (MPCs). By applying 

derived manufacturer markups to the 

MPCs, DOE calculated the manufacturer 

selling prices 21 and constructed 

industry cost-efficiency curves. In those 

cases where DOE was not able to 

generate a BOM for a given ballast, DOE 

estimated an MSP based on the 

relationship between teardown data, 

blue book prices, and manufacturersupplied MSPs. 

a. Metric 

One change to engineering approach 

from the preliminary TSD is the use of 

a new metric, BLE. Although DOE 

evaluates ballast efficiency in terms of 

the BLE metric in this NOPR, DOE 

received several comments regarding 

the relationship between ballast 

efficiency (as determined by the method 

proposed in the active mode test 

procedure NOPR) and ballast efficacy 

factor (BEF). OSI commented that there 

might be variation introduced into the 

BEF values due to the fact that it is 

correlated to BE, and both of these 

metrics have a distribution of error. 

(OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 

at p. 166–167) GE agreed that there was 

error in the correlation equations 

because a BEF for a 2-lamp 4-foot 

normal BF IS ballast could be correlated 

back to 93 percent efficiency, which is 

higher than any efficiency measured 

during NEMA’s round robin testing. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 

at p. 171) The NEEA and NPCC pointed 

out that it is not worth discussing the 

measurement variation associated with 

the ballast efficiency metric if 

correlating it to BEF introduces 

significant error. (NEEA and NPCC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

167–168) On the other hand, Philips 

commented that when considering only 

their products, the BEFs determined by 

the correlation equations were very 

close to the values obtained during 

testing in their own lab. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at p. 168) 

DOE agrees with stakeholders that 

calculating BEF as a function of ballast 

efficiency could introduce error into the 

BEF value. In the separate test 

procedure SNOPR, however, DOE 

proposes to directly evaluate ballasts 

using BLE, and the measurement 

variation present in the BLE metric is 

significantly less than that which 

existed for BEF due to the elimination 

of photometric measurements. More 

detail regarding measurement variation 

can be found in section 0 of this notice 

or in the active mode test procedure 

SNOPR. 

b. Test Data 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

conducted an extensive amount of 

testing in support of the active mode 

test procedure. DOE provided this data 

in appendix 5C. The appendix 

contained various ballast characteristics 

such as starting method, maximum 

number of lamps operated, ballast 

factor, and other relevant 

characteristics. It also contained each 

ballast’s BEF value as measured by the 

existing light-output based procedure 

and, for some ballasts, ballast efficiency 

as measured by the resistor-based 

method proposed in the active mode 

test procedure NOPR. DOE provided the 

raw data in the appendix so that 

interested parties could form their own 

conclusions regarding the two metrics. 

Throughout the rest of the chapters and 

appendices in the preliminary TSD, 

however, the BEF values used in the 

analysis were calculated using the 

correlation equations specified in the 

active mode test procedure NOPR. DOE 

received several comments related to 

the test data. 

The California Utilities, ASAP, and 

the NEEA and NPCC commented on the 

discrepancy between the tested BEF 

values and the values contained in other 

sources—such as product catalogs and 

the CEC database. The California 

Utilities cited an example of the CEC 

database containing several ballasts 

with a reported BEF higher than the 

max tech BEF for the relevant product 

class in the preliminary TSD. The NEEA 

and NPCC noted that the largest 

discrepancies existed for IS and RS 

ballasts that operate T12 and T8 lamps. 

They concluded that these differences 

are due to manufacturers overstating 

catalog data. The NEEA and NPCC 

believe that this practice can adversely 

affect a building’s lighting systems to 

the extent that it may not meet code 

requirements. (California Utilities, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

157–8; ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at p. 160; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 32 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with the above-mentioned 

groups that the tested BEF values are 

different than those presented in 

catalogs or the CEC database. To gather 

BEF values for various ballasts, DOE 

could have consulted manufacturer 

catalogs, the CEC database, or its own 

database of tested ballasts. It became 

clear during DOE’s initial testing that 

manufacturers were overstating BEF 

values in their catalogs. Thus, DOE 

sought an alternate source of 

information. The CEC maintains a 

public database of BEF values submitted 

to show compliance with state-level 

energy conservation standards. Philips 

pointed out that the CEC database 

should, by definition, contain test data 

from certified laboratories whereas 

catalogs do not. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 162–163) 

Although the California Utilities 

pointed out that the CEC database 

reported higher BEFs than the max tech 

level reported in the preliminary TSD, 

Philips commented that the highest 

candidate standard level (CSL) in the 

2-lamp 4-foot MBP IS/RS product class 

was close enough to the higher values 

in the CEC database to be within the 

margin of error associated with the BEF 

metric. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 158–159) 

While the CEC database represented 

an improvement over catalog data, 

commenters voiced concern with the 

information in the database. Philips 

commented that according to the CEC 

database, some manufacturers reported 

the same BEF for multiple ballast 

models. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 158–9) This 

indicates that all ballast models listed 

may not have been individually tested. 

In addition, Philips cited several other 

factors to consider when reviewing data 

from the CEC database, such as: 

Different manufacturers offering their 

most efficient ballasts at different 

efficiencies, measurement variation 

between testing labs; and measurement 

variation due to the test procedure itself. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

34 at pp. 162–163) 

DOE agrees that because each 

manufacturer likely tested their ballasts 

in different labs, the CEC database does 

not provide the best comparison. It is 

less meaningful for DOE to compare the 

BEF of a ballast tested in lab A to the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20113 

BEF of a different ballast tested in lab 

B, as measurement variation will exist 

between the two labs. DOE also 

acknowledges that there will be 

additional measurement variation 

within a lab due to tolerances allowed 

in the BEF test procedure. Although test 

procedure variation cannot be 

eliminated, the lab-to-lab variation can 

be eliminated by testing all ballasts in 

the same lab. Thus, in the preliminary 

TSD and this NOPR, DOE chose to rely 

on data obtained from its own testing. 

DOE acknowledges that manufacturers 

may use different labs for testing and 

certification purposes. Therefore, DOE 

accounts for both these sources of 

variation by decreasing efficiency levels 

by 0.8 percent. See section 0 for more 

details. 

The California Utilities and the NEEA 

and NPCC noticed the discrepancy 

between DOE’s test data contained in 

Appendix 5C and the values reported in 

chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD. They 

noted that the measured input power 

reported for a representative unit in the 

chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD did 

not match the input power listed in 

Appendix 5C for a ballast with the same 

BEF. In addition, all CSLs reported in 

the chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD for 

T5 standard output ballasts were lower 

than the BEFs reported in Appendix 5C. 

(California Utilities, No. 30 at p. 3; 

NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 5) DOE acknowledges that the BEFs are 

not the same. The reason for the 

differences is that the data provided in 

Appendix 5C included DOE’s test 

results for BEF and BE. BEF was 

measured according to the test 

procedure outlined in 10 CFR Part 430, 

Subpart B, Appendix Q—a procedure 

which includes photometric 

measurements. Ballast efficiency was 

measured according to the resistorbased method in the active mode test 

procedure NOPR. In chapter 5 of the 

preliminary TSD, DOE presented data 

based on its proposed test procedure— 

which included measuring a resistorbased ballast efficiency and using a 

correlation equation to calculate BEF. 

Thus, the BEFs presented in chapter 5 

of the preliminary TSD are calculated 

values, whereas the BEFs presented in 

Appendix 5C are actual measured 

values. 

DOE also received several comments 

regarding the ballasts it selected for 

testing. The NEEA and NPCC believed 

that DOE did not select any low- or 

high-BF products for testing. They 

therefore expressed concern that DOE 

had scaled efficiency levels to twothirds of the product classes but had not 

obtained any test data for those classes. 

The NEEA and NPCC encouraged DOE 

to conduct additional testing to look at 

the relationship between low-, 

normal-, and high-ballast factor. (NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 32 at pp. 3, 4) For the 

preliminary TSD, DOE did measure BEF 

and resistor-based BE for low-, 

normal-, and high-ballast factor 

products. As described in the active 

mode test procedure NOPR, however, 

DOE needed to create separate 

correlation equations for low, normal, 

and high BF ballasts because all testing 

was conducted with resistors 

corresponding to normal BF. 75 FR 

14288, 14303–4 (Mar. 24, 2010). For this 

NOPR, DOE continued to test low and 

high BF products in addition to those 

with normal BF. 

The California Utilities expressed 

concern that DOE’s testing may not have 

captured the entire ballast market. They 

stated that their alternate sources of data 

indicated a larger range of BEFs than the 

range shown by the test data contained 

in Appendix 5C of the preliminary TSD. 

(California Utilities, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 157–158) DOE 

found after conducting its own testing 

for the preliminary TSD that the actual 

range of BEF values was much narrower 

than indicated by catalog values. DOE 

believes its testing accurately 

characterized the market because it 

selected ballasts to capture variations in 

manufacturer, standard and highefficiency product lines, lamp diameter, 

starting method, and other relevant 

factors. These variations have also been 

captured in the lamp-based BE testing 

that DOE has conducted to determine 

efficiency levels for this NOPR. To ensure that DOE establishes the 

appropriate max tech level, the 

California Utilities recommended DOE 

test the ballasts with the highest BEF 

values as indicated in the CEC and CEE 

databases. (California Utilities, No. 30 at 

p. 2) DOE tested the most efficient 

(highest BEF) ballast in the CEC 

database for each representative ballast 

type identified in this NOPR. DOE did 

not review the CEE database as values 

submitted to this program are based on 

catalogs. Catalog data typically is not 

based on the DOE test procedure for 

every unit presented. Instead 

manufacturers often assign the same 

BEF to a family of products or 

approximate the BEF based on 

constituent measurements such as input 

power. 

2. Representative Product Classes 

For the preliminary TSD, DOE was 

not able to analyze all 70 product 

classes. Instead, DOE selected 

representative product classes to 

analyze based primarily on their high 

market volumes, and then scaled its 

analytical findings for those 

representative product classes to other 

product classes that were not analyzed. 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE identified 

10 product classes as representative: (1) 

2-lamp 4-foot MBP normal-BF IS/RS 

ballasts in the commercial sector; (2) 4- 

lamp 4-foot MBP normal-BF IS/RS 

ballasts in the commercial sector; (3) 2- 

lamp 4-foot MBP normal-BF PS ballasts; 

(4) 4-lamp 4-foot MBP normal-BF PS 

ballasts; (5) 2-lamp 4-foot MiniBP SO 

normal-BF ballasts; (6) 2-lamp 4-foot 

MiniBP HO ballasts; (7) 2-lamp 8-foot 

slimline normal-BF ballasts; (8) 2-lamp 

8-foot HO IS/RS ballasts; (9) 2-lamp 4- 

foot MBP normal-BF IS/RS ballasts in 

the residential sector; and (10) 4-lamp 

sign ballasts. For each ballast type, DOE 

selected product classes with the 

highest volume of shipments to be 

representative. DOE analyzed at least 

one representative product class for 

each ballast type included in the scope 

of coverage. For the most prevalent 

ballast types (e.g., for ballasts that 

operate 4-foot MBP and 2-foot U-shaped 

lamps), DOE chose to analyze multiple 

representative product classes. While 

DOE received several stakeholder 

comments regarding methods of scaling 

(discussed in section 0), DOE did not 

receive objections to the decision to 

analyze certain product classes as 

representative and scale to those not 

analyzed. Thus, DOE maintains this 

methodology in this NOPR. 

DOE also did not receive any 

objections to the product classes it 

chose as representative. Due to the 

changes in product class structure 

discussed above, however, DOE’s 

selection of representative classes for 

this NOPR differs from that presented in 

the preliminary TSD. Instead of 70 

product classes, there are now a total of 

5 classes. DOE defines separate product 

classes based on starting method (PS 

and IS/RS), 8-foot HO ballasts, and sign 

ballasts. The first product class 

indicated in Table V.1 includes IS and 

RS ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP and 

8-foot slimline lamps. According to the 

U.S. Census, the market share of 4-foot 

T8 MBP ballasts represented 55 percent 

of shipments in 2005. While this data is 

not segregated by starting method, based 

on product catalogs and manufacturer 

interviews, DOE believes that over half 

of the 4-foot MBP T8 ballast shipments 

are IS. In addition, the U.S. Census 

indicates that 8-foot slimline ballasts 

had about 5-percent market share in 

2005. As these ballast types represent 

significant shipments relative to the 

overall fluorescent ballast market, DOE 

analyzes this product class as 

representative. 

The third product class indicated in 

Table V.1 includes PS ballasts that 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20114 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

22Universal voltage ballasts can operate at 120V 

or 277V. 

23More recent census data for ballasts are 

available. However, shipments of T12 ballasts have 

not been publicly released for all product classes 

after 2001. DOE used 2001 Census data when 

selecting baselines for all ballast types. 

operate 4-foot MBP, 4-foot T5 MiniBP 

SO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. 

The U.S. Census reports that T5 ballasts 

comprised about 4 percent of the ballast 

market in 2005. Shipment data are 

available only for T5 high output 

ballasts, so the actual market share is 

likely larger. T5 ballast shipments have 

been steadily increasing since the 

shipments were first reported in 2002. 

Furthermore, DOE research indicates 

that T5 high output ballasts are rapidly 

taking market share from metal halide 

systems used in high bay industrial 

applications. DOE therefore concluded 

that T5 ballasts are a growing market 

segment of significant size. As 

mentioned above, ballasts that operate 

4-foot MBP lamps represent a significant 

portion of the overall fluorescent ballast 

market. Although PS ballasts are not as 

popular as IS ballasts, DOE believes that 

4-foot MBP PS ballasts represent a 

sizeable portion of the market due to the 

increasing use of occupancy sensors. 

Because of the large portion of ballast 

shipments contained within this 

product class, DOE analyzes this 

product class as representative. 

According to the U.S. Census, the 

market share of 8-foot HO (T8 and T12) 

ballasts (excluding cold temperature 

sign ballasts) was about 0.5 percent in 

2005. In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

concluded that IS and RS ballasts were 

more popular than PS ballasts. These 

conclusions were supported by product 

catalogs and manufacturer interviews. 

DOE received no adverse comment 

regarding its selection of the 2-lamp IS 

and RS 8-foot HO ballast product class 

as representative in the preliminary TSD 

and continues to analyze IS and RS 8- 

foot HO ballasts as representative for 

this NOPR. DOE identified less than five 

8-foot HO PS ballasts currently being 

sold by major manufacturers, limiting 

the potential for a detailed direct 

analysis. Instead, DOE scaled its results 

from the larger 8-foot RDC HO IS and RS 

product class to the PS product class as 

described in section 0. 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

analyzed 4-lamp sign ballasts, or those 

that operate a maximum of 32 feet of 

lamps, as the representative product 

class for that ballast type because it 

believed that to be the most common 

lamp-and-ballast system. DOE received 

no objection to its decision to analyze 

sign ballasts as a representative product 

class in the preliminary TSD and 

continues to analyze sign ballasts as a 

representative product class for this 

NOPR. 

3. Baseline Ballasts 

Once DOE identified the 

representative product classes for 

analysis, DOE selected representative 

ballast types to analyze from within 

each product class. For each ballast type 

analyzed, DOE selected a baseline 

ballast from which to measure 

improvements in efficiency. Baseline 

ballasts are what DOE believes to be the 

most common, least efficacious ballasts 

for each representative ballast type. For 

ballasts subject to existing Federal 

energy conservation standards, a 

baseline ballast is a commercially 

available ballast that just meets existing 

standards and provides basic consumer 

utility. If no standard exists for that 

specific ballast type, the baseline ballast 

represents the typical ballast sold 

within a representative ballast type with 

the lowest tested ballast efficiency. In 

cases where two types of ballasts (each 

operates a different lamp diameter) are 

included in the same representative 

ballast type, DOE chose multiple 

baseline ballasts. 

DOE considered each ballast’s 

characteristics in choosing the most 

appropriate baseline ballast for each 

ballast type. These characteristics 

include the ballast’s starting method 

(e.g., rapid start, instant start, or 

programmed start), input voltage (277 V 

versus 120 V), type (magnetic versus 

electronic), power factor (PF), total 

harmonic distortion, ballast factor, 

ballast luminous efficiency, and 

whether the ballast can operate at 

multiple voltages 22 (universal voltage) 

or only one (dedicated voltage). 

a. IS and RS Ballasts 

In this NOPR, DOE combined several 

product classes from the preliminary 

TSD into one product class. Thus, the IS 

and RS product class in this NOPR 

refers to IS and RS ballasts that operate 

4-foot MBP and 8-foot slimline lamps. 

This product class contains the 

following representative product classes 

from the preliminary TSD: (1) 2-lamp 4- 

foot MBP IS and RS normal BF; (2) 4- 

lamp 4-foot MBP IS and RS normal BF; 

(3) 2-lamp 8-foot slimline normal BF; 

and (4) 2-lamp 4-foot MBP IS and RS 

ballasts in the residential sector. DOE 

analyzed these classes in the 

preliminary TSD because DOE chose at 

least one representative product class 

for each ballast type and these classes 

contained the highest volume of 

shipments. In this NOPR, DOE 

continues to analyze products for each 

ballast type included in the proposed 

scope of coverage. DOE also continues 

to analyze more than one representative 

ballast type if shipments suggest that 

there is more than one high-volume unit 

(e.g. DOE analyzes both 2- and 4-lamp 

4-foot MBP ballasts). Thus, although 

several ballast types are combined 

within the IS and RS product class, DOE 

analyzes the following representative 

ballast types within that class: (1) 

Ballasts that operate two 4-foot MBP 

lamps; (2) ballasts that operate four 4- 

foot MBP lamps; (3) ballasts that operate 

two 8-foot slimline lamps; and (4) 

ballasts that operate two 4-foot MBP 

lamps in the residential sector. 

Two 4-Foot MBP Lamps 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

analyzed two baselines for 2-lamp 4-foot 

MBP IS and RS ballasts. Census data 

indicated that 2001 shipments of 4-foot 

MBP T12 ballasts represented 14 

percent of all 4-foot MBP ballast 

shipments, while 4-foot MBP T8 ballasts 

represented 86 percent of all shipments 

for this ballast type.23 Therefore, DOE 

analyzed both a T12 and T8 ballast as 

baselines. Though the 2009 Lamps Rule 

will eliminate all currently 

commercially available T12 lamps as of 

July 2012, DOE learned that some lamp 

manufacturers planned to produce a 

T12 lamp that just met the 2009 Lamp 

Rule efficacy standards. Therefore, DOE 

included an F34T12 lamp in its 

analysis, assigning it performance 

parameters that would comply with the 

2009 Lamps Rule. DOE analyzed only 

those T12 ballasts that operate F34T12 

lamps because only the most efficient 

T12 lamps will be available when 

compliance with any amended 

standards established in this ballast 

rulemaking is required (by June 30, 

2014). For the T8 baseline, DOE 

analyzed only those ballasts that operate 

the F32T8 lamp because it is the most 

common 4-foot MBP T8 lamp. 

The Federal minimum energy 

conservation standard for ballasts that 

operate two F34T12 lamps became 

effective for ballasts manufactured on or 

after July 1, 2009, sold by the 

manufacturer on or after October 1, 

2009, or incorporated into a luminaire 

by a luminaire manufacturer after July 1, 

2010. (10 CFR 430.32 (m)(5)). This 

energy conservation standard now 

effectively allows only electronic 

F34T12 ballasts. Therefore, DOE chose 

an electronic model as the F34T12 

baseline ballast. Currently there is no 

Federal minimum energy conservation 

standard for ballasts that operate F32T8 

lamps. Therefore, in choosing the 

baseline ballast for this lamp type, DOE 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20115 

24While more recent census data for ballasts is 

available, shipments of T12 ballasts have not been 

publicly released after 2001. T12 shipments for this 

ballast type also include data for the 6-foot SP 

slimline ballast, which DOE estimates is negligible 

compared to the 8-foot shipments. 

chose the most common, least efficient 

ballast on the market. 

ASAP commented that because 

electronic T12 ballasts are more 

expensive than comparable T8 ballasts 

and also use a more expensive lamp, the 

market is going to shift to T8 ballasts, 

leading them to believe the T8 ballast is 

a more appropriate baseline. Philips 

agreed with ASAP that a T8 ballast was 

a more appropriate baseline because an 

electronic T8 instant start ballast is the 

dominant ballast sold. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at p. 255; 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

34 at p. 256) DOE agrees with Philips 

that, in recent years, T8 ballast 

shipments have overtaken T12 

shipments. For this reason, DOE 

analyzes a T8 ballast as a baseline. DOE 

continues to analyze a T12 ballast as a 

baseline ballast, however, because while 

electronic T12 ballasts may have a lower 

shipment volume, they are the least 

efficient products available that operate 

two 2-foot MBP lamps. 

Four 4-Foot MBP Lamps 

Although Census data indicated that 

both T12 and T8 ballasts operate 4-foot 

MBP lamps, DOE’s research found that 

only T8 ballasts operate four lamps. 

Therefore, in the preliminary TSD, DOE 

analyzed only a T8 ballast as a baseline 

for 4-lamp 4-foot MBP IS and RS 

ballasts. Because there is no Federal 

energy conservation standard, DOE 

chose a baseline for this ballast type that 

exhibits the characteristics of the least 

efficient and most common ballast on 

the market. DOE paired this ballast with 

an F32T8 lamp because this lamp is the 

most common 4-foot MBP T8 lamp. 

DOE did not receive any adverse 

comment regarding its methodology for 

selecting a baseline for 4-lamp 4-foot 

MBP IS and RS ballasts. Therefore, for 

these reasons, DOE maintains this 

methodology for this NOPR. 

Two 8-Foot Slimline Lamps 

For ballasts that operate two 8-foot 

slimline lamps, DOE analyzed two 

baseline ballasts in the preliminary 

TSD. Census data indicated that 2001 

shipments of 8-foot slimline T12 

ballasts represented approximately 50 

percent of all shipments for this ballast 

type, whereas T8 ballasts represented 

the remaining 50 percent.24 Therefore, 

DOE analyzed both a T12 and T8 ballast 

as baselines. The 2009 Lamps Rule will 

eliminate all currently commercially 

available T12 lamps as of July 2012. 

However, DOE learned that some lamp 

manufacturers planned to produce a 

T12 lamp that just meets the 2009 Lamp 

Rule efficacy standards. Therefore, DOE 

included an F96T12/ES lamp in its 

analysis, assigning it performance 

parameters that would comply with the 

2009 Lamps Rule. For the T8 baseline, 

DOE analyzed only those ballasts that 

operate the F96T8 lamp because this 

lamp is the most common 8-foot SP 

slimline T8 lamp. 

The Federal minimum energy 

conservation standards for ballasts that 

operate two F96T12/ES lamps became 

effective for ballasts manufactured on or 

after July 1, 2009. (10 CFR Part 430.32 

(m)(5)). This energy conservation 

standard effectively allowed only 

electronic T12 products. Therefore, DOE 

chose an electronic ballast as the T12 

baseline for this ballast type. Currently 

there is no Federal minimum energy 

conservation standard for ballasts that 

operate F96T8 lamps. Therefore, DOE 

analyzed the most common, least 

efficient ballast on the market as the 

baseline. DOE did not receive any 

adverse comment regarding this 

methodology and maintains this 

approach in this NOPR. 

Two 4-Foot MBP Lamps, Residential 

Sector 

Through manufacturer interviews, 

DOE learned that both T12 and T8 

ballasts are popular in the residential 

market. Therefore, DOE analyzed both a 

T12 and T8 ballast as baselines in the 

preliminary TSD. Currently there are 

federal minimum energy conservation 

standards for ballasts that operate 

F34T12 lamps in the residential sector. 

These standards became effective for 

ballasts manufactured on or after July 1, 

2010 or sold by the manufacturer on or 

after October 1, 2010. (10 CFR 430.32 

(m)(5–6)). This energy conservation 

standard now effectively allows only 

electronic F34T12 residential ballasts. 

Therefore, DOE chose an electronic 

model as the F34T12 baseline ballast. 

Because no federal minimum energy 

conservation standard exists for T8 

residential ballasts, DOE chose the most 

common, least efficient ballast on the 

market. DOE research discovered that 

most ballasts sold in the residential 

market are sold as part of a fixture. 

Therefore, DOE researched the most 

common fixtures sold in the residential 

market. DOE then obtained the fixtures, 

removed the ballast, and tested the 

ballast to determine the least efficient 

and most common option. DOE tested a 

range of F32T8 ballasts from multiple 

ballast manufacturers and in multiple 

fixtures. 

Though the 2009 Lamps Rule will 

eliminate all currently commercially 

available T12 lamps as of July 2012, 

DOE learned that some lamp 

manufacturers planned to produce a 

T12 lamp that just met the 2009 Lamps 

Rule efficacy standards. Therefore, DOE 

included an F34T12 lamp in its 

analysis, assigning it performance 

parameters that would comply with the 

2009 Lamps Rule. Because only the 

most efficient T12 lamps will be 

available when compliance with any 

amended standards established by this 

ballast rulemaking is required, DOE 

analyzed only those T12 ballasts that 

operate F34T12 lamps. For the T8 

baseline, DOE paired its T8 baseline 

ballast with an F32T8 lamp because 

DOE believed, based on catalogs and 

feedback from manufacturers, that that 

was the most common wattage lamp at 

that diameter. 

DOE received several comments on its 

selection of a baseline in the residential 

sector. The California Utilities and the 

NEEA and NPCC believed that DOE’s 

baseline selection underestimated the 

energy savings possible in the 

residential sector. They believed that 

the most common 2-lamp residential 

fixture had a higher ballast factor than 

that represented in the preliminary TSD. 

The NEEA and NPCC pointed out that 

the quality of a linear fluorescent 

product designed for use in a kitchen, 

utility room, or other inside space may 

be different than the quality of a shop 

or strip light typically used in garages. 

Furthermore, the NEEA and NPCC 

believed that because the residential 

market represented a frequent switching 

environment, programmed start ballasts 

should be considered. (California 

Utilities, No. 30 at p. 5; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 32 at p. 7, 8) 

DOE appreciates the comments 

regarding the residential baselines and 

reexamined the selection of baseline 

ballasts for this NOPR. DOE conducted 

additional testing in this market and 

found that the least efficient T12 ballast 

had a higher ballast factor than that 

presented in the preliminary TSD. Thus, 

the input power for this baseline ballast 

is also higher, which results in greater 

energy savings. Regarding programmed 

start ballasts, DOE agrees that the 

residential market may represent a 

frequent switching environment. Based 

on catalog data and manufacturer 

interviews, however, DOE continues to 

believe that IS and RS ballasts are the 

most common in this market sector. 

Therefore, DOE continues to analyze 

residential ballasts with these starting 

methods for this NOPR. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20116 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

25Currently only one manufacturer sells a 4-foot 

MiniBP T5 lamp that is not a F28T5. This lamp is 

a reduced wattage (F26T5). 

26Currently only two manufacturers sell a 4-foot 

MiniBP T5 HO lamp that is not a F54T5HO. One 

manufacturer sells a reduced wattage (F51T5HO). 

Another manufacturer sells a F49T5HO. 

b. PS Ballasts 

In this NOPR, the PS product class 

refers to PS ballasts that operate 4-foot 

MBP, 4-foot MiniBP SO, and 4-foot 

MiniBP HO lamps. The PS product class 

contains the following representative 

product classes from the preliminary 

TSD: (1) 2-lamp 4-foot MBP PS normal 

BF; (2) 4-lamp 4-foot MBP PS normal 

BF; (3) 2-lamp 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO 

normal BF; and (4) 2-lamp 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO ballasts. DOE analyzed 

these classes in the preliminary TSD 

because DOE chose at least one 

representative product class for each 

ballast type and these classes contained 

the highest volume of shipments. As 

described in the section above, DOE 

continues to analyze products for each 

ballast type included in the proposed 

scope of coverage. DOE also continues 

to analyze more than one representative 

ballast type if shipments suggest that 

there is more than one high volume 

unit. Thus, although several ballast 

types are combined within the PS 

product class, DOE analyzes the 

following as representative ballast types 

within that class: (1) Ballasts that 

operate two 4-foot MBP lamps; (2) 

ballasts that operate four 4-foot MBP 

lamps; (3) ballasts that operate two 4- 

foot T5 SO lamps; and (4) ballasts that 

operate two 4-foot T5 HO lamps. 

Two 4-Foot MBP Lamps and Four 

4-Foot MBP Lamps 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

analyzed one baseline for both 2-lamp 

and 4-lamp 4-foot MBP PS ballasts. DOE 

found that no T12 ballasts existed with 

this starting method. DOE paired the T8 

baseline with an F32T8 lamp because it 

is the most common 4-foot MBP T8 

lamp. As there are currently no Federal 

minimum energy conservation 

standards for ballasts that operate F32T8 

lamps, DOE chose the most common, 

least efficient ballast on the market to be 

the baseline. DOE did not receive any 

adverse comment regarding its 

methodology for selecting a baseline for 

2-lamp and 4-lamp 4-foot MBP PS 

ballasts and maintains this methodology 

for this NOPR. 

Two 4-Foot T5 SO Lamps and Two 

4-Foot T5 HO Lamps 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE chose to 

analyze one baseline for both 2-lamp 4- 

foot T5 SO and 2-lamp 4-foot T5 HO 

ballasts. For ballasts that operate 

standard output T5 lamps, DOE believes 

that F28T5 lamps encompass the vast 

majority of these lamp sales.25

Therefore, DOE chose a baseline ballast 

that operates two F28T5 lamps. For high 

output T5 lamps, DOE believes that 

F54T5HO lamps are the most common 

and therefore chose a baseline ballast 

that operates this lamp type.26 Currently 

there are no federal minimum energy 

conservation standards for either T5 

ballast type. In addition, only electronic 

T5 ballasts are sold on the U.S. market. 

In the preliminary TSD, however, DOE 

modeled the potential substitution of 

less efficient T5 ballasts by examining 

the difference between magnetic and 

electronic ballasts. Inclusion of less 

efficient T5 ballasts in the preliminary 

TSD led to increased energy 

consumption in the absence of 

standards and to increased energy 

savings with the adoption of T5 

standards. Although DOE did not 

receive any comments on this 

methodology, for this NOPR, DOE 

developed baseline T5 ballasts by 

evaluating the difference in BLE 

between the baseline and more efficient 

replacements for 2-lamp 4-foot MBP PS 

ballasts. Rather than assume magnetic 

ballasts would be the less efficient 

substitute, DOE instead approximates 

the less efficient substitute through 

comparison to a similar PS product that 

uses inefficient electronic ballast 

technology. 

c. 8-Foot HO Ballasts 

As described in section 0, DOE 

analyzed the IS and RS 8-foot HO 

product class as representative. This 

product class contains IS and RS 

ballasts that operate a maximum of one 

or two 8-foot HO lamps. In the 

preliminary TSD, DOE estimated that 

the majority of 8-foot HO ballasts are 2- 

lamp ballasts and therefore analyzed the 

two-lamp model as representative. DOE 

received no objection to its decision to 

analyze 2-lamp 8-foot HO ballasts and 

continues to analyze these ballasts as 

representative in this NOPR. 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

analyzed two baselines for this ballast 

type. DOE believes most of the 8-foot 

HO ballasts currently shipped are T12. 

Though the 2009 Lamps Rule will 

eliminate all currently commercially 

available T12 lamps as of July 2012, 

DOE learned that some lamp 

manufacturers planned to produce a 

T12 lamp that just met the 2009 Lamp 

Rule efficacy standards. Therefore, DOE 

included an F96T12HO/ES lamp in its 

analysis, assigning it performance 

parameters that would comply with the 

2009 Lamps Rule. Therefore, DOE 

analyzed both T12 and T8 ballasts as 

baselines. The Federal minimum energy 

conservation standards for ballasts that 

operate two F96T12HO/ES lamps 

became effective for ballasts 

manufactured on or after July 1, 2009. 

10 CFR Part 430.32 (m)(5). These 

standards did not eliminate magnetic 

ballasts from the market. Therefore, 

DOE chose a magnetic ballast for the 

T12 baseline. Because there are 

currently no Federal minimum energy 

conservation standards for ballasts that 

operate F96T8HO lamps, DOE analyzed 

the most common, least efficient ballast 

on the market. For this T8 baseline, DOE 

paired the ballast with an F96T8HO 

lamp because this lamp is the most 

common 8-foot HO T8 lamp. DOE 

received no adverse comment regarding 

this methodology and continues to use 

the same approach for this NOPR. 

d. Sign Ballasts 

In this NOPR, the sign ballast product 

class includes sign ballasts that operate 

8-foot HO lamps. In the preliminary 

TSD, DOE found the most common 

lamp-and-ballast combination for this 

ballast type to be sign ballasts operating 

a maximum of four 8-foot HO cold 

temperature lamps. DOE received no 

adverse comment regarding this 

selection and continues to analyze 4- 

lamp sign ballasts as representative in 

this NOPR. 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE research 

indicated that ballasts that operate in 

outdoor signs or in other cold 

temperature applications are designed 

for use with T12 lamps. Therefore, DOE 

chose a T12 ballast as a baseline for this 

ballast type. Current Federal energy 

conservation standards cover sign 

ballasts that operate two F96T12HO/ES 

lamps. These standards became effective 

for ballasts manufactured on or after 

July 1, 2010 or sold by the manufacturer 

on or after October 1, 2010. (10 CFR Part 

430.32 (m)(5–6)). However, DOE 

analyzed sign ballasts that operate four 

8-foot HO lamps because this is the 

most common lamp and ballast 

combination. DOE chose the most 

common and least efficient ballast on 

the market to be the baseline unit. DOE 

paired this baseline ballast with an 

F96T12HO lamp that represented the 

most common cold temperature lamp 

available on the market. DOE received 

no adverse comment regarding this 

approach and maintains this 

methodology in this NOPR. 

4. Selection of More Efficient Ballasts 

As described in the preliminary TSD, 

in the engineering analysis, DOE 

considered only ‘‘design options’’— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20117 

technology options used to improve 

ballast efficiency that were not 

eliminated in the screening analysis. 

DOE’s selection of design options 

guided its selection of ballast designs 

and efficiency levels. For example, DOE 

noted separation in efficiencies due to 

electronic ballast design, starting 

method, and improved components. All 

more efficient ballast alternatives DOE 

identified are based on commercially 

available ballasts. 

In the preliminary TSD, for each 

representative product class, DOE 

surveyed and tested many of the 

manufacturers’ product offerings to 

identify the efficiency levels 

corresponding to the highest number of 

models. DOE identified the most 

prevalent BEF values in the range of 

available products and established CSLs 

based on those products. To determine 

the max tech level in the preliminary 

TSD, DOE conducted a survey of the 

fluorescent lamp ballast market and the 

research fields that support the market. 

DOE found that within a given product 

class, no working prototypes existed 

that had a distinguishably higher BEF 

than currently available ballasts. 

Therefore, the highest CSL presented— 

which represented the most efficient tier 

of commercially available ballasts—was 

the max tech level that DOE determined 

for the preliminary TSD. DOE presented 

additional research in appendix 5D of 

the preliminary TSD to explore whether 

technologies used in products similar to 

ballasts could be used to improve the 

efficiency of ballasts currently on the 

market. DOE considered the use of 

active rectification (a technology used in 

some power supplies) and improved 

(lower electrical loss) components. 

Power supplies perform a similar power 

conversion function as fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, and improved components 

could potentially be substituted into the 

existing ballast circuit. 

a. Max Tech Ballast Efficiency 

DOE received several comments 

regarding its determination of max tech 

ballast efficiency. GE stated the 

importance of looking at ballast 

efficiency and converting it to BEF 

rather than looking at BEF catalog 

values and calculating the ballast 

efficiency. GE supported this approach 

because ballast efficiency test data 

avoids error measurement associated 

with the BEF test procedure and is 

therefore more accurate. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 165– 

166) DOE agrees with GE’s suggestion to 

consider tested ballast efficiency rather 

than calculated ballast efficiency when 

determining the max tech level. As 

discussed in the active mode test 

procedure SNOPR, DOE proposed a 

lamp-based procedure to measure 

ballast efficiency. 75 FR 71570, 71573 

(November 24, 2010). For this NOPR, 

DOE evaluates standards in terms of 

ballast efficiency, using the BLE metric. 

The California Utilities commented 

that in attempting to identify the max 

tech level commercially available, DOE 

should not limit itself to evaluating 

ballasts from the four major 

manufacturers. (California Utilities, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

171–172) DOE agrees with the California 

Utilities that all manufacturers should 

be considered when identifying the max 

tech level. DOE reviewed the California 

Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) ballast 

database to identify the most efficient 

ballast in terms of BEF (because ballast 

efficiency data was not provided in the 

database) for each analyzed ballast type. 

DOE then tested those ballasts to ensure 

that it considered the most efficient 

products regardless of manufacturer. 

DOE received several comments 

supporting DOE’s conclusion from the 

preliminary TSD that commercially 

available ballasts are also the maximum 

technologically feasible. NEMA and 

Philips commented that premium 

products are approaching the point of 

diminishing returns. Furthermore, 

Philips believes that the premium 

products of all manufacturers are very 

close to max tech. In support of this 

point, Philips stated that fixed-output 

fluorescent ballasts are a mature 

technology and that the state-of-the-art 

product on the market today represents 

a high-performance, cost-effective 

product. Philips would prefer 

regulations that existing highperformance products can meet. If DOE 

were to set a standard at an efficiency 

higher than that achievable by 

commercially available products, 

Philips stated that engineering resources 

would be pulled from developing areas 

like control systems, solid-state lighting 

and new light sources. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 144– 

145, 155–156, 163; NEMA, No. 29 at p. 

17) 

In addition to commenting that DOE 

should not set a standard that would 

require a redesign of existing products, 

Philips commented that all major 

manufacturers are concentrating their 

resources on lighting controls. Philips 

cited the New York Times building as 

an example in which lighting controls 

contributed to energy savings of 60 

percent. Philips stated DOE should not 

require manufacturers to redesign 

existing ballasts to pursue efficiency 

gains of 1 or 2 percent when they can 

dedicate resources to lighting controls, 

which have the potential to achieve 30 

percent–60 percent energy savings. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

34 at p. 156) 

In contrast to the manufacturers, the 

California Utilities and the NEEA and 

NPCC commented that DOE should 

further consider the technology options 

described in Appendix 5D of the 

preliminary TSD. They commented that 

the technologies DOE identified to 

improve efficiency, such as improved 

components and active rectification, 

have been employed in other electronic 

products similar to ballasts, including 

power supplies. They believe that both 

active rectification and Schottky diodes 

could be incorporated into fluorescent 

ballasts and could generate savings in 

the range DOE estimated, or greater. 

They also believe active rectification 

may be becoming more common in 

inexpensive consumer products. 

Additionally, the California Utilities 

pointed out that savings of 1 to 2 

percent are significant when 

considering that for many ballast types, 

the efficiency savings identified by DOE 

are about 2 to 7 percent. They suggested 

that DOE conduct research with 

manufacturers of power supplies 

incorporating active rectification, 

because cost and efficiency estimates for 

power supplies may be applicable to 

electronic ballasts as well. (California 

Utilities, No. 30 at p. 2; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 32 at p. 4) 

Osram Sylvania and NEMA stated 

that active rectification could 

potentially achieve energy savings of 

about one percent, depending on the 

line voltage and power levels of the 

ballast. Lower input voltage ballasts 

have higher currents, which can result 

in potentially higher energy savings due 

to active rectification. Because DOE’s 

active mode test procedure proposes 

testing ballasts at 277 volts (and most 

commercial ballasts operate at 277V), 

the full one percent energy savings will 

not be realized for most ballasts covered 

by this rulemaking. NEMA and Philips 

stated that the industry is not currently 

using active rectification because it 

would be prohibitively more expensive 

than passive rectification. Furthermore, 

energy savings in one- or two-lamp 

ballasts have not been proven. (NEMA, 

No. 29 at p. 16; OSI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at p. 141; Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

144–145) 

DOE also believed that the efficiency 

of commercially available ballasts could 

be improved by substituting more 

efficient components, in addition to 

active rectification. NEMA had several 

comments regarding the more efficient 

components identified by DOE in 

Appendix 5D. Philips commented that 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20118 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Schottky diodes do not exist in the 

voltage ranges that are required for the 

input stage as these components tend to 

be low voltage devices. Osram Sylvania 

and NEMA commented that using 

silicon carbide Schottky diodes for the 

input rectifier stage would be about 10 

times more expensive than the existing 

components. Using them in other parts 

of the circuit, such as the power factor 

correction stage, could save some 

power, but these components are much 

better suited to ballasts with power 

levels of 250 W or higher. As the 

majority of fluorescent ballasts are 

around 120 W or below, existing designs 

do not employ these components. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

34 at p. 142; OSI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at p. 141; NEMA, No. 

29 at p. 16) 

Osram Sylvania, Philips, and NEMA 

commented that the improved 

transformer core materials cited by DOE 

in Appendix 5D are typically used in 

magnetic ballasts. These technologies 

are being phased out or are not in use 

in most newer ballast designs. The 

ferrite material used in transformers and 

other magnetic components present in 

electronic ballasts is appropriate for the 

ballasts’ 45 kilohertz (kHz) operating 

frequency. If the operating frequency 

were above 500 kHz, a higher quality 

core material may increase ballast 

performance. Similarly, litz wire is used 

with magnetic components when the 

frequency is high enough to justify it. 

(OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 

at pp. 141–142; Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 146–147; 

NEMA, No. 29 at pp. 16–17) 

NEMA also provided feedback on the 

use of more efficient transistors and 

capacitors. NEMA commented that 

transistors have both conductive and 

switching losses. Minimizing one type 

of losses may increase the other so the 

appropriate balance must be considered 

when selecting these components. 

Regarding capacitors, NEMA 

commented that electrolytic capacitors 

offer the best value when high storage 

capability is needed. The losses due to 

effective series resistance are minimal in 

these components and are related to 

ripple current. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 17) 

DOE appreciates manufacturers’ 

comments regarding the potential 

energy savings due to lighting controls 

and agrees that adding controls to a 

lamp-and-ballast system significantly 

increases the potential energy savings of 

the system. EPCA requires DOE to 

conduct this rulemaking to determine 

whether to amend the existing standards 

for ballasts and set standards for 

additional ballasts. Any new or 

amended standards established by DOE 

must achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE also 

appreciates the above comments on 

active rectification and improved 

components as a means of increasing 

ballast efficiency. In this NOPR, DOE 

determined the maximum 

technologically feasible efficiency level 

to be the highest efficiency level that is 

technologically feasible for a sufficient 

diversity of products (spanning several 

ballast factors, number of lamps per 

ballast, and types of lamps operated) 

within each product class. DOE’s max 

tech efficiency levels are supported by 

a significant amount of DOE test data. 

All representative ballast types have 

products commercially available at the 

max tech ELs for their respective 

product classes. 

Before making this determination, 

DOE evaluated the possibility of 

improving the efficiency of three 

selected ballasts by inserting improved 

components in the place of existing 

components of commercially available 

ballasts. DOE’s experiments with 

improving ballast efficiency through 

component substitution did not result in 

prototypes with improved overall 

ballast efficiency. However, DOE 

recognizes that component substitution 

is not the only method available for 

incrementally improving ballast 

efficiency. For example, further 

improvements may be possible through 

the incorporation of newly designed 

integrated circuits into the new ballast 

designs. Therefore, DOE is still 

considering whether an efficiency level 

higher than TSL 3 is technologically 

feasible for a sufficient diversity of lamp 

types, ballast factors, and numbers of 

lamps within each product class. In 

Appendix 5F of the NOPR TSD, DOE 

presents additional analysis on the 

potential for an instant-start ballast 

efficiency level that exceeds TSL 3. DOE 

requests comments in section 0 on its 

selection of the maximum 

technologically feasible level and 

whether it is technologically feasible to 

attain higher efficiencies for the full 

range of instant start ballast 

applications. 

b. Lumen Output 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE based its 

engineering analysis on two substitution 

cases. In the first case, the consumer is 

not able to change the spacing of 

fixtures and therefore replaces one 

baseline ballast with a more efficient 

ballast. In this case, light output is 

maintained to within 10 percent of the 

light output of the baseline system, 

when possible. In the second case, the 

consumer is able to change the spacing 

of the fixture. To show how energy 

savings would change due to this 

change in fixture spacing, DOE provided 

a normalized system input power. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding lumen output and the two 

analyzed substitution cases. When 

consumers are not able to change fixture 

spacing, the California Utilities and the 

NEEA and NPCC believe that DOE 

incorrectly assumed that standards-case 

replacements will not always maintain 

the baseline light level. In some cases, 

both the light output and system 

wattage increased at higher CSLs. The 

California Utilities believed this was 

highly unlikely for two reasons: (1) 

Higher-BEF replacements that also have 

high ballast factors can be redesigned to 

maintain efficiency at lower ballast 

factors and (2) lighting retrofits allow 

consumers to maintain lumen output at 

desired levels. Although the products 

may not exist in today’s market, the 

California Utilities and the NEEA and 

NPCC assert that manufacturers will be 

able to provide similar-BEF products 

that will not require significant 

increases in ballast factor. In addition, 

the California Utilities believe that 

consumers can change several factors to 

maintain lumen output: Manufacturer, 

ballast factor, number of lamps, type of 

lamp, and fixture reflector. The NEEA 

and NPCC suggested that because it is 

possible to maintain light output during 

ballast replacement, DOE should 

simplify the analysis by analyzing 

normalized system input power in all 

cases. (California Utilities, No. 30 at pp. 

3–5; NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at pp. 6– 

7) Philips disagreed that light output 

could be maintained in all substitution 

cases. They specifically cited the 

residential sector as an example of a 

market in which luminaire spacing 

could not be changed and consumers 

would simply have more light output 

when installing a more efficient system. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

34 at p. 227) 

DOE appreciates these comments but 

believes, based on its test data, that light 

output is not always maintained when 

directly replacing a baseline system 

with a more efficient one. Although 

DOE acknowledges that ballast factors 

may be modified in the future to better 

maintain light output of popular lampand-ballast systems, DOE relied on 

current product offerings when selecting 

units for this analysis, and believes that 

two substitution cases do in fact exist. 

For this NOPR, DOE maintained this 

methodology for the LCC analysis, 

which it believes reflects anticipated 

product offerings facing the individual 

consumer in the near term (see section 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20119 

0 below). However, DOE used 

normalized system input power in the 

NIA to reflect the ballast technology 

options and system configurations that 

could be available to consumers over 

the 30-year analysis period, as well as 

increase the simplicity and transparency 

of its NIA spreadsheet model (see 

section 0 below). 

c. Other Regulations 

In the preliminary TSD, NEMA 

commented that several possible 

upcoming regulations would affect the 

engineering and LCC analysis for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts. Specifically, 

NEMA was concerned about four 

possible regulations: Safety 

requirements for system interconnects, 

safety requirements for lamp end-of-life 

(EOL) protection, electromagnetic field 

requirements, and hazardous material 

regulation. NEMA stated that these 

potential requirements could result in 

lower ballast efficiency and affect 

payback calculations. (NEMA, No. 11 at 

p. 6; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 9 at pp. 133–134) DOE agreed that 

the above requirements could affect 

ballast efficiency, cost, or both. DOE 

requested information on the 

quantitative impacts of these 

requirements so that it could modify 

ballast efficiency or cost if these 

regulations were to become final prior to 

publication of the final rule. 

Philips commented that the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) recently adopted 

requirements for end-of-life (EOL) 

circuitry for ballasts operating T8 lamps. 

Previously, the IEC required this 

circuitry only for ballasts that operate 

T5 or smaller diameter lamps. If CSA 

and UL adopted this requirement, as 

they adopted the requirement for T5 and 

smaller diameter lamps, U.S. companies 

would have started redesigning their 

products to accommodate it. The 

additional control circuitry required to 

implement an EOL regulation would 

decrease ballast efficiency. Ballasts that 

operate one or two lamps would notice 

a greater decrease than ballasts that 

operate three or four lamps because the 

fixed losses would be smaller relative to 

the total output power. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 185– 

186; NEMA, No. 29 at p. 10) 

DOE appreciates the comments 

regarding EOL circuitry and 

acknowledges that the additional 

circuitry will likely decrease efficiency. 

During interviews, manufacturers noted 

that T8 lamps in the U.S. are different 

than the T8 lamps used in Europe. For 

this reason, manufacturers believe it is 

unlikely that EOL requirements will be 

adopted in the U.S. If such requirements 

are adopted in advance of the 

publication of the final rule, DOE will 

consider them in its analysis. 

Another regulation that could 

potentially affect ballasts is the adoption 

of hazardous substance regulation in the 

U.S. The European Union Directive on 

the restriction of the use of certain 

hazardous substances in electrical and 

electronic equipment 2002/95/EC, 

usually referred to as the Restriction of 

Hazardous Substances Directive or 

RoHS, restricts the use of six hazardous 

materials (lead, mercury, hexavalent 

chromium, cadmium, polybrominated 

biphenyls, and polybrominated 

diphenyl ethers) in the manufacture of 

various types of electronic and electrical 

equipment, including fluorescent lamp 

ballasts. RoHS has been in force since 

July 2006. If these restrictions were 

adopted in the U.S., Philips commented 

that complying with RoHS would 

increase capital and component costs. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

34 at pp. 186–187) 

DOE appreciates Philips’ comments. 

During interviews, some manufacturers 

confirmed that they already comply 

with RoHS as part of a proactive effort 

coordinated by NEMA. For these 

manufacturers, no adjustments to ballast 

efficiency and price would be necessary 

if hazardous material regulation were 

adopted prior to publication of the final 

rule for this rulemaking. Other 

manufacturers stated that if all of their 

products did not already comply, full 

compliance was expected by the time 

they would need to comply with any 

amended ballast standards. If RoHS 

regulations are adopted, DOE will 

consider whether any adjustments to its 

analysis are warranted. 

OSI commented that stricter EMI 

requirements might affect ballast 

efficiency but did not provide any 

quantitative data regarding the impacts 

of stricter EMI requirements on 

efficiency or cost. (OSI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at p. 188) DOE 

conducted significant research regarding 

EMI emitted by fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, as discussed in section 0. DOE 

found that most manufacturers have not 

altered internal ballast designs to meet 

the strict standards required by a few 

special applications. Rather, luminaire 

manufacturers have employed magnetic 

ballasts or electronic ones in 

combination with an external EMI filter 

and modified fixture. Therefore, DOE 

has not been able to quantify impacts of 

more stringent EMI standards on ballast 

efficiency or price. If the U.S. adopts 

stricter EMI standards, DOE will 

consider whether adjustments to its 

analysis are warranted for the final rule. 

5. Efficiency Levels 

a. Preliminary TSD Approach 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

surveyed and tested many of the 

manufacturers’ product offerings to 

identify the efficiency levels 

corresponding to the highest number of 

models. DOE identified the most 

prevalent BEF values in the range of 

available products and established CSLs 

based on those products. Because the 

baseline ballasts had different BEF 

values and represented various design 

options, in some product classes CSLs 

affected only one of the two baseline 

ballasts. For example, CSL1 may have 

required a more efficient T12 ballast 

than the baseline T12 ballast, but not 

have required a ballast more efficient 

than the T8 baseline. However, the full 

range of CSLs ultimately specified 

requirements that were above the BEF 

values of all the baseline ballasts sold, 

and therefore affected all baseline 

ballasts. The highest CSL presented, 

which represents the most efficient tier 

of commercially available ballasts, was 

also the max tech level that DOE 

determined for the preliminary TSD. 

b. NOPR Approach 

Based on comments and feedback 

received during manufacturer 

interviews, DOE sought to determine 

whether developing an equation that 

relates total lamp arc power to BLE 

could be an effective means of setting 

energy conservation standards for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts. As discussed 

in section 0, DOE tested many different 

types of ballasts from various 

manufacturers. DOE conducted 

extensive testing of the representative 

ballast types as well as certain ballasts 

with different numbers of lamps, 

starting methods, and ballast factor 

permutations. After compiling the test 

data, DOE plotted BLE versus total lamp 

arc power for both standard- and highefficiency product lines from multiple 

manufacturers. Though each product 

line was slightly different, DOE 

observed the expected positive sloping 

curve whose slope decreased with 

increasing total lamp arc power. DOE 

also observed distinct groupings when 

comparing a single manufacturer’s high 

and standard-efficiency product 

families. 

After developing several regression 

lines, DOE found that a logarithmic 

relationship best modeled the observed 

trend between total lamp arc power and 

BLE. A logarithmic relationship has a 

positive slope that is largest (steepest) at 

low lamp arc power levels and has a 

decreasing slope with increasing lamp 

power. Furthermore, the use of a natural 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20120 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

logarithm to relate total lamp arc power 

to BLE is consistent with current energy 

conservation standards for external 

power supplies, which also use an 

equation to define efficiency as a 

function of output power. 

Next, DOE plotted curves that aligned 

with certain key divisions in product 

offerings. Using an equation of the form: 

BLE = coefficient * ln (total lamp arc 

power) + constant 

DOE adjusted the coefficient and 

constant to delineate different efficiency 

levels. In general, DOE found that 

ballasts that generate a total lamp arc 

power of 50 W or less had a greater 

range of efficiency than ballasts that 

operated a total lamp arc power of 50 W 

or more. DOE also found that the more 

efficient ballast product lines generally 

had a reduced (flatter) slope than the 

standard-efficiency products. To reflect 

this observation, DOE decreased the 

coefficient of the more efficient EL 

equations and increased the coefficient 

of the less efficient EL equations. Based 

on analysis of test data for 

representative ballast types, DOE 

identified certain natural divisions in 

BLE and generated curves that 

corresponded to these divisions. The 

equations presented in the following 

sections also reflect a 0.8 percent 

reduction to account for lab-to-lab 

variation and the compliance 

requirements. This reduction is 

discussed in more detail in section 0. 

i. IS and RS Ballasts 

DOE developed three efficiency levels 

for the IS and RS product class. DOE 

found commercially available ballasts 

for all representative ballast types in 

these product classes. The least efficient 

level (EL1) takes the form: 

BLE = 2.98 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 72.61 

While the least efficient 2-lamp MBP T8 

electronic ballasts (commercial and 

residential) would meet this level, 2- 

lamp T12 MBP electronic ballasts would 

not. The least efficient 4-lamp MBP and 

2-lamp T12 slimline ballasts already 

meet EL1. Next, EL2 takes the form: 

BLE = 2.48 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 79.16 

The least efficient universal voltage 4- 

foot MBP T8 and 8-foot T8 slimline 

ballasts would meet this level. The least 

efficient universal voltage 2-lamp MBP 

T8 ballast (in the commercial sector) 

also meets EL2. Finally, EL3 takes the 

form: 

BLE = 1.32 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 86.11 

EL3 represents a level met by high 

efficiency 4-foot MBP T8 (commercial 

and residential) and 8-foot T8 slimline 

ballasts. 

ii. PS Ballasts 

For the PS product class, DOE 

developed three efficiency levels. The 

least efficient level (EL1) takes the form: 

BLE = 2.48 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 77.87 

After plotting the test data, DOE 

observed three distinct efficiency levels 

in addition to a baseline level. The least 

efficient T5 standard and high output 

ballasts (as calculated by section 0) and 

the least efficient 4-foot MBP ballasts 

(those that had BLEs between 82 and 86 

percent) would not meet this EL. DOE 

did not identify any 2-lamp 4-foot MBP 

PS ballasts at the efficiency level 

represented by EL1, but did identify 

ballasts of this type at higher efficiency 

levels. Next, EL2 took the form: 

BLE = 2.48 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 78.86 

EL2 represents high efficiency 4-foot 

MBP, T5 SO, and T5 HO ballasts. DOE 

did not identify any 4-lamp, 4-foot MBP 

PS ballasts at the efficiency level 

represented by EL2, but did identify 

ballasts of this type at the highest 

efficiency level. Finally, DOE developed 

EL3, which took the form: 

BLE = 1.79 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 83.33 

EL3 is designed to represent the most 

efficient PS ballasts tested by DOE. The 

single most efficient 2-lamp T5 standard 

output, 2-lamp T5 high output, 2-lamp 

MBP PS and 4-lamp MBP PS ballasts 

tested meet this level. 

iii. 8-foot HO Ballasts 

For the 8-foot HO IS and RS product 

class, DOE developed three efficiency 

levels. For this product class, DOE 

tested ballasts that operate two lamps, 

the most popular lamp-and-ballast 

combination. Because the resulting test 

data did not provide a sufficient range 

in total lamp arc power for DOE to 

develop EL equations directly using the 

same methodology as for the IS and RS, 

PS, and sign ballast product classes, 

DOE used the shape of the curves 

developed for the sign ballast product 

class. For EL1, EL2, and EL3, DOE used 

the coefficient of the sign ballast EL1 

equation. One- and 2-lamp sign ballasts 

operate similar lamp powers as regular 

8-foot HO ballasts and use the same 

starting methods (IS and RS). Based on 

the similarity in lamp power and 

starting method, DOE believes the 

coefficient of the equation that 

represents the most efficient IS 

electronic sign ballasts is a reasonable 

approximation of the coefficient for 8- 

foot HO ballasts. EL1 took the form: 

BLE = 1.49 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 72.22 

The least efficient T12 electronic 

ballasts meet EL1. EL2 took the form: 

BLE = 1.49 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 83.33 

EL2 is met with T8 electronic HO 

ballasts and represents a division in 

efficiency between the most efficient 

T12 electronic ballasts and the highefficiency T8 electronic ballast. Finally, 

DOE developed EL3, a standard level 

that represents the most efficient 2- 

lamp, 8-foot HO ballast tested by DOE. 

EL3 took the form: 

BLE = 1.49 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 84.32 

iv. Sign Ballasts 

For the sign ballast product class, 

DOE identified one efficiency level. The 

sign ballast market is primarily 

comprised of magnetic and electronic 

ballasts that operate T12 HO lamps. 

DOE tested sign ballasts that operate up 

to one, two, three, four, or six 8-foot T12 

HO lamps. The test data showed that 

sign ballasts exist at two levels of 

efficiency. Therefore, DOE analyzed a 

baseline and one efficiency level above 

that baseline. Using its test data, DOE 

developed an equation for EL1 that was 

met by the most efficient 4-lamp sign 

ballast (representative ballast type) and 

the corresponding 1-lamp sign ballast. 

This EL represents an electronic sign 

ballast efficiency level and the most 

efficient sign ballast tested for the 

representative ballast type. EL1 took the 

form: 

BLE = 1.49 * ln(total lamp arc power) 

+ 81.34 

c. Measurement Variation and 

Compliance 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

calculated the average ballast efficiency 

for a sample size of three ballasts. DOE 

then used this average value to 

represent the efficiency of a model 

when analyzing data to determine 

efficiency levels. DOE received several 

comments regarding this approach. 

Regarding sample size, Philips stated 

that a sample size of three is not 

statistically significant, especially when 

ballasts are purchased from one location 

and may all have the same date code. 

The California Utilities encouraged DOE 

to increase the sample size of tested 

models. Philips commented that 

although a larger sample size is 

necessary to obtain a statistically 

significant average, testing a large 

number of ballasts would be highly 

burdensome. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 176–178, 180– 

181; California Utilities, No. 30 at p. 2) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20121 

27When viewed from the company-wide 

perspective, the sum of all material, labor, and 

overhead costs equals the company’s sales cost, also 

referred to as the cost of goods sold (COGS). 

In this NOPR, DOE modified its 

approach to testing in light of these 

comments. For the representative ballast 

types analyzed in this NOPR, DOE 

tested five samples of each model 

number and used the average to 

represent the overall efficiency of the 

model. For non-representative ballast 

types, DOE maintained its approach 

from the preliminary TSD to use the 

average of three samples. DOE believes 

that testing five ballasts for its 

representative product classes improves 

the reliability of the efficiency 

calculated for the representative ballast 

types. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding its specification of efficiency 

levels using the ballast’s average 

efficiency. Earthjustice noted that in the 

preliminary TSD, DOE did not follow 

the compliance testing requirements 

when it determined efficiency levels. 

Philips commented that DOE cannot use 

average values to specify an efficiency 

level and then require that 95 percent of 

products meet that level. When 

determining an efficiency level, Philips 

also encouraged DOE to consider 

measurement error. Because of 

measurement error inherent in the test 

procedure, Philips believed it was 

inappropriate for DOE to require all 

manufacturers to meet the highest 

claimed tested value when setting 

standards. Products that do not meet 

that highest measurement value are not 

necessarily out of compliance, but 

rather may be within the test 

procedure’s range of accuracy. Philips 

encouraged DOE to adjust efficiency 

levels such that high-efficiency products 

would comply with the level even with 

the expected measurement variation. 

(Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 34 at p. 177; Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 173–174, 176, 

177–178) 

DOE acknowledges that compliance 

requirements and measurement 

variation affect reported efficiency. The 

current and proposed active mode test 

procedure requires manufacturers to 

report the lower of either the sample 

average or the value calculated by an 

equation intended to account for small 

sample sizes. DOE’s analysis of its own 

test data showed that it was more likely 

that manufacturers would be reporting 

the result of the compliance equation, as 

this proved to be the lower of the two 

values. Thus, DOE calculated how much 

lower the value determined by the 

compliance equation was compared to 

the sample mean and reduced the 

efficiency levels, based on average BLEs, 

by this value. 

Furthermore, DOE also agrees with 

manufacturers that measurement 

variation should be considered when 

determining efficiency levels. DOE 

tested ballasts at more than one lab and 

found that tested efficiencies for the 

ballast models sent to the independent 

lab were slightly lower than the values 

measured at the main test facility. 

Therefore, DOE evaluated the data to 

determine the average variation between 

the independent facilities. 

Combined with the adjustment for 

using the compliance equation, DOE 

calculated that a 0.8 percent reduction 

was necessary. The 0.8 percent 

reduction corresponds to a 0.6 percent 

average difference in efficiency between 

data collected at the two laboratories 

used by DOE, and a reported value that 

is on average 0.2 percent less than the 

average of the samples included in 

testing. Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE 

adjusts the efficiency levels, which are 

based on average ballast efficiency data, 

downward by 0.8 percent to account for 

compliance requirements and lab-to-lab 

measurement variation. 

6. Price Analysis 

In the preliminary TSD, developing 

the manufacturer selling price for 

different fluorescent lamp ballasts 

involved two main inputs, a teardown 

analysis to develop the manufacturer 

production costs and a markup analysis 

to arrive at the MSP. 

DOE summed the cost of direct 

materials, labor, and overhead costs 

used to manufacture a product to 

calculate the MPC.27 Direct material 

costs represent the direct purchase price 

of components (resistors, connecting 

wires, etc.). DOE estimated the 

manufacturer overhead from a 

representative electronic fabrication 

company’s U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) 10–k’s aggregated 

confidential manufacturer selling prices. 

DOE believed that the teardown prices 

reflected the long term average and were 

independent of long term commodity 

prices. For more detail, see chapter 5 

and appendix 5A of the preliminary 

TSD. 

DOE selected ballasts for the 

teardown analysis to estimate 

manufacturer production costs. DOE 

mapped out a matrix of product 

specifications and selected ballasts so 

that comparisons could be made among 

ballasts that differed by only one 

characteristic (such as starting method 

or input voltage). Ballasts are described 

by a long list of specifications, so DOE 

concentrated on those that were 

expected to have the greatest impact on 

efficiency—high versus regular 

advertised efficiency, maximum number 

of lamps driven, starting method, and 

universal versus single input voltage. 

DOE conducted teardown analyses on 

13 ballasts. When possible, in the 

preliminary TSD, DOE assigned the 

MPC from the teardown directly to the 

CSL. 

DOE notes that it was able to select 

only unpotted ballasts for the teardown 

analysis. As explained previously, some 

ballast manufacturers add potting, a 

type of black pitch, to the ballast 

enclosure to improve durability and 

manage heat distribution. Because the 

sticky potting inhibits visual 

observation of the components, DOE 

was unable to reverse engineer potted 

ballasts through a teardown analysis. 

To estimate MPCs for ballasts that 

were not submitted for teardowns, DOE 

used online ballast supplier pricing to 

develop ratios relating online prices to 

teardown-sourced MPCs. After 

developing a ratio specific to each 

manufacturer, DOE then estimated the 

MPC for a particular CSL. DOE 

identified ballasts from multiple 

manufacturers that just meet the CSL 

and then marked down the online prices 

to the MPC using the manufacturerspecific MPC ratio. DOE averaged the 

MPCs for all the ballasts just meeting 

the CSL to calculate the MPC. 

The last step in determining 

preliminary TSD manufacturer selling 

prices was developing markups to scale 

the MPCs assigned to each CSL to MSPs. 

DOE relied on income statements found 

in 10–K reports from publicly owned 

ballast manufacturing companies. Using 

multi-year average financial data, DOE 

used the ratio of net sales to cost of 

goods sold to mark up the MPC to the 

MSP. 

NEMA and Philips commented that a 

teardown analysis is an unreliable way 

to develop manufacturer production 

costs. They stated that it is difficult even 

for a ballast manufacturer to determine 

prices of competitors’ ballasts using this 

method. As an example, Philips and 

NEMA pointed out that DOE’s teardown 

analysis determined that the most 

efficient ballast was cheaper than a less 

efficient ballast. NEMA strongly 

disagreed with DOE’s conclusion. At the 

public meeting, Philips stated that 

NEMA was attempting to provide 

industry-average incremental MPC 

values for all efficiency levels. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at p. 

17; Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 34 at pp. 183–184, 204; NEMA, No. 

29 at p. 19) ASAP commented that it is 

valuable to have industry provide that 

kind of pricing information, but 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20122 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

encouraged DOE to continue with a 

teardown approach as well. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript No. 34 at pp. 

184–185) Regarding scaling from retail 

prices to MSP, the NEEA and the NPCC 

agreed that DOE’s scaling methods to 

determine MSPs are valid (NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 32 at p. 6). OSI agreed, citing 

an example that a T12 electronic ballast 

(price determined using retail scaling 

method) is generally more expensive 

than a T8 electronic ballast (OSI, No. 34 

at p. 254). 

DOE agrees that a teardown analysis 

may be sensitive to the dynamic nature 

of the electrical component market, but 

believes the teardown results should 

still be used considering limited pricing 

information is publicly available. In the 

NOPR, DOE amended its teardown 

approach such that incremental 

differences between two efficiency 

levels were based on increments 

between single manufacturers’ ballasts 

rather than basing prices directly from 

teardowns of different manufacturers. 

DOE notes that the industry was unable 

to provide average incremental MPC 

values. Instead, some manufacturers 

provided confidential data on an 

individual basis. 

For the NOPR, DOE developed prices 

using three main inputs. The first input 

was teardown data from the preliminary 

TSD. DOE compared teardown-sourced 

MSPs from the same manufacturer to 

establish incremental costs between ELs 

for a representative ballast type. The 

second input was blue book prices from 

manufacturer price lists. DOE estimated 

MSPs from these blue-book prices by 

using manufacturer-specific ratios 

between blue book prices and teardownor aggregated manufacturer-sourced 

MSPs. The third input was confidential 

manufacturer-supplied MSPs and 

incremental MPC values. DOE 

aggregated these inputs to establish 

MSPs for efficiency levels of 

representative ballast types for which all 

data were available. DOE used ratios of 

online supplier retail prices to scale to 

ELs where both teardown and blue book 

prices were unavailable. In general, DOE 

used a combination of the teardownand blue book-sourced prices 

throughout the analysis and used the 

aggregated manufacturer-supplied MSPs 

for normalization and comparison 

purposes. 

For the teardown-sourced prices, DOE 

used the teardown data generated 

during the preliminary TSD. As 

discussed in section 0, DOE revised the 

manufacturer markup (used to convert 

MPC to MSP) from 1.5 to 1.4 based on 

inputs from manufacturer interviews. 

As a result, the teardown-sourced MSPs 

decreased slightly from the values 

presented in the preliminary TSD. In the 

preliminary TSD, DOE used the 

teardown-sourced MSP that 

corresponded directly to the 

representative ballast at each efficiency 

level. DOE noticed, however, that 

teardowns of ballasts from different 

manufacturers sometimes resulted in 

different MSPs, although they had 

approximately the same measured BLE. 

DOE believed this could potentially be 

due to differences in the brand of 

component used in the ballasts. As a 

result, DOE normalized the teardownsourced MSPs so that the incremental 

difference between ELs would be less 

impacted by differences in component 

prices from one manufacturer to 

another. Using this technique, DOE 

assigned teardown-sourced MSPs to 

efficiency levels at which a ballast was 

torn down. 

For the blue book-sourced MSPs, DOE 

developed manufacturer-specific 

discount ratios between blue book 

prices and either teardown-sourced 

MSPs or aggregated manufacturersupplied MSPs. If teardown-sourced 

MSPs were available, DOE used these 

values to create discount ratios; 

otherwise, DOE used an aggregated 

manufacturer-supplied MSP. When a 

blue book value was not available from 

any manufacturer for a particular EL, 

DOE used a retail price scaling 

technique. DOE scaled the blue booksourced price of an adjacent efficiency 

level using a ratio of retail prices (from 

a single online supplier) between 

ballasts in the adjacent EL and the EL 

without a blue book-sourced price. For 

example, if a blue book value was not 

available for EL2, a ratio of retail prices 

between EL2 and EL3 could be used to 

scale the blue book-sourced MSP from 

EL3 to EL2. 

In the NOPR, DOE assigned MSPs to 

efficiency levels for representative 

ballast types according to the following 

methodology. For representative ballast 

type ELs with teardown-sourced MSPs, 

DOE averaged the teardown-sourced 

MSP with the blue book-sourced MSP. 

For the representative ballast type 

efficiency levels without teardownsourced MSPs, DOE used the blue-book 

sourced MSP directly. For the two 

theoretical inefficient T5 baselines, 

neither a teardown- nor blue booksourced MSP was available. As 

discussed in section 0, DOE established 

T5 standard output and high output 

baselines to model the situation in 

which inefficient T5 ballast entered the 

market in future years. To establish a 

price for the T5 standard output 

baseline, DOE scaled the EL1 blue booksourced MSP using the ratio of the 

baseline and EL2 blue book-sourced 

MSPs for the 2-lamp, 4-foot MBP PS 

representative ballast type. To establish 

a price for the T5 high output baseline, 

DOE scaled the EL1 blue book-sourced 

MSP using the ratio of the baseline and 

EL1 blue book-sourced MSPs for the 4- 

lamp, 4-foot MBP PS representative 

ballast type. More detail on this 

methodology is provided in chapter 5 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE 

mentioned several possible regulations 

that could affect the price of fluorescent 

ballasts. NEMA expressed concern that 

safety requirements for system 

interconnects and safety requirements 

for lamp end-of-life protection could 

result in lower ballast efficiency and 

affect payback calculations. NEMA also 

commented that current internationally 

accepted EMI levels may be modified, 

which could lower the efficiency of 

commercially available ballasts. NEMA 

identified a final issue concerning 

hazardous material regulations that may 

be implemented which would affect 

component availability and raise the 

cost of ballasts. The NEEA and NPCC 

believe that the costs of the EOL and 

EMI features are very small or nonexistent once they are engineered into 

most or all products (NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 32 at p. 6). They also believe the 

lead-free solder would affect ballasts of 

different efficiency levels equally and 

should therefore be ignored from the 

purposes of this rulemaking (NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 32 at p. 6). DOE appreciates 

these comments. Because none of these 

potential regulations have been 

promulgated, however, DOE has not 

included the effect of these potential 

regulations on ballast price or efficiency 

in this rulemaking. DOE will consider 

making changes to its analysis for the 

final rule if any of these potential 

regulations are adopted. 

7. Results 

In this NOPR, DOE changed its 

methodology from that presented in the 

preliminary TSD. DOE proposes to set 

standards in terms of an equation that 

relates total lamp arc power to BLE. For 

both the IS and RS product class and PS 

product class, DOE developed three 

efficiency levels and analyzed four 

representative ballast types. For the 8- 

foot HO IS and RS product class, DOE 

developed three efficiency levels and 

analyzed one representative ballast type. 

Finally, for sign ballasts, DOE 

developed one efficiency level and 

analyzed one representative ballast type. 

For each EL of each representative 

ballast type, DOE specified 

characteristics of a representative unit at 

that level and calculated an MSP. These 

values were used in the LCC, NIA, and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20123 

MIA analyses to model the impact of 

setting standards on consumers, the 

nation, and manufacturers, respectively. 

The table below summarizes the 

efficiency levels developed by DOE for 

each representative product class based 

on average tested BLE and total lamp arc 

power values. The efficiency level 

equations presented in Table V.3 

incorporate the 0.8 percent reduction for 

lab to lab testing variation and 

compliance requirements and are the 

equations used to establish energy 

conservation standards for fluorescent 

lamp ballasts. 

TABLE V.3—NOPR EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES WITH 0.8 PERCENT VARIATION

REDUCTION

Representative product class Efficiency 

level BLE 

IS and RS ballasts that operate .................................................................................... EL1 2.98 * n(total lamp arc power) + 72.61. 

4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... EL2 2.48 * n(total lamp arc power) + 79.16. 

8-foot slimline lamps ............................................................................................... EL3 1.32 * n(total lamp arc power) + 86.11. 

PS ballasts that operate ................................................................................................ EL1 2.48 * n(total lamp arc power) + 77.87. 

4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... EL2 2.48 * n(total lamp arc power) + 78.86. 

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ......................................................................................... EL3 1.79 * n(total lamp arc power) + 83.33. 

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps 

IS and RS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps ........................................................ EL1 1.49 * n(total lamp arc power) + 72.22. 

EL2 1.49 * n(total lamp arc power) + 83.33. 

EL3 1.49 * n(total lamp arc power) + 84.32. 

Ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor signs ................... EL1 1.49 * n(total lamp arc power) + 81.34. 

8. Scaling to Product Classes Not 

Analyzed 

As discussed above, DOE identified 

and selected certain product classes as 

‘‘representative’’ product classes where 

DOE would concentrate its analytical 

effort. DOE chose these representative 

product classes and the representative 

units within them primarily because of 

their high market volumes. The 

following section discusses how DOE 

scaled efficiency standards from those 

product classes it analyzed to those it 

did not. 

In the preliminary TSD, DOE created 

scaling relationships for number of 

lamps, starting method, and ballast 

factor. DOE used extensive test data 

obtained for ballasts that operate 4-foot 

MBP lamps and developed equations 

relating total rated lamp power to BEF 

for each ballast type. DOE identified a 

reduction to apply to the BEF of an IS 

ballast to calculate the BEF of a 

comparable programmed start ballast. 

DOE also determined a relationship 

between ballasts with low, normal, and 

high ballast factor. Both high and low 

BF ballasts were found to have, on 

average, lower BEFs than comparable 

normal BF ballasts. Therefore, DOE 

applied a discount factor to calculate 

the appropriate BEFs for ballasts with 

low and high ballast factors. When 

applying this scaling methodology, DOE 

first scaled by number of lamps, then 

starting method, and finally ballast 

factor. DOE received several comments 

on its scaling methodology and results 

presented in the preliminary TSD. 

Philips stated that DOE’s scaling 

techniques were valid based on an 

analysis using data contained in the 

CEC’s ballast database. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 17, 

155) As discussed in the paragraphs that 

follow, however, manufacturers 

recommended adjustments to bring the 

scaled results more in line with actual 

data. 

For number of lamps, Philips 

requested a greater allowance for onelamp ballasts because the difference 

between one- and two-lamp ballasts was 

greater than indicated by DOE’s scaling. 

Philips found the average BEF of onelamp ballasts to be 3.5 percent lower 

than that of comparable two-lamp 

ballasts. Philips also commented that 

they found ballasts that operate four 

lamps to be about two percent more 

efficient than those that operate two 

lamps. In contrast, the NEEA and NPCC 

found that DOE’s scaling factors for 

number of lamps seemed valid because 

there seems to be a strong correlation 

between BEF and lamp power. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at pp. 

17, 103–104, 137–139; NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 32 at p. 5) 

DOE also received several comments 

related to its ballast factor scaling 

techniques. Philips commented that 

high-BF ballasts do not necessarily have 

lower BEFs than normal-BF ballasts, 

and tend to be more efficient. Philips 

believes that DOE’s results indicating 

that normal-BF ballasts have the highest 

BEF may be due to DOE’s measurement 

procedures using the same resistors for 

low-, normal-, and high-BF ballasts. 

Philips also commented that low-BF 

ballasts do have lower BEF than normalBF ballasts and that they may seek a 

larger reduction for those ballasts than 

that applied in the preliminary TSD. 

Based on the data in the CEC database, 

Philips concluded that a low-BF ballast 

is about one percent less efficient than 

a normal-BF ballast, whereas a high-BF 

ballast is about one percent more 

efficient than a normal-BF ballast. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

34 at pp. 17–18, 103–104, 137) The 

California Utilities also noted that, 

based on the data provided in Appendix 

5C, DOE’s scaling factors did not 

accurately capture the relationship 

between BF and BEF. The NEEA and 

NPCC agreed, noting that while DOE 

used a very consistent set of scaling 

factors to scale the test results from 

normal ballast factor products to lowand high-ballast factor products, the test 

data was not nearly as consistent as the 

scaling factors. They did not believe that 

high ballast factor ballasts necessarily 

had lower BEFs than normal ballast 

factor products. The NEEA and NPCC 

believed DOE should proceed in a way 

that eliminates the need to use scaling 

factors to determine baseline models 

and efficiency levels for the low- and 

high-BF products. For example, if 

efficiency increased with ballast factor, 

it would be reasonable to set standards 

as a function of ballast factor, similar to 

the way refrigeration products are 

regulated in terms of refrigerated 

volume. (California Utilities, No. 30 at 

p. 3; NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at pp. 3, 

5) 

Regarding starting method, GE 

commented that DOE’s scaling yields 

slightly higher efficiency ratings for 

some programmed start ballasts 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20124 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

compared to instant start ballasts, which 

is not consistent with what is found in 

the industry. Philips’ analysis found 

that the scaling factor for programmed 

start should be 3 percent relative to 

instant start ballasts instead of the 2.2 

percent calculated by DOE. The NEEA 

and NPCP suggested that DOE re-verify 

its scaling factor for starting method in 

light of the differences between DOE’s 

scaling factors and those found by 

Philips. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 34 at pp. 25–26; Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at p. 190; 

NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 6) 

As discussed in section 0, DOE found 

that BLE could be modeled as a function 

of total lamp arc power. In this NOPR, 

DOE proposes to set standards in terms 

of an equation that assigns a BLE value 

based on the total rated lamp power 

operated by the ballast. This equation 

eliminates the need for scaling 

relationships based on number of lamps 

and ballast factor that were necessary in 

the preliminary TSD. A scaling factor 

was still necessary for starting method, 

as described below. 

Although DOE set efficiency levels for 

some PS ballasts directly, DOE did not 

analyze 8-foot HO PS ballasts directly. 

Thus, it was necessary to develop a 

scaling relationship for this starting 

method. To do so, DOE compared 4-foot 

MBP IS ballasts to their PS counterparts. 

DOE found the average reduction in BLE 

to be 2 percent. Thus, DOE proposes to 

apply this scaling factor to the efficiency 

levels for 8-foot HO IS ballasts to 

determine the appropriate values for 

programmed start products. 

D. Markups To Determine Product Price 

By applying markups to the MSPs 

estimated in the engineering analysis, 

DOE estimated the amounts consumers 

would pay for baseline and more 

efficient products. At each step in the 

distribution channel, companies mark 

up the price of the product to cover 

business costs and profit margin. 

Identifying the appropriate markups and 

ultimately determining consumer 

product price depend on the type of 

distribution channels through which the 

product moves from manufacturer to 

consumer. 

1. Distribution Channels 

Before it could develop markups, DOE 

needed to identify distribution channels 

(i.e., how the products are distributed 

from the manufacturer to the end user) 

for the ballast designs addressed in this 

rulemaking. Most ballasts used in 

commercial and industrial applications 

pass through one of two types of 

distribution channels—an original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) channel 

and a wholesaler channel. The OEM 

distribution channel applies to ballasts 

installed in fixtures. In this distribution 

channel, the ballast passes from the 

manufacturer to a fixture OEM who in 

turn sells it to an electrical wholesaler 

(i.e., distributor); from the wholesaler it 

passes to a contractor, and finally to the 

end user. The wholesaler distribution 

channel applies to ballasts not installed 

in fixtures (e.g., replacement ballasts). In 

this distribution channel, the ballast 

passes from the manufacturer to an 

electrical wholesaler, then to a 

contractor, and finally to the end user. 

The NEEA and NPCC asked why DOE 

had not considered a distribution 

channel for residential ballasts in its 

preliminary TSD. (NEEA and NPCC, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 12 at p. 

225; NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 8) 

The NEEA and NPCC and Philips noted 

that end users of residential ballasts 

would typically purchase an entire new 

fixture rather than replace a ballast in an 

existing fixture; GE questioned this 

generalization. (NEEA and NPCC, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 22 at pp. 225– 

226; Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 7 at p. 258; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 16 at p. 259) DOE agreed 

that a separate distribution channel is 

applicable for residential ballasts, and 

included it in the revised markups 

analysis. Because DOE could not obtain 

retailer sales data detailing the 

breakdown between fixture ballasts and 

replacement ballasts, however, DOE 

assumed for the markups analysis that 

the manufacturer sells the residential 

ballast to a fixture OEM who in turn 

sells it in a fixture to a home 

improvement retailer, where it is 

purchased by the end user. 

2. Estimation of Markups 

Publicly-owned companies must 

disclose financial information regularly 

through filings with the U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission (SEC). Filed 

annually, SEC form 10-K provides a 

comprehensive overview of the 

company’s business and financial 

conditions. To estimate OEM, 

wholesaler, and retailer markups, DOE 

used financial data from 10-K reports 

from publicly owned lighting fixture 

manufacturers, electrical wholesalers, 

and home improvement retailers. 

DOE’s markup analysis developed 

both baseline and incremental markups 

to transform the ballast MSP into an end 

user equipment price. DOE used the 

baseline markups to determine the price 

of baseline designs. Incremental 

markups are coefficients that relate the 

change in the MSP of higher-efficiency 

designs to the change in the OEM, 

wholesaler, and retailer sales prices. 

These markups refer to higher-efficiency 

designs sold under market conditions 

with new energy conservation 

standards. The calculated average 

baseline markups for fixture OEM 

companies, electrical wholesalers, and 

home improvement retailers were 1.50, 

1.23, and 1.51, respectively. The average 

incremental markups for OEMs, 

wholesalers, and home improvement 

retailers were 1.17, 1.05, and 1.15, 

respectively. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that markups based on 

companies’ overall financial data might 

not represent actual markups for 

ballasts. (Osram Sylvania, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 2 at p. 205; 

NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 6; NEMA, 

No. 29 at pp. 12–13) In contrast, ASAP 

supported DOE’s markups estimation 

method, citing the public availability of 

SEC data. (ASAP, No. 2 at p. 207) While 

recognizing that SEC form 10-K data is 

not product-specific, DOE assumes that 

actual product markups are generally 

business-sensitive. DOE contacted the 

National Association of Electrical 

Distributors (NAED) and received 

feedback from two NAED member 

companies, both confirming that DOE’s 

calculated wholesaler markups were 

consistent with their actual ballast 

markups. With assistance from NEMA, 

DOE sought a similar evaluation of 

ballast markups from several 

representative fixture OEMs, but did not 

receive feedback in time for publication 

of the proposed rule. DOE will consider 

any data received in response to this 

NOPR in developing markups for the 

final rule. 

To estimate markups for residential 

ballast designs, DOE requested financial 

data for representative home 

improvement retailers. The NEEA and 

NPCC commented that Home Depot and 

Lowe’s together account for a significant 

portion of the home improvement retail 

market. (NEEA and NPCC, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 12 at p. 225) 

Philips corroborated this point. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 

258) DOE contacted Home Depot and 

Lowe’s regarding price markups for 

fluorescent lighting products, but both 

organizations declined to comment, 

citing competition concerns. 

Consequently, DOE based its retailer 

markups on financial data from 10-K 

reports. 

For ballasts used in commercial and 

industrial applications, DOE adjusted 

the calculated average baseline and 

incremental markups to reflect 

estimated proportions of ballasts sold 

through the OEM and wholesaler 

distribution channels. DOE assumed 

ballasts in the fixture OEM channel 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20125 

28The Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Available at 

https://thestc.com/STRates.stm. (Last accessed July 

20, 2010.) 29U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. U.S. Lighting 

Market Characterization. Volume I: National 

Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption 

Estimate. 2002. Available at http:// 

apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ 

corporate/lmc_vol1.pdf. 

30U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency. 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. 

31U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency. Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, Table 1.4: Number of Establishments Using 

Energy Consumed for All Purpose. 2006. Available 

at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2006/ 

2006tables.html. 

32U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency. Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 

File 1: Housing Unit Characteristics. 2005. 

Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/ 

recspubuse05/pubuse05.html. 

represent 63 percent of the market and 

ballasts in the wholesaler channel 

represent 37 percent. These percentages 

are from chapter 3 (engineering 

analysis) of the final TSD for the 2000 

Ballast Rule and were based on a 

comment submitted by NEMA for that 

rulemaking. DOE then multiplied the 

resulting weighted average markups by 

a contractor markup of 1.13 (also from 

the 2000 Ballast Rule, and used in the 

2009 Lamps Rule) and sales tax to 

develop total weighted baseline and 

incremental markups, which reflect all 

individual markups incurred in the 

ballast distribution channels. For 

residential ballasts, DOE assumed that 

end users purchased ballasts—already 

installed in fixtures—directly from 

home improvement retailers with no 

contractor involvement or markup. DOE 

used OEM and retailer markups and 

sales tax to calculate total baseline and 

incremental markups for residential 

ballasts. 

The sales tax represents state and 

local sales taxes applied to the end user 

equipment price. DOE derived state and 

local taxes from data provided by the 

Sales Tax Clearinghouse.28 These data 

represent weighted averages that 

include state, county and city rates. 

DOE then derived population-weighted 

average tax values for each census 

division and large State, and then 

derived U.S. average tax values using a 

population-weighted average of the 

census division and large State values. 

This approach provided a national 

average tax rate of 7.25 percent. 

3. Summary of Markups 

Table V.4 summarizes the markups at 

each stage in the distribution channel 

and the overall baseline and 

incremental markups, and sales taxes, 

for each of the three identified channels. 

For commercial and industrial ballasts, 

weighting the markups in each channel 

by the share of shipments in that 

channel yields an average overall 

baseline markup of 1.96 and an average 

overall incremental markup of 1.41. For 

residential ballasts, DOE calculated an 

overall baseline markup of 2.43 and an 

overall incremental markup of 1.43. 

TABLE V.4—SUMMARY OF BALLAST DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKUPS

VI. 

Commercial/industrial ballasts Residential ballasts 

OEM distribution 

(ballasts in fixtures) 

Wholesaler distribution 

(ballasts only) 

Retailer distribution 

(ballasts in fixtures) 

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental 

Fixture OEM ......................................................... 1.50 1.17 1.50 1.17 

Electrical Wholesaler (Distributor) ....................... 1.23 1.05 1.23 1.05 

Home Improvement Retailer ................................ 1.51 1.15 

Contractor or Installer .......................................... 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 

Sales Tax ............................................................. 1.07 1.07 1.07 

Overall .................................................................. 2.24 1.48 1.49 1.27 2.43 1.43 

Assumed Market Percentage .............................. 63 37 100 

Overall (Weighted) ............................................... 1.96 (Baseline) 1.41 (Incremental) 2.43 1.43 

Using these markups, DOE generated 

ballast end user prices for each 

efficiency level it considered, assuming 

that each level represents a new 

minimum efficiency standard. Chapter 7 

of the TSD provides additional detail on 

the markups analysis. 

A. Energy Use Analysis 

For the energy use analysis, DOE 

estimated the energy use of ballasts in 

the field (i.e., as they are actually used 

by consumers). The energy use analysis 

provided the basis for other DOE 

analyses, particularly assessments of the 

energy savings and the savings in 

consumer operating costs that could 

result from DOE’s adoption of new and 

amended standard levels. 

To develop annual energy use 

estimates, DOE multiplied annual usage 

(in hours per year) by the lamp-andballast system input power (in watts). 

DOE characterized representative lampand-ballast systems in the engineering 

analysis, which provided measured and 

normalized system input power ratings 

(the latter used to compare baseline- and 

standards-case systems on an equal 

light-output basis). To characterize the 

country’s average use of lamp-andballast systems for a typical year, DOE 

developed annual operating hour 

distributions by sector, using data 

published in the U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization: Volume I (LMC),29 the 

Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS),30 the 

Manufacturer Energy Consumption 

Survey (MECS),31 and the Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).32

DOE assumed, based on its market and 

technology assessment, that PS ballasts 

operating 4-foot MBP T8 lamps in the 

commercial sector were operated on 

occupancy sensors. Based on its survey 

of available literature, DOE assumed 

that occupancy sensors would result, on 

average, in a 30-percent reduction in 

annual operating hours. 

The NEEA and NPCC generally 

approved of DOE’s analysis of lighting 

end-use profiles and the resulting 

annual operating hour estimates. (NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 7) NEMA agreed, 

but asked if the commercial average 

operating hours accounted for retailers 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20126 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

with longer or continuous daily 

operations. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 11) As 

noted in the LMC final report, some 

expected data points are lost in the 

averaging process. For example, 24-hour 

retailers are outweighed in the 

commercial sector by the volume of 

office and retail space that does not 

operate 24 hours per day. For the 

proposed rule, DOE retained its 

approach for estimating average sector 

operating hours, the values for which 

changed slightly based on updated 

census data inputs. 

Based on a range of published 

estimates, DOE assumed energy savings 

of 30 percent for lamp-and-ballast 

systems using occupancy sensors in the 

commercial sector. To account for these 

energy savings, DOE reduced average 

operating hours for analyzed PS ballast 

systems by 30 percent. Lutron’s 

literature review indicated savings from 

17 percent–60 percent, and they agreed 

that 30 percent was a reasonable average 

value. (Lutron, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 4 at p. 206) While noting 

that the use of occupancy sensors is not 

limited to the commercial sector, NEMA 

agreed with DOE’s assumption that PS 

ballasts were used with occupancy 

sensors and commented that DOE’s 30- 

percent savings estimate was 

conservative. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 12) 

DOE agrees that occupancy sensor use is 

not limited to the commercial sector, 

but notes that the analyzed PS ballast 

designs (which operate 4-foot MBP T8 

lamps) are intended primarily for 

commercial applications. The analyzed 

ballasts for 4-foot MiniBP T5 lamps (SO 

and HO) are also PS designs; however, 

unlike T8 systems, PS ballast design is 

intrinsic to T5 systems and not 

conditioned on occupancy sensor use. 

Therefore, DOE did not assume 

operating hour reductions for T5 SO 

(commercial sector) and T5 HO 

(industrial sector) lamp-and-ballast 

systems in its energy use analysis. 

Chapter 6 of the TSD provides a more 

detailed description of DOE’s energy use 

analysis for ballasts. 

B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts of potential energy conservation 

standards for ballasts on individual 

consumers. The LCC is the total 

consumer expense over the life of a 

product, consisting of purchase and 

installation costs and operating costs 

(expenses for energy use, maintenance, 

and repair). To compute the operating 

costs, DOE discounted future operating 

costs to the time of purchase and 

summed them over the lifetime of the 

product. The PBP is the estimated 

amount of time (in years) it takes 

consumers to recover the increased 

purchase cost (including installation) of 

a more efficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

(normally higher) by the change in 

average annual operating cost (normally 

lower) that results from the more 

efficient standard. 

For any given efficiency or energy use 

level, DOE measures the PBP and the 

change in LCC relative to an estimated 

base-case product efficiency or energy 

use level. The base-case estimate reflects 

the market without new or amended 

mandatory energy conservation 

standards, including the market for 

products that exceed the current energy 

conservation standards. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MSPs, 

distribution channel markups, and sales 

taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to 

the calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, discount rates, and the year 

that proposed standards take effect. To 

account for uncertainty and variability, 

DOE created value distributions for 

selected inputs, including: operating 

hours, electricity prices, discount rates 

and sales tax rates, and disposal costs. 

For example, DOE created a probability 

distribution of annual energy 

consumption in its energy use analysis, 

based in part on a range of annual 

operating hours. The operating hour 

distributions capture variation across 

census divisions and large States, 

building types, and lamp-and-ballast 

systems for three sectors (commercial, 

industrial, and residential). In contrast, 

ballast MSPs were specific to the 

representative ballast designs evaluated 

in DOE’s engineering analysis; and price 

markups were based on limited publicly 

available financial data. Consequently, 

DOE used discrete values instead of 

distributions for these inputs. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC and PBP, which 

incorporates Crystal Ball (a 

commercially available software 

program), relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty 

and variability into the analysis. The 

Monte Carlo simulations randomly 

sample input values from the 

probability distributions and ballast 

user samples, performing more than 

10,000 iterations per simulation run. 

The NOPR TSD chapter 8 and its 

appendices provide details on the 

spreadsheet model and of all the inputs 

to the LCC and PBP analyses. 

Table V.5 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations for the 

preliminary TSD as well as the changes 

made for today’s NOPR. The subsections 

that follow discuss the initial inputs and 

DOE’s changes to them. In addition, as 

noted in section 0 ‘‘Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment’’, DOE seeks 

comment on the appropriateness of 

including T12 ballasts in the baseline 

analysis for life cycle costs. 

TABLE V.5—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES* 

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the proposed rule 

Product Cost ..................................... Derived by multiplying ballast MSPs by distribution 

channel markups and sales tax.

No change. 

Installation Cost ................................ Derived costs using estimated labor times, and applicable labor rates from RS Means Electrical 

Cost Data (2007) and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Updated labor rates from 2008$ to 2009$. 

Annual Energy Use .......................... Determined operating hours by associating building 

type-specific operating hours with regional distributions of various building types using lighting 

market and building energy consumption survey 

data (see section 0 above).

Used the most recent available versions of building 

energy consumption survey data: LMC (2002), 

CBECS (2003), MECS (2006), and RECS (2005). 

Energy Prices ................................... Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 2007 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 

13 regions.

Electricity: Updated using Form 826 data for 2009. 

Variability: Energy prices determined at state level. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20127 

TABLE V.5—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES*—Continued 

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the proposed rule 

Energy Price Projections .................. Forecasted using Annual Energy Outlook 2009 

AEO2009.

Forecasts updated using AEO2010. 

Replacement and Disposal Costs .... Commercial/Industrial: Included labor and materials 

costs for lamp replacement, and disposal costs 

for failed lamps.

Residential: Included only materials cost for lamps, 

with no lamp disposal costs.

Updated labor rates from 2008$ to 2009$. 

Variability: Assumed commercial and industrial consumers pay recycling costs in approximately 30 

percent of lamp failures and 5 percent of ballast 

failures. 

Product Lifetime ............................... Ballasts: Lifetime based on average lifetimes from 

the 2000 Ballast Rule (and used in the 2009 

Lamps Rule).

Lamps: assumed as 91 percent–94 percent of rated 

life, to account for lamp type and relamping practices.

No change. 

Discount Rates ................................. Commercial/Industrial: Estimated cost of capital to 

affected firms and industries; developed weighted 

average of the cost to the company of equity and 

debt financing.

Residential: Estimated by examining all possible 

debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase ballasts.

Variability: Developed a distribution of discount 

rates for each end-use sector. 

Compliance Date of Standards ........ 2014 .......................................................................... No change. 

Ballast Purchasing Events ................ Assessed two events: Ballast failure and new construction/renovation.No change. 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the 

distribution channel markups described 

above (along with sales taxes). DOE 

used different markups for baseline 

products and higher-efficiency 

products, because the markups 

estimated for incremental costs differ 

from those estimated for baseline 

models. In response to comments on the 

preliminary TSD, DOE’s revised 

analysis included a distribution channel 

with corresponding markups for 

residential ballasts. 

On February 22, 2011, DOE published 

a Notice of Data Availability (NODA, 76 

FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider 

improving regulatory analysis by 

addressing equipment price trends. 

Consistent with the NODA, DOE 

examined historical producer price 

indices (PPI) for fluorescent ballasts and 

found both positive and negative real 

price trends depending on the specific 

time period examined. Therefore, in the 

absence of a definitive trend, DOE 

assumes in its price forecasts for this 

NOPR that the real prices of fluorescent 

ballasts are constant in time and that 

fluorescent ballast prices will trend the 

same way as prices in the economy as 

a whole. DOE is aware that there have 

been significant changes in both the 

regulatory environment and mix of 

fluorescent ballast technologies during 

this period that create analytical 

challenges for estimating longer-term 

product price trends from the productspecific PPI data. DOE performed price 

trends sensitivity calculations to 

examine the dependence of the analysis 

results on different analytical 

assumptions. A more detailed 

discussion of price trend modeling and 

calculations is provided in Appendix 

8A of the TSD. DOE invites comment on 

methods to improve its equipment price 

forecasting for fluorescent lamp ballasts 

beyond the assumption of constant real 

prices, as well as any data supporting 

alternate methods. 

2. Installation Cost 

The installation cost is the total cost 

to the consumer to install the 

equipment, excluding the marked-up 

consumer product price. Installation 

costs include labor, overhead, and any 

miscellaneous materials and parts. As 

detailed in the preliminary TSD, DOE 

considered the total installed cost of a 

lamp-and-ballast system to be the 

consumer product price (including sales 

taxes) plus the installation cost. DOE 

applied installation costs to lamp-andballast systems installed in the 

commercial and industrial sectors, 

treating an installation cost as the 

product of the average labor rate and the 

time needed for installation. Using the 

same approach, DOE assumed that 

residential consumers must pay for the 

installation of a fixture containing a 

lamp-and-ballast system, and calculated 

installation price in the same manner. 

3. Annual Energy Use 

As discussed above, DOE estimated 

the annual energy use of representative 

lamp-and-ballast systems using system 

input power ratings and sector operating 

hours. The annual energy use inputs to 

the LCC and PBP analyses are based on 

average annual operating hours, 

whereas the Monte Carlo simulation 

draws on a distribution of annual 

operating hours to determine annual 

energy use. 

4. Energy Prices 

For the LCC and PBP, DOE derived 

average energy prices for 13 U.S. 

geographic areas consisting of the nine 

census divisions, with four large States 

(New York, Florida, Texas, and 

California) treated separately. For 

census divisions containing one of these 

large States, DOE calculated the regional 

average excluding the data for the large 

State. The derivation of prices was 

based on data from EIA Form 861, 

‘‘Annual Electric Power Industry 

Database,’’ and EIA Form 826, ‘‘Monthly 

Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Data.’’ 

5. Energy Price Projections 

To estimate the trends in energy 

prices for the preliminary TSD, DOE 

used the price forecasts in AEO2009. To 

arrive at prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied current average prices by the 

forecast of annual average price changes 

in AEO2009. Because AEO2009 

forecasts prices to 2035, DOE followed 

past EIA guidelines and used the 

average rate of change from 2020 to 

2035 to estimate the price trend for 

electricity after 2035. For today’s 

proposed rule, DOE used the same 

approach, but updated its energy price 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20128 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

33U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Marginal Energy 

Prices Report. July 1999. Available at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/marg_eprice_0799.pdf. 

34Environmental Health and Safety Online’s 

fluorescent lights and lighting disposal and 

recycling Web page—Recycling Costs. Available at 

http://www.ehso.com/fluoresc.php. (Last accessed 

Sept. 26, 2010.) 

35Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 

‘‘National Mercury-Lamp Recycling Rate and 

Availability of Lamp Recycling Services in the U.S.’’ 

Nov. 2004. 

forecasts using AEO2010. DOE intends 

to update its energy price forecasts for 

the final rule based on the latest 

available AEO. In addition, the 

spreadsheet tools that DOE used to 

conduct the LCC and PBP analyses 

allow users to select price forecasts from 

AEO’s low-growth, high-growth, and 

reference case scenarios to estimate the 

sensitivity of the LCC and PBP to 

different energy price forecasts. 

The California Utilities commented 

that DOE should address the timedependent value of energy to account 

for the potentially higher value of 

energy savings that occur during peak 

demand periods. (California Utilities, 

No. 30 at p. 5) DOE acknowledges that 

using peak and off-peak electricity 

prices in estimating the value of energy 

savings is consistent with using 

marginal electricity prices to assign 

value to energy savings, with the 

assumption that standards reduce 

energy consumption at the margin. A 

1999 DOE report presents a procedure 

for deriving marginal prices for 

rulemaking and compares resulting 

marginal prices to average prices in the 

commercial and residential sectors.33

Even though the variation in differences 

between marginal and average prices 

was high (from ¥85 percent to 51 

percent), marginal prices were lower 

than average prices by 5.2 percent on 

average; the median value for the 

difference was 3.3 percent. For the 

proposed rule, DOE’s analytical tools 

allow users to select between the low, 

high, and reference case scenario AEO. 

DOE believes this approach captures 

variation in energy prices (and in the 

value of energy savings) within a range 

similar to the difference between 

marginal and average prices. 

6. Replacement and Disposal Costs 

In its preliminary TSD, DOE 

addressed lamp replacements occurring 

within the analysis period as part of 

operating costs for considered lampand-ballast system designs. 

Replacement costs in the commercial 

and industrial sectors included the labor 

and materials costs associated with 

replacing a lamp at the end of its 

lifetime, discounted to $2011. For the 

residential sector, DOE assumed that 

consumers would install their own 

replacement lamps and incur no related 

labor costs. 

Some consumers recycle failed lamps 

and ballasts, thus incurring a disposal 

cost. In its research, DOE found average 

disposal costs of 10 cents per linear foot 

for GSFL and $3.50 for each ballast.34 A 

2004 report by the Association of 

Lighting and Mercury Recyclers noted 

that approximately 30 percent of lamps 

used by businesses and 2 percent of 

lamps in the residential sector are 

recycled nationwide.35 Consistent with 

the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE considered 

the 30-percent lamp-recycling rate to be 

significant and incorporated lamp 

disposal costs into the LCC analysis for 

commercial and industrial consumers. 

DOE was not able to obtain ballast 

recycling rate data, but assumed that 

higher disposal costs would largely 

discourage voluntary ballast recycling 

by commercial and industrial 

consumers, and did not include ballast 

disposal costs in the LCC analysis. 

Given the very low (2 percent) estimated 

lamp recycling rate in the residential 

sector, DOE assumed that residential 

consumers would be even less likely to 

voluntarily incur the higher disposal 

costs for ballasts. Therefore, DOE 

excluded the disposal costs for lamps or 

ballasts from the LCC analysis for 

residential ballast designs. 

DOE received no comments on the 

preliminary TSD concerning these 

assumed recycling rates, disposal costs, 

and their application in the LCC 

analysis. The Monte Carlo simulation 

for the proposed rule allowed DOE to 

examine variability in recycling 

practices; consequently, DOE assumed 

that commercial and industrial 

consumers pay recycling costs in 5 

percent of ballast failures—as well as 

the 30 percent of lamp failures assumed 

in the LCC analysis. As in the LCC 

analysis, DOE assumed that residential 

lamp and ballast disposal rates were 

insignificant, and excluded the related 

disposal costs from the Monte Carlo 

simulation for residential ballast 

designs. 

7. Product Lifetime 

Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD 

detailed DOE’s basis for average ballast 

lifetimes, which were based on 

assumptions used in the 2000 Ballast 

Rule and the 2009 Lamps Rule. For 

ballasts in the commercial and 

industrial sectors, DOE used an average 

ballast lifetime of 49,054 hours that, 

when combined the respective average 

annual operating hours, yielded average 

ballast lifetimes of approximately 13 

years and 10 years, respectively. 

Consistent with the 2000 Ballast Rule 

and the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE assumed 

an average ballast lifetime of 

approximately 15 years in the 

residential sector, which corresponds 

with 11,835 hours total on an assumed 

789 hours per year operating schedule. 

To account for a range of group and spot 

relamping practices, DOE assumed that 

lamps operated, on average, for 91 

percent–94 percent of rated life, 

depending on lamp type. 

DOE received several general 

comments on ballast design and 

lifetime. Philips and NEMA noted that 

lead-free solder used per RoHS 

directives could affect ballast lifetime, 

but that its effects on reliability were 

still largely unknown. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 187; 

NEMA, No. 29 at p. 14) Philips agreed 

with DOE’s assumption that lifetime 

would not increase with more efficient 

ballast designs, based in part on the 

trend toward smaller luminaires and 

higher operating temperatures. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18 at pp. 

231–232) In contrast, the NEEA and 

NPCC saw no reason to assume that 

ballast lifetime would be affected by 

luminaire or ballast enclosure size, but 

conceded that related ballast failure data 

is limited. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at 

p. 8) There was general agreement that 

ballast lifetime can vary widely and 

encompasses both physical failure and 

economic lifetime (e.g., replacement of 

functioning ballasts due to retrofits). 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20 at pp. 244–246; NEEA and NPCC, No. 

32 at p. 8) However, NEMA agreed with 

DOE’s assumed average ballast lifetimes 

of 10¥15 years used in the LCC 

analysis. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 14) 

Based on comments received to date, 

DOE believes that its assumed average 

ballast lifetimes are appropriate and 

applied these lifetimes in the LCC 

analysis for today’s proposed rule. DOE 

also agrees that ballast lifetimes can 

vary due to both physical failure and 

economic factors (e.g., early 

replacements due to retrofits). 

Consequently, DOE accounted for 

variability in lifetime in LCC and PBP 

via the Monte Carlo simulation, and in 

the shipments and NIA analyses by 

assuming a Weibull distribution for 

lifetimes to accommodate failures and 

replacement. 

8. Discount Rates 

The discount rate is the rate at which 

future expenditures are discounted to 

estimate their present value. In its 

preliminary TSD, DOE derived separate 

discount rates for commercial, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20129 

36The data are available at http:// 

pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar. 

industrial, and residential consumers. 

For commercial and industrial 

consumers, DOE estimated the cost of 

capital to affected firms and industries, 

from which it developed a weighted 

average of the cost to the company of 

equity and debt financing. DOE 

estimated the discount rate for 

residential consumers by looking across 

all possible debt or asset classes that 

might be used to purchase ballasts. For 

the proposed rule, DOE also developed 

a distribution of discount rates for each 

end-use sector from which the Monte 

Carlo simulation samples. 

For the industrial and commercial 

sectors, DOE assembled data on debt 

interest rates and the cost of equity 

capital for representative firms that use 

ballasts. DOE determined a distribution 

of the weighted-average cost of capital 

for each class of potential owners using 

data from the Damodaran online 

financial database.36 DOE used the same 

distribution of discount rates for the 

commercial and industrial sectors. The 

average discount rates in DOE’s 

analysis, weighted by the shares of each 

rate value in the sectoral distributions, 

are 6.86 percent for commercial end 

users and 7.15 percent for industrial end 

users. 

For the residential sector, DOE 

assembled a distribution of interest or 

return rates on various equity 

investments and debt types from a 

variety of financial sources, including 

the Federal Reserve Board’s ‘‘Survey of 

Consumer Finances’’ (SCF) in 1989, 

1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004. DOE 

added 2007 SCF data for today’s 

proposed rule and assigned weights in 

the distribution based on the shares of 

each financial instrument in household 

financial holdings according to SCF 

data. The weighted-average discount 

rate for residential product owners is 

5.55 percent. 

In response to the preliminary LCC 

analysis, NEMA commented that DOE 

should examine the effects of applying 

higher discount rates to the value of 

projected energy savings, contending 

that consumers will discount future 

benefits heavily and place greater 

emphasis on a product’s first cost. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

2 at p. 251) DOE believes that its 

weighted-average discount rates are 

representative and appropriate for the 

LCC analysis because they are grounded 

in a vetted, transparent methodology 

and publicly-available financial data. 

DOE lacks a defensible basis for 

estimating a representative, individual 

discount rate, which would vary 

significantly by company and product 

type. However, DOE also considered a 

distribution of discount rates (lower and 

higher than the average) in its Monte 

Carlo simulation for today’s proposed 

rule. 

9. Compliance Date of Standards 

The compliance date is the date when 

a covered product is required to meet a 

new or amended standard. EPCA 

requires that any amended standards 

established in this rule apply to 

products manufactured after a date that 

is five years after—(i) the effective date 

of the previous amendment; or (ii) if the 

previous final rule did not amend the 

standards, the earliest date by which a 

previous amendment could have been 

effective; except that in no case may any 

amended standard apply to products 

manufactured within three years after 

publication of the final rule establishing 

such amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(7)(C)). DOE is required by 

consent decree to publish any amended 

standards for ballasts by June 30, 2011. 

As a result, and in compliance with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(C), DOE expects the 

compliance date to be three years after 

the publication of any final amended 

standards, by June 30, 2014. DOE 

received no comments on its expected 

effective date of June 2014 and 

calculated the LCC for all end users as 

if each one would purchase a new 

ballast in the year compliance with the 

standard is required. 

10. Ballast Purchasing Events 

DOE designed the LCC and PBP 

analyses for this rulemaking around 

scenarios where consumers need to 

purchase a ballast. Each of these events 

may give the consumer a different set of 

ballast or lamp-and-ballast designs and, 

therefore, a different set of LCC savings 

for a certain efficiency level. The two 

scenarios were (1) ballast failure and (2) 

new construction/renovation. In the 

ballast failure scenario, DOE assumed 

that the consumer would generally 

select a standards-compliant lamp-andballast combination such that the 

system light output never drops below 

10 percent of the baseline system. For 

new construction/renovation, DOE 

assumed that consumers were not 

constrained by existing fixture layouts, 

and could design a new installation that 

matched the overall light output of a 

base-case system, independent of 

individual system light output. DOE 

used rated system input power to 

calculate annual energy use for the 

ballast failure scenario. For new 

construction/renovation, DOE used 

normalized system input power, 

adjusted to yield equivalent light output 

from both the base-case and substitute 

systems. 

The California Utilities stated that 

failure replacements were rare and 

commented that DOE should include a 

separate ballast purchasing event for 

retrofits in its LCC analysis, as the 

California Utilities consider that the 

more common purchasing event. 

(California Utilities, No. 30 at p. 4) In its 

review of available studies and EIA data, 

DOE found that predicted retrofit rates 

for the nation were comparatively low 

(i.e., less than 5 percent). DOE assumes 

that retrofit rates in areas with utility 

incentive programs would typically be 

higher; however, DOE could not 

substantiate extending these higher 

retrofit rates to all consumers and 

therefore did not consider a separate 

retrofit scenario in its LCC analysis. 

As discussed in section 0 above, the 

California Utilities and the NEEA and 

NPCC and the California Utilities 

believe that DOE was incorrect in 

assuming consumers would not be able 

to normalize individual system light 

output in a ballast failure replacement 

scenario. Both sets of commenters 

contended that ballast designs will be 

available that maintain efficiency across 

different ballast factors and system light 

outputs. The California Utilities also 

noted that users can also maintain 

system light output by adjusting the 

number of lamps, lamp type, or fixture 

reflectors. To simplify the analysis, the 

NEEA and NPCC suggested that DOE 

should analyze normalized system input 

power in all scenarios. (California 

Utilities, No. 30 at pp. 3–5; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 32 at pp. 6–7) Philips 

disagreed that light output could be 

maintained in all substitution cases. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

34 at p. 227) 

For this NOPR, DOE maintained the 

input power distinction (i.e., rated 

versus normalized) for purchasing 

scenarios in the LCC analysis, which it 

believes reflects product offerings facing 

the individual consumer in the near 

term (i.e., 2014). With the exception of 

system input power, the ballast failure 

and new construction/renovation 

scenarios differ only slightly, with the 

latter scenario requiring an additional 

2.5 minutes of labor for installing a 

luminaire disconnect. The results for 

the new construction/renovation 

scenario could, therefore, be considered 

similar to a ballast failure replacement 

scenario based on normalized system 

input power. For the proposed rule, 

DOE used normalized system input 

power only in the NIA, for reasons 

discussed in section 0 below. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20130 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

C. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

DOE’s NIA assessed the national 

energy savings (NES) and the national 

net present value (NPV) of total 

consumer costs and savings that they 

would be expect to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels. (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context 

refers to consumers of the regulated 

product.) 

DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet 

model to calculate the energy savings 

and the national consumer costs and 

savings from each TSL. In addition, the 

TSD and other documentation that DOE 

provides during the rulemaking help 

explain the models and how to use 

them, allowing interested parties to 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. 

DOE used the NIA spreadsheet to 

calculate the NES and NPV, based on 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data from the energy 

use and LCC analyses. DOE forecasted 

the energy savings, energy cost savings, 

product costs, and NPV of consumer 

benefits for each product class for 

products sold from 2014 through 2043. 

The forecasts provided annual and 

cumulative values for all four output 

parameters. DOE examines sensitivities 

in the NIA by analyzing different 

efficiency scenarios, such as Roll-up 

and Shift. 

DOE evaluated the impacts of new 

and amended standards for ballasts by 

comparing base-case projections with 

standards-case projections. The basecase projections characterize energy use 

and consumer costs for each product 

class in the absence of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

compared these projections with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. In 

characterizing the base and standards 

cases, DOE considers historical 

shipments, the mix of efficiencies sold 

in the absence of new standards, and 

how that mix may change over time. 

Additional information about the NIA 

spreadsheet is in NOPR TSD chapter 11. 

Table V.6 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the NES and NPV analyses for the 

preliminary TSD, as well as the changes 

to the analyses for the proposed rule. A 

discussion of selected inputs and 

changes follows. See chapter 11 of the 

NOPR TSD for further details. 

TABLE V.6—APPROACH AND DATA USED FOR NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND CONSUMER NET PRESENT VALUE

ANALYSES

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the proposed rule 

Shipments ........................................................... Derived annual shipments from shipments 

model.

See Table V.7. 

Compliance Date of Standard ............................ 2014 ................................................................. No change. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................ Established in the energy use characterization 

(preliminary TSD chapter 6).

Energy use characterization updated using 

most recent available inputs; based annual 

unit energy consumption on normalized 

system input power. 

Rebound Effect ................................................... 1 percent in commercial and industrial sectors, 8.5 percent in residential sector.No change. 

Electricity Price Forecast .................................... AEO2008 .......................................................... AEO2010. 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factor ......... Used average conversion factors based on 

AEO2008.

Used marginal conversion factors generated 

by NEMS–BT; factors held constant after 

2035. 

Discount Rate ..................................................... 3% and 7% real ............................................... No change. 

Present Year ...................................................... 2009 ................................................................. 2011. 

1. Annual Energy Consumption per Unit 

As discussed in section 0 above, the 

California Utilities and the NEEA and 

NPCC suggested that both individual 

ballast failure replacements and system 

installations for new construction/ 

renovation could be normalized for light 

output at any given efficiency level. 

This could be accomplished through 

foreseeable ballast design options and/ 

or lighting system modifications (e.g., 

number of lamps, lamp type, or fixture 

reflector). NEEA and NPCC contended 

that DOE could then simplify its 

analyses by applying normalized system 

input power throughout. (California 

Utilities, No. 30 at pp. 3–5; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 32 at pp. 6–7) 

In its preliminary analysis, DOE used 

both rated and normalized system input 

power in determining the annual unit 

energy consumption for the NIA. As in 

the LCC analysis, ballast shipments for 

failure replacements were assigned 

rated system input power, and this 

assumption was applied across the 

entire 30-year analysis period. DOE 

agrees that the lighting system 

modifications noted by the California 

Utilities can have the practical effect of 

normalizing light output for individual 

replacement systems. Therefore, DOE 

believes that normalized system input 

power provides a reasonable basis for 

estimating future energy savings. 

For the proposed rule, DOE revised 

the shipments and NIA spreadsheet 

models to reflect the revised product 

class structure, and provide increased 

flexibility and transparency for the 

spreadsheet user. Using only 

normalized system input power also 

simplified the accounting functions 

within the NIA model, compared to the 

combined (rated and normalized input 

power) approach used in the 

preliminary analysis. 

DOE also examined the relative effects 

of applying normalized versus rated 

input power in determining energy 

savings. Normalizing the input power of 

replacement systems typically reduces 

the differences in input power between 

the baseline system and replacement 

systems; consequently, DOE found that 

normalized values resulted in lower 

energy savings estimates than those 

based on rated input power. However, 

DOE believes that the differences in 

estimated NES between a normalizedonly and combined approach would be 

minor, particularly compared to the 

range of NES bounded by DOE’s two 

ballast shipment scenarios (existing and 

emerging technologies, discussed in 

section 0 below). 

In summary, DOE believes that its 

revised NIA using normalized system 

input power produces a range of 

estimated NES that captures the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20131 

potential—and significant—energy 

savings for ballasts. 

2. Shipments 

Product shipments are an important 

component of any estimate of the future 

impact of a standard. Using a three-step 

process, DOE developed the shipments 

portion of the NIA spreadsheet, a model 

that uses historical data as a basis for 

projecting future ballast shipments. 

First, DOE used 1990–2005 shipment 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau to 

estimate the total historical shipments 

for each ballast type analyzed. Second, 

DOE calculated an installed stock for 

each ballast type based on an assumed 

service lifetime distribution. Third, by 

modeling ballast market segments (i.e., 

purchasing events) and applying growth 

rate, lifetime distribution, and emerging 

technologies penetration rate 

assumptions, DOE developed annual 

shipment projections for the analysis 

period 2014–2043. In projecting ballast 

shipments, DOE accounted for two 

market segments: (1) Replacement of 

failed equipment and (2) retrofits/ 

renovation and new construction. Table 

V.7 summarizes the approach and data 

DOE used to derive the inputs to the 

shipments analysis for the preliminary 

TSD and the changes DOE made for 

today’s proposed rule. A discussion of 

these inputs and changes follows. For 

details on the shipments analysis, see 

chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE V.7—APPROACH AND DATA USED FOR THE SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs Preliminary TSD Changes for the proposed rule 

Historical Shipments ........................................... Used historical shipments for 1990–2005 to 

develop shipments and stock projections for 

the analysis period; growth pattern exhibited oscillations in shipments projections for 

some ballast types.

Used same historical data and changed lifetime distribution and growth assumptions, 

mitigating oscillations in shipment projections. 

Ballast Stock ....................................................... Based projections on the shipments that survive up to a given date; assumed simplified 

lifetime distribution.

No change for projection methodology; assumed Weibull lifetime distribution. 

Growth ................................................................ Assumed the same growth rate for commercial/industrial and residential floorspace.Updated using 2010 AEO projections for 

floorspace growth. 

Base Case Scenarios ......................................... Analyzed both existing technology and emerging technology scenarios.No change. 

Standards Case Scenarios ................................ Analyzed Shift and Roll-up scenarios based 

on both existing and emerging technology 

cases.

No change. 

a. Historical Shipments 

For the preliminary TSD, DOE used 

U.S. Census Bureau Current Industrial 

Reports (CIR) to estimate historical 

shipments for affected ballast designs. 

The census CIR data cover the period 

1990–2005 and contain NEMA 

shipments for individual ballast designs 

(e.g., 2-lamp F96T8), as well as 

aggregated shipments for multiple 

designs to prevent disclosing data for 

individual companies. For some ballast 

designs, the CIR withheld shipments 

data entirely to avoid disclosing data for 

individual companies. 

For CIR reporting years for which 

specific shipments data were aggregated 

or unavailable, DOE estimated historical 

shipments using trends within the 

available data and/or market trends 

identified in ballast manufacturer 

interviews, the 2009 Lamps Rule, and 

the 2000 Ballast Rule. DOE then 

increased these estimates to account for 

the volume of ballasts that non-NEMA 

companies import or manufacture. To 

validate its estimation methods for the 

preliminary TSD, DOE requested 

historical ballast and residential fixture 

shipments from NEMA, but was unable 

to obtain these data due to 

confidentiality concerns of some 

affected manufacturers. 

In their comments on the preliminary 

shipments analysis, the NEEA and 

NPCC noted that census CIR data are 

incomplete, do not address non-NEMA 

shipments, and should not be relied on 

if their deficiencies cannot be remedied. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 10) 

NEMA agreed in general with DOE’s 

modeled shipment trends in the 

preliminary TSD. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 

15) DOE acknowledges the 

shortcomings of CIR data, which are 

truncated at 2005 (the U.S. Census 

Bureau discontinued ballast CIR reports 

in 2006), but believes that census data 

are the only practical basis for 

estimating shipments because actual 

shipments data are either withheld by 

manufacturers due to confidentiality 

concerns or not retained in company 

records, as discussed below. DOE also 

notes that it accounted for imports and 

other non-NEMA manufacturers in its 

preliminary historical shipments 

analysis, and provides additional 

discussion in chapter 10 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

To validate its NOPR analysis, DOE 

again requested historical ballast 

shipment data from NEMA, but was 

informed that neither NEMA nor its 

member companies typically retain data 

of the vintage in question (1990–2005). 

Where possible, DOE refined its 

historical shipment estimates with 

additional data collected in 

manufacturer interviews during the 

NOPR analysis. Based on review of 

available data and NEMA’s general 

validation of the preliminary shipments 

model, DOE concludes that census data 

remain the most reasonable basis for 

estimating historical ballast shipments, 

and retains this approach for today’s 

proposed rulemaking. 

b. Ballast Stock Projections 

In its preliminary shipments analysis, 

DOE calculated the installed ballast 

stock using historical shipments 

estimated from U.S. Census Bureau CIR 

data (1990–2005) and projected 

shipments for future years. DOE 

typically estimates the installed stock 

during the analysis period by taking 

ballast shipments and calculating how 

many will survive up to a given year 

based on a lifetime distribution for each 

ballast type. The estimated historical 

shipments for electronic ballasts 

exhibited striking growth in 1990–2005, 

a trend not consistent with a mature 

market. For the preliminary TSD, DOE 

reasoned that this significant growth in 

shipments did not translate to 

equivalent growth in ballast stock, 

assuming instead a 2-percent annual 

growth rate in shipments for new 

construction and attributing the 

additional shipments to retrofits. 

NEMA, as well as the NEEA and 

NPCC, questioned attributing the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

37U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy Savings 

Potential of Solid-State Lighting in General 

Illumination Applications, 2010 to 2030. February 

2010. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_energy-savingsreport_10-30.pdf. 

historical growth in electronic ballast 

shipments to retrofits, rather than of 

absolute growth in ballast stock. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

7 at p. 248; NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at 

p. 9) NEMA contended that strong 

growth in non-residential construction 

explained a larger share of new ballast 

demand than assumed by DOE. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 14 at p. 

248) Philips noted that DOE did not 

account for a corresponding decline in 

shipments of magnetic ballasts during 

the period 1990–2005. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 6 and No. 15 at 

p. 244) However, commenters also 

acknowledged the continuing influence 

of retrofits driven by utility incentive 

programs and new lighting technologies. 

(NEEA and NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 246–247; 

NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

11 at p. 248) 

In its revised analysis, DOE examined 

census data for ballast shipments and 

confirmed that magnetic ballast 

shipments declined significantly in 

1990–2005, corresponding with the 

increase in electronic ballast shipments 

during the same period. These trends 

suggest that electronic ballasts (e.g., for 

4-foot MBP T8 systems) were eroding 

shipments of magnetic ballasts (e.g., for 

4-foot MBP T12 systems) for retrofits 

and new construction. Available data do 

not support NEMA’s claim of strong 

non-residential construction growth in 

1990–2005; according to EIA estimates 

(e.g., in AEO1996 and AEO2000), 

commercial floorspace growth averaged 

approximately 1.35 percent annually 

during this period. A recent DOE 

lighting report suggests that 

replacements of failed lighting 

equipment and lighting retrofits 

contribute more to shipments than new 

construction.37 Based on available 

information, DOE maintains that the 

growth rate for historical ballast stock 

was less than the growth rate for 

historical shipments of electronic 

ballasts, which instead reflected a 

market transition from magnetic to 

electronic ballasts. 

c. Projected Shipments 

By modeling ballast market segments 

and applying lifetime distribution, 

growth and emerging technologies 

penetration rate assumptions, and 

efficiency scenarios, DOE developed 

annual shipment projections for the 

analysis period (2014–2043). DOE could 

not obtain historical ballast shipments 

data from NEMA to validate its 

preliminary or NOPR analyses; 

however, NEMA agreed with DOE’s 

preliminary TSD shipment trends and 

emerging technology forecasts in 

general. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 2; NEMA 

No. 29 at p. 15) The subsections below 

address the lifetime, emerging 

technology, market trend, and efficiency 

scenario issues that DOE considered in 

its shipments analysis for the proposed 

rule. 

i. Shipment Patterns and Ballast 

Lifetime Assumptions 

Estimated historical shipments varied 

from year to year and, when combined 

with preliminary assumptions for 

ballast lifetimes, lifetime distributions 

and floorspace growth, produced 

periodic oscillations in shipment 

projections for some ballast types (e.g., 

ballasts operating 4-foot MBP T8 lamps). 

For the preliminary TSD, DOE assumed 

that ballast lifetimes were distributed 

across the last 3 years of the average 

physical lifetime for each analyzed 

ballast type. 

DOE received multiple comments 

regarding the oscillations in its 

preliminary shipment projections and 

its underlying assumptions about 

average ballast lifetimes and lifetime 

distributions. NEMA commented that 

the oscillations were too pronounced to 

be attributed to historical market trends 

or ballast performance. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 18 at pp. 248– 

249) The NEEA and NPCC agreed with 

NEMA that the oscillations were not 

realistic and suggested that the 

shipment patterns might stem from 

DOE’s narrow assumed lifetime 

distributions. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 

at p. 8) NEMA agreed with DOE’s 

assumed average physical lifetimes for 

ballasts, but other commenters noted 

that ballast lifetime distributions should 

encompass ‘‘economic lifetime’’ (e.g., 

retrofits of functioning ballasts) as well 

as physical lifetime (e.g., replacement of 

failed ballasts). (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 14; 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

25 at pp. 245–246; NEEA and NPCC, No. 

32 at p. 9) 

DOE agrees that its preliminary ballast 

shipment projections did not account 

for a sufficient range of economic and 

physical lifetimes. In its revised 

shipment analysis, DOE retained the 

original average physical lifetimes and 

used Weibull distributions for ballast 

lifetimes to better accommodate failures 

and retrofits. In combination with DOE’s 

revised growth assumptions, the 

expanded lifetime distributions largely 

eliminated the pronounced shipment 

oscillations seen for some ballast types 

in the preliminary TSD. 

ii. Emerging Technology Shipment 

Forecasts 

In its preliminary TSD, DOE modeled 

the impacts of emerging solid-state 

lighting (SSL) technologies on 

shipments of analyzed ballasts used in 

the commercial sector (e.g., ballasts 

operating 4-foot MBP T8 lamps). Philips 

commented that some projections 

showed SSL technologies capturing as 

much as 50 percent of the lighting 

market within 10 years. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 22 at pp. 18–19) 

NEMA agreed with the overall trends in 

DOE’s emerging technology shipment 

forecasts (excluding oscillations); 

however, Philips noted that DOE had 

not included sign ballasts in the same 

forecasts. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 2; 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

24 at pp. 234–235) While 

acknowledging some SSL market 

penetration, the NEEA and NPCC 

contended that fluorescent technologies 

would retain a large share of the signage 

market, particularly in backlighting 

applications. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 

at p. 3) 

For its revised shipments analysis, 

DOE retained its original emerging 

technology assumptions, with SSL 

penetration increasing to a maximum of 

40 percent by 2028, resulting in 

decreased shipments for affected ballast 

types. DOE added sign ballasts to its 

revised emerging technology shipment 

forecasts, but agrees that SSL will have 

only limited penetration of backlit 

signage applications that currently use 

linear fluorescent sources based on 

DOE’s previous research of SSL niche 

applications, which indicated that SSL 

is viable for neon and channel letter 

signage but is not yet suitable for 

fluorescent backlighting applications. 

Consequently, DOE assumed lower SSL 

penetration for sign ballast shipments, 

increasing to a maximum of 20 percent 

by 2028. 

iii. Anticipated Market Trends 

DOE also received comments about 

anticipated market trends for the period 

2014–2043, addressing utility incentive 

programs, ballast replacement options, 

and new construction and renovation. 

NEEA and NPCC observed that utility 

incentive programs have driven lighting 

retrofits for many years and suggested 

that this trend would continue as more 

locations adopted incentive programs. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 9) NEEA 

and NPCC also commented that (1) new 

commercial construction will remain 

depressed but will be accompanied by 

an upsurge in major renovation and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20133 

38RLW Analytics, ‘‘2005 California statewide 

residential lighting and appliance efficiency 

saturation study, Final Report.’’ August 2005. 

Available at: http://www.calmac.org/. 

39Abstract for ongoing KEMA California 

residential lighting inventory and metering study 

available at: http://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf/ 

1268.pdf. 

40The National Academies, Board on Energy and 

Environmental Systems, Letter to Dr. John Mizroch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. DOE, Office of 

EERE from James W. Dally, Chair, Committee on 

Continued 

lighting retrofits, and (2) overall ballast 

shipments may hold steady, exclusive of 

emerging technology penetration. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 10) At 

the same time, NEEA and NPCC were 

concerned that DOE lacked adequate 

market data to apportion ballast 

shipments between failure replacements 

and retrofits/new construction; further, 

they suggested that DOE should 

eliminate these distinctions if they have 

significant effects on selection of TSLs 

or final standards. (NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 32 at p. 7) However, NEMA 

supported DOE’s assumption that 

replacements would dominate future 

shipments of these ballasts, contending 

that the majority of building owners that 

already use T8 fluorescent systems 

would not retrofit their fixtures. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 10 at p. 

250) The NEEA and NPCC believed that 

the market for ballasts in the residential 

sector would grow substantially as 

residential energy codes became more 

stringent and contended that DOE 

underestimated the associated savings 

potential for this product class. (NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 32 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE agrees that retrofits (incentiveinduced, efficiency-induced, or both) 

will continue to contribute to future 

ballast shipments. For owners of 

existing improved lighting systems (e.g., 

4-foot MBP T8, commercial sector), DOE 

agrees that these consumers will be less 

likely to retrofit their systems than to 

replace failed ballasts in kind because 

incremental efficiency gains would not 

justify the expense of system retrofits. 

DOE’s research of available economic 

data also indicates that new commercial 

construction will remain relatively flat 

during the period 2014–2043. DOE 

agrees that residential energy codes will 

drive the market toward higher efficacy 

lighting systems, such as fluorescent; 

however, DOE believes that the related 

market growth will be greater for CFLbased fixtures than for 4-foot MBP 

fluorescent systems. DOE’s review of 

available residential fixture surveys 

confirms that linear fluorescent fixtures 

are typically relegated to utility room, 

laundry, and some kitchen applications. 

Recent California tracking reports for 

residential lamps no longer address 

linear fluorescent lamps, given the 

dramatically increased adoption of 

screw- base CFLs, and a comparison of 

residential lighting data for 2005 38 and 

2009 39 shows no significantly increased 

penetration for linear fluorescent 

systems. Viewing these trends in 

combination, DOE believes it has a 

reasonable basis for the market segments 

underlying its shipment projections 

(i.e., replacements of failed ballasts, 

retrofits, and new construction), and 

believes that these trends will 

contribute to modest future growth in 

ballast shipments and stock (exclusive 

of SSL penetration). 

iv. Efficiency Scenarios 

Several of the inputs for determining 

NES (e.g., the annual energy 

consumption per unit) and NPV (e.g., 

the total annual installed cost and the 

total annual operating cost savings) 

depend on product efficiency. For the 

preliminary analysis, DOE developed 

two shipment efficiency scenarios: 

‘‘Roll-up’’ and ‘‘Shift.’’ The Roll-up 

scenario represents a standards case in 

which all product efficiencies in the 

base case that do not meet the standard 

would roll up to meet the new standard 

level. Consumers in the base case who 

purchase ballasts above the standard 

level are not affected as they are 

assumed to continue to purchase the 

same base-case ballast or lamp-andballast system. The Roll-up scenario 

characterizes consumers primarily 

driven by the first-cost of the analyzed 

products. 

In contrast, the Shift scenario models 

a standards case in which the standard 

affects all base-case consumer purchases 

(regardless of whether their base-case 

efficiency is below the standard). In this 

scenario, any consumer may purchase a 

more efficient ballast, preserving the 

same relationship to the baseline ballast 

efficiency. For example, if a consumer 

purchased a ballast one efficiency level 

above the baseline, he would do the 

same after a standard is imposed. For 

this rulemaking, DOE assumed product 

efficiencies in the base case that do not 

meet the standard would roll up to meet 

the new standard level, as in a roll-up 

scenario. However, product efficiencies 

at or above the new standard level 

would shift to higher efficiency levels. 

As the standard level increases, market 

share incrementally accumulates at the 

highest standard level because it 

represents max tech (i.e., moving 

beyond this efficiency level is not 

achievable with today’s technology). 

DOE received no comments to the 

preliminary TSD regarding its Roll-up 

and Shift efficiency scenarios, and 

retained this approach for the proposed 

rule shipments analysis. 

3. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

To estimate the national energy 

savings expected from appliance 

standards, DOE uses a multiplicative 

factor to convert site energy 

consumption (at the home or 

commercial building) into primary or 

source energy consumption (the energy 

required to convert and deliver the site 

energy). These conversion factors 

account for the energy used at power 

plants to generate electricity and losses 

in transmission and distribution, as well 

as for natural gas losses from pipeline 

leakage and energy used for pumping. 

For electricity, the conversion factors 

vary over time due to projected changes 

in generation sources (i.e., the types of 

power plants projected to provide 

electricity to the country). The factors 

that DOE developed are marginal 

values, which represent the response of 

the system to an incremental decrease in 

consumption associated with appliance 

standards. 

In the ballasts preliminary analysis, 

DOE used annual site-to-source 

conversion factors based on the version 

of NEMS that corresponds to AEO2009. 

For today’s NOPR, DOE updated its 

conversion factors based on the NEMS 

that corresponds to AEO2010, which 

provides energy forecasts through 2035. 

For 2036–2043, DOE used conversion 

factors that remain constant at the 2035 

values. 

Section 1802 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (EPACT 2005) directed DOE to 

contract a study with the National 

Academy of Science (NAS) to examine 

whether the goals of energy efficiency 

standards are best served by 

measurement of energy consumed, and 

efficiency improvements, at the actual 

point of use or through the use of the 

full fuel cycle, beginning at the source 

of energy production. (Pub. L. 109–58 

(Aug. 8, 2005)) NAS appointed a 

committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and FullFuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to 

Energy Efficiency Standards’’ to conduct 

the study, which was completed in May 

2009. The NAS committee defined fullfuel-cycle (FFC) energy consumption as 

including, in addition to site energy use, 

the following: Energy consumed in the 

extraction, processing, and transport of 

primary fuels such as coal, oil, and 

natural gas; energy losses in thermal 

combustion in power generation plants; 

and energy losses in transmission and 

distribution to homes and commercial 

buildings.40


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20134 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement 

Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards, May 

15, 2009. 

In evaluating the merits of using 

point-of-use and FFC measures, the 

NAS committee noted that DOE uses 

what the committee referred to as 

‘‘extended site’’ energy consumption to 

assess the impact of energy use on the 

economy, energy security, and 

environmental quality. The extended 

site measure of energy consumption 

includes the energy consumed during 

the generation, transmission, and 

distribution of electricity; unlike the 

FFC measure, however, it does not 

include the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels. A majority of the NAS 

committee concluded that extended site 

energy consumption understates the 

total energy consumed to make an 

appliance operational at the site. As a 

result, the NAS committee 

recommended that DOE consider 

shifting its analytical approach over 

time to use a FFC measure of energy 

consumption when assessing national 

and environmental impacts, especially 

with respect to the calculation of GHG 

emissions. The NAS committee also 

recommended that DOE provide more 

comprehensive information to the 

public through labels and other means, 

such as an enhanced Web site. For those 

appliances that use multiple fuels (e.g., 

water heaters), the NAS committee 

indicated that measuring FFC energy 

consumption would provide a more 

complete picture of energy consumption 

and would allow comparisons across 

many different appliances as well as an 

improved assessment of impacts. 

In response to the NAS 

recommendations, DOE issued, on 

August 20, 2010, a Notice of Proposed 

Policy proposing to incorporate an FFC 

analysis into the methods it uses to 

estimate the likely impacts of energy 

conservation standards on energy use 

and emissions. Specifically, DOE 

proposed to use FFC measures of energy 

and GHG emissions, rather than the 

primary (extended site) energy measures 

it currently uses. Additionally, DOE 

proposed to work collaboratively with 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to 

make FFC energy and GHG emissions 

data publicly available, which would 

enable consumers to make cross-class 

comparisons. On October 7, 2010, DOE 

held an informal public meeting to 

discuss and receive comments on its 

planned approach. The Notice, a 

transcript of the public meeting and all 

public comments received by DOE are 

available at http://www.regulations.gov/ 

search/Regs/ 

home.html#docketDetail?R=EERE-2010- 

BT-NOA-0028. Following the close of 

the public comment period, DOE 

intends to develop a final policy 

statement on these subjects and then 

take steps to implement that policy in 

rulemakings and other activities. 

D. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable sub-groups of consumers 

(e.g., low-income households) that a 

national standard may 

disproportionately affect. DOE received 

no comments regarding specific subgroups and, therefore, evaluated the 

same sub-groups addressed in the 2009 

Lamps Rule, assuming that consumers 

using GSFL would share similar 

characteristics with ballast consumers. 

Specifically, DOE evaluated the 

following consumer sub-groups for the 

proposed rule: Low-income households; 

institutions of religious worship; and 

institutions that serve low-income 

populations (e.g., small nonprofits). 

The NOPR TSD chapter 12 presents 

the consumer subgroup analysis. 

E. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

DOE performed a manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA) to estimate the 

financial impact of new and amended 

energy conservation standards on 

manufacturers of ballasts, and to 

calculate the impact of such standards 

on employment and manufacturing 

capacity. The MIA has both quantitative 

and qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA primarily relies on the 

GRIM, an industry cash-flow model 

using inputs specific to this rulemaking. 

The key GRIM inputs are data on the 

industry cost structure, product costs, 

shipments, and assumptions about 

markups and conversion expenditures. 

The key output is the industry net 

present value (INPV). Different sets of 

shipment and markup assumptions 

(scenarios) will produce different 

results. The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses factors such as product 

characteristics, characteristics of and 

impacts on particular sub-groups of 

firms, as well as important market and 

product trends. Chapter 13 of the NOPR 

TSD outlines the complete MIA. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1, 

Industry Profile, DOE prepared an 

industry characterization. Phase 2, 

Industry Cash Flow, focused on the 

financial aspects of the industry as a 

whole. In this phase, DOE used the 

GRIM to prepare an industry cash-flow 

analysis based on publicly available 

information gathered in Phase 1. This 

information enabled DOE to adapt the 

GRIM structure to analyze the impact of 

new and amended standards on ballast 

manufacturers specifically. In Phase 3, 

Sub-Group Impact Analysis, the 

Department conducted structured, 

detailed interviews with a 

representative cross-section of 

manufacturers that represent more than 

90 percent of domestic ballast sales. 

During these interviews, DOE discussed 

engineering, manufacturing, 

procurement, and financial topics 

specific to each company, and obtained 

each manufacturer’s view of the 

industry as a whole. The interviews 

provided valuable information that the 

Department used to evaluate the 

impacts of new and amended standards 

on manufacturers’ cash flows, 

manufacturing capacities, and 

employment levels. Each of these 

phases is discussed in further detail 

below. 

a. Phase 1: Industry Profile 

In Phase 1 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a profile of the ballast industry based on 

the market and technology assessment 

prepared for this rulemaking. Before 

initiating the detailed impact studies, 

DOE collected information on the 

present and past structure and market 

characteristics of the industry. This 

information included market share data, 

product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and the cost structure for 

various manufacturers. The industry 

profile includes: (1) Further detail on 

the overall market and product 

characteristics; (2) estimated 

manufacturer market shares; (3) 

financial parameters such as net plant, 

property, and equipment; selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses; cost of goods sold; and other 

parameters; and (4) trends in the ballast 

market, including the number of firms, 

technology, sourcing decisions, and 

pricing. 

The industry profile included a topdown cost analysis of ballast 

manufacturers that DOE used to derive 

preliminary financial inputs for the 

GRIM (e.g., revenues; material, labor, 

overhead, and depreciation expenses; 

SG&A expenses; and research and 

development (R&D) expenses). DOE also 

used public sources of information to 

further calibrate its initial 

characterization of the industry, 

including Security and Exchange 

Commission 10–K filings (available at 

http://www.sec.gov), Standard & Poor’s 

stock reports (available at http:// 

www2.standardandpoors.com), and 

corporate annual reports. DOE 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20135 

supplemented this public information 

with data released by privately held 

companies. 

b. Phase 2: Industry Cash-Flow Analysis 

Phase 2 of the MIA focused on the 

financial impacts of the potential new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards on the industry as a whole. 

New or amended energy conservation 

standards can affect manufacturer cash 

flow in three distinct ways: (1) By 

creating a need for increased 

investment, (2) by raising production 

costs per unit, and (3) by altering 

revenue due to higher per-unit prices 

and possible changes in sales volumes. 

To quantify these impacts, in Phase 2 

DOE used the GRIM to perform a 

preliminary cash-flow analysis of the 

ballast industry. In performing this 

analysis, DOE used the financial values 

determined during Phase 1 and the 

shipment scenarios used in the NIA. 

c. Phase 3: Sub-Group Impact Analysis 

In Phase 3, DOE conducted interviews 

with manufacturers and refined its 

preliminary cash-flow analysis. Many of 

the manufacturers interviewed also 

participated in interviews for the 

engineering analysis. As indicated 

above, the MIA interviews broadened 

the discussion from primarily 

technology-related issues to include 

business-related topics. One key 

objective for DOE was to obtain 

feedback from the industry on the 

assumptions used in the GRIM and to 

isolate key issues and concerns. See 

section 0 for a description of the key 

issues manufacturers raised during the 

interviews. 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

does not adequately assess differential 

impacts of new or amended standards 

among manufacturer sub-groups. For 

example, small manufacturers, niche 

manufacturers, or manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure that largely 

differs from the industry average could 

be more negatively affected. To address 

this possible impact, DOE used the 

results of the industry characterization 

analysis in Phase 1 to group 

manufacturers that exhibit similar 

production and cost structure 

characteristics. Furthermore, interview 

discussions that focused on financial 

topics specific to each manufacturer 

allowed DOE to gauge the potential for 

differential impacts on any sub-groups 

of manufacturers. 

DOE identified two sub-groups for a 

separate impact analysis—small 

manufacturers and sign ballast 

manufacturers. For its small business 

manufacturer sub-group analysis DOE 

used the small business size standards 

published by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) to determine 

whether a company is considered a 

small business 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 

15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 

CFR part 121. To be categorized as a 

small business, a fluorescent lamp 

ballast manufacturer and its affiliates 

may employ a maximum of 750 

employees. The 750-employee threshold 

includes all employees in a business’s 

parent company and any other 

subsidiaries. Based upon this 

classification, DOE identified at least 

ten small fluorescent lamp ballast 

manufacturers that qualify as small 

businesses per the applicable SBA 

definition. 

DOE investigated sign ballast 

manufacturers as a second sub-group. 

Unlike the traditional fluorescent lamp 

ballast market, which is dominated by 

four large manufacturers with highvolume product lines, the sign ballast 

market is significantly more fragmented, 

with many small manufacturers 

providing products in low volumes to 

distinct markets. The fluorescent lamp 

ballast sub-groups are discussed in 

chapter 13 of the TSD and in section 0 

of today’s notice, and small business 

impacts are analyzed in section VII.B. 

2. GRIM Analysis 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow that result in a 

higher or lower industry value. The 

GRIM analysis uses a standard, annual 

cash-flow analysis that incorporates 

manufacturer costs, markups, 

shipments, and industry financial 

information as inputs, and models 

changes in costs, investments, and 

manufacturer margins that would result 

from new and amended energy 

conservation standards. The GRIM 

spreadsheet uses the inputs to arrive at 

a series of annual cash flows, beginning 

with the base year of the analysis, 2011, 

and continuing to 2043. DOE calculated 

INPVs by summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during this 

period. For ballasts, DOE uses a real 

discount rate of 7.4 percent for all 

products. DOE’s discount rate estimate 

was derived from industry financials 

then modified according to feedback 

during manufacturer interviews. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between a 

base case and various TSLs (the 

standards cases). The difference in INPV 

between the base case and a standards 

case represents the financial impact of 

the amended standard on 

manufacturers. As discussed previously, 

DOE collected this information on the 

critical GRIM inputs from a number of 

sources, including publicly available 

data and interviews with a number of 

manufacturers (described in the next 

section). The GRIM results are shown in 

section 0. Additional details about the 

GRIM can be found in chapter 13 of the 

TSD. 

DOE typically presents its estimates of 

industry impacts by groups of the major 

product types served by the same 

manufacturers. In the fluorescent lamp 

ballast industry, four major 

manufacturers sell the vast majority of 

shipments in nearly all product classes, 

with the exception of sign ballasts, 

although some major manufacturers sell 

into that market as well. As such, DOE 

decided to present the GRIM results for 

all four analyzed product classes in one 

product grouping. The impacts on sign 

ballast manufacturers are broken out 

separately as a sub-group analysis in 

section 0. 

a. GRIM Key Inputs 

i. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing a higher-efficiency 

product is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing a baseline product 

due to the use of more complex 

components, which are more costly than 

baseline components. The changes in 

the MPCs of the analyzed products can 

affect the revenues, gross margins, and 

cash flow of the industry, making these 

product cost data key GRIM inputs for 

DOE’s analysis. 

To calculate MPCs at each EL, DOE 

followed a two-step process. First, DOE 

derived MSPs for each analyzed product 

and efficiency level from blue book, 

online retail, and teardown-sourced 

prices as described in section 0 above. 

Next, DOE discounted these MSPs by 

the manufacturer markup to arrive at the 

MPCs. For all product classes, DOE used 

a 1.4 manufacturer markup based on 

manufacturer feedback. DOE also used 

confidential information from 

manufacturer interviews to verify its 

MPC estimates. In addition, DOE used 

teardown cost data to disaggregate the 

MPCs into material, labor, and overhead 

costs. 

ii. Base-Case Shipments Forecast 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

forecasts and the distribution of these 

values by efficiency level. Changes in 

sales volumes and efficiency mix over 

time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual 

shipment forecasts from 2011 to 2043, 

the end of the analysis period. In the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20136 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

shipments analysis, DOE also estimated 

the distribution of efficiencies in the 

base case for all product classes. See 

chapter 10 of the TSD for additional 

details. 

iii. Product and Capital Conversion 

Costs 

New and amended energy 

conservation standards will cause 

manufacturers to incur conversion costs 

to bring their production facilities and 

product designs into compliance. For 

the MIA, DOE classified these 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Product conversion costs and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion costs are investments in 

research, development, testing, 

marketing, and other non-capitalized 

costs necessary to make product designs 

comply with the new or amended 

energy conservation standard. Capital 

conversion costs are investments in 

property, plant, and equipment 

necessary to adapt or change existing 

production facilities such that new 

product designs can be fabricated and 

assembled. 

DOE’s interviews with manufacturers 

revealed that the majority of the 

conversion costs manufacturers expect 

to incur at various TSLs derive from the 

need to develop new and improved 

circuit designs, rather than the purchase 

of new capital equipment. Due to the 

flexible nature of most ballast 

production equipment, manufacturers 

do not expect new or amended 

standards to strand a significant share of 

their production assets. As opposed to 

other more capital-intensive appliance 

industries, much of the cash outlay 

required to achieve higher efficiency 

levels would be expensed through 

research and development, engineering, 

and testing efforts. 

DOE based its estimates of the 

product conversion costs that would be 

required to meet each TSL on 

information obtained from manufacturer 

interviews, the engineering analysis, the 

NIA shipment analysis, and market 

information about the number of models 

and stock-keeping units (SKUs) each 

major manufacturer supports. DOE 

estimated the product development 

costs manufacturers would incur for 

each model that would need to be 

converted in response to new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

based on the necessary engineering and 

testing resources required to redesign 

each model. The R&D resources 

required to reach the efficiency levels 

represented at each TSL varied 

according to whether models could be 

converted based on minor upgrades, 

redesigns based on existing topologies, 

or full redesigns. In addition to permodel R&D costs, DOE considered 

testing and validation costs for every 

SKU, which included internal testing, 

UL testing, additional certifications, 

pilot runs, and product training. DOE 

then multiplied these per-model and 

per-SKU estimates by the total number 

of ballast models and SKUs offered 

based on information from manufacturer 

catalogs and interviews to calculate the 

total potential costs each manufacturer 

could incur to redesign its products. 

Next, to assign these costs to particular 

representative product classes, DOE 

multiplied this total for each 

manufacturer by the percentage of 

models in each product class based on 

the NIA shipment analysis and 

manufacturer feedback. Lastly, to 

consider the models manufacturers 

offered that already met efficiency levels 

above baseline, DOE multiplied the total 

costs for each product class by the 

percentage of models DOE determined 

would need to be redesigned at each 

efficiency level based on data from the 

engineering analysis and manufacturer 

catalogs. 

This methodology derived total 

product conversion cost estimates for 

most product classes and efficiency 

levels. For residential ballasts, DOE 

assumed a smaller redesign cost per 

model. According to manufacturer 

interviews, the residential ballast 

market does not support manufacturer 

attempts to differentiate through better 

designs, product variation, or additional 

value-added features. As such, 

suppliers, often Asian manufacturers 

selling directly to fixture manufacturers, 

make little attempt to compete on 

anything other than price. Interviews 

suggested suppliers would leverage R&D 

invested in the larger, more valuable 

commercial market, making minor 

design adjustments to meet minimum 

requirements of the residential market. 

For sign ballasts, DOE determined the 

number of magnetic models on the 

market based on manufacturer catalogs 

and estimated testing and redesign costs 

for each of these models. DOE’s 

estimates of the product conversion 

costs for fluorescent lamp ballasts 

addressed in this rulemaking can be 

found in section 0, below and in chapter 

13 of the NOPR TSD. 

As discussed above, DOE also 

estimated the capital conversion costs 

manufacturers would incur to comply 

with potential amended energy 

conservation standards represented by 

each TSL. During interviews, DOE asked 

manufacturers to estimate the capital 

expenditures required to expand the 

production of higher-efficiency 

products. These estimates included the 

required tooling and plant changes that 

would be necessary if product lines 

meeting the potential required 

efficiency level did not currently exist. 

Estimates for capital conversion costs 

varied greatly from manufacturer to 

manufacturer, as manufacturers 

anticipated different paths to 

compliance based on the modernity, 

flexibility, and level of automation of 

the equipment already existing in their 

factories. However, all manufacturers 

DOE interviewed indicated that capital 

costs would be relatively moderate 

compared to the required engineering 

effort. The modular nature of ballast 

production and the flexibility of the 

necessary production capital allows for 

significant equipment sharing across 

product lines. Based on interviews, DOE 

assumed that for most manufacturers, 

design changes would require moderate 

product conversion costs but would not 

require significant changes to existing 

production lines and equipment. It is 

therefore unlikely that most 

manufacturers would require high levels 

of capital expenditures compared to 

ordinary capital additions or existing 

net plants, property, and equipment 

(PPE). 

To calculate its estimates of capital 

conversion costs, DOE aggregated its 

estimated capital costs for the major 

players in the industry rather than 

scaled up a ‘‘typical’’ manufacturer’s 

expected conversion costs. Two 

considerations drove this choice in 

methodology. First, manufacturer 

feedback varied widely, making it 

impossible to characterize a ‘‘typical’’ 

manufacturer for conversion cost 

purposes. Second, the expected costs 

often depended upon the timing of the 

manufacturers’ last redesign efforts and 

its strategy regarding the capital 

intensity of their plants and sourcing 

decisions. DOE estimated that some 

manufacturers would incur very minor 

capital expenditures per product class 

for testing equipment, even at max tech 

levels, as their factories’ capital 

equipment would not require significant 

modification to produce higherefficiency ballasts. For other 

manufacturers, DOE assumed greater 

investments would be necessary to 

upgrade lines for each product class 

with new wave solder equipment, 

reflow solder systems and surface 

mount device placement machines. The 

placement machines become 

increasingly important as ballasts 

become more complex with additional 

circuitry and components. DOE 

estimates capital conversion costs 

would rise most rapidly at highefficiency levels not only because of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20137 

new production and testing equipment 

described above but also because 

manufacturers would need to expand 

capacity to account for lower 

throughput on high-efficiency lines. 

For residential ballasts, DOE assumed 

the same magnitude of conversion costs 

as for commercial ballasts of the same 

starting method. While residential 

ballasts are generally not produced by 

the major four manufacturers, the Asian 

manufacturers who source them to 

domestic companies would be required 

to make similar modifications to their 

production lines in response to 

standards. For sign ballasts, DOE was 

unable to interview a representative 

sample of the industry. However, DOE 

recognizes that magnetic ballast lines 

have more capital exposure to changes 

in efficiency standards than electronic 

lines due to the change in technology. 

Because several manufacturers produce 

magnetic sign ballasts, DOE assumed 

new lines would be needed to convert 

magnetic products to electronic ballasts 

and scaled these line costs to the entire 

sign ballast market for this product 

class. 

Finally, DOE estimated industry 

capital conversion costs for all analyzed 

product classes other than residential 

ballasts and sign ballasts by 

extrapolating the interviewed 

manufacturers’ costs for each product 

class to account for the companies that 

DOE did not interview. DOE’s estimates 

of the capital conversion costs for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts can be found 

in section 0, below and in chapter 13 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

b. GRIM Scenarios 

i. Shipment Scenarios 

In the NIA, DOE modeled a roll-up 

and a shift scenario to represent two 

possible standards case efficiency 

distributions for the years beginning 

2014, the year that compliance with 

revised standards is proposed to be 

required, through 2043. The GRIM uses 

each of these forecasts as alternative 

scenarios. The roll-up scenario 

represents the case in which all 

shipments in the base case that do not 

meet the new standard roll up to meet 

the new standard level. Consumers in 

the base case who purchase ballasts 

above the standard level are not affected 

as they are assumed to continue to 

purchase the same base-case ballast or 

lamp-and-ballast system in the 

standards case. In contrast, in a shift 

scenario, DOE assumes that any 

consumer may purchase a more efficient 

ballast. The shift scenario models a 

standards case in which all base-case 

consumer purchases are affected by the 

standard (regardless of whether their 

base-case efficiency is below the 

standard). As the standard level 

increases, market share migrates to, and 

accumulates at, the highest efficiency 

level because it represents ‘‘max tech’’ 

for each representative ballast type (i.e., 

moving beyond it is impossible given 

available technology options). See 

chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for more 

information on the ballasts standardscase shipment scenarios. 

ii. Technology Scenarios 

Each shipment scenario (roll-up and 

shift) described above is modeled in 

combination with the existing and 

emerging technologies base case 

shipment scenarios, resulting in four 

sets of shipments. The GRIM uses each 

set of shipment results to separately 

model impacts on INPV. In the existing 

technologies scenario, no technologies 

outside of those covered by this 

rulemaking were analyzed for market 

penetration. However, DOE recognizes 

that rapidly emerging new lighting 

technologies could penetrate the 

fluorescent lighting market and 

significantly affect ballast shipment 

forecasts. Therefore, in the emerging 

technologies scenario, DOE calculated 

the market penetration of light emitting 

diode (LED) and ceramic metal halide 

(CMH) systems annually through 2043, 

assessing each sector separately. DOE 

decreased the analyzed market size in 

each year in each sector by the amount 

that corresponded to the highest level of 

market penetration achieved by LED or 

CMH systems. The assumptions and 

methodology that drive these scenarios 

and the details specific to each are 

described in chapter 10 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

iii. Markup Scenarios 

As discussed above, manufacturer 

selling prices include direct 

manufacturing production costs (i.e., 

labor, material, and overhead estimated 

in DOE’s MPCs) and all non-production 

costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), 

along with profit. To calculate the MSPs 

in the GRIM, DOE applied markups to 

the MPCs estimated in the engineering 

analysis for each product class and 

efficiency level. Modifying these 

markups in the standards case yields 

different sets of impacts on 

manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE 

modeled two standards-case markup 

scenarios to represent the uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts on 

prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) A 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, and (2) a two-tier markup 

scenario. These scenarios lead to 

different markups values, which, when 

applied to the inputted MPCs, result in 

varying revenue and cash flow impacts. 

DOE implemented the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario 

because manufacturers stated that they 

do not expect to be able to markup the 

full cost of production given the highly 

competitive market, in the standards 

case. The preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario assumes that 

manufacturers are able to maintain only 

the base-case total operating profit in 

absolute dollars in the standards case, 

despite higher product costs and 

investment. The base-case total 

operating profit is derived from marking 

up the cost of goods sold for each 

product by a flat percentage (the 

baseline markup, discussed in chapter 5 

of the NOPR TSD) to cover standard 

SG&A expenses, R&D expenses, and 

profit. To derive this percentage, DOE 

evaluated publicly available financial 

information for manufacturers of 

ballasts. DOE also requested feedback 

on this value during manufacturer 

interviews. DOE adjusted the 

manufacturer markups in the GRIM at 

each TSL to yield approximately the 

same earnings before interest and taxes 

in the standards case in the year after 

the compliance date of the amended 

standards as in the base case. DOE 

assumed that the industry-wide impacts 

would occur under the new minimum 

efficiency levels. DOE altered the 

markups only for the minimally 

compliant products in this scenario, 

with margin impacts not occurring for 

products that already exceed the 

amended energy conservation standard. 

The preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario represents the upper 

bound of industry profitability 

following amended energy conservation 

standards. Under this scenario, while 

manufacturers are not able to yield 

additional operating profit from higher 

production costs and the investments 

required to comply with the amended 

energy conservation standard, they are 

able to maintain the same operating 

profit in the standards case as was 

earned in the base case. 

DOE also modeled a lower bound 

profitability scenario. During 

interviews, multiple manufacturers 

stated that they offer two tiers of 

product lines that are differentiated, in 

part, by efficiency level. The higherefficiency tier typically earns a premium 

over the baseline efficiency tier. Several 

manufacturers suggested that the 

premium currently earned by the 

higher-efficiency tier would erode under 

new or amended standards due to the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20138 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

41http://www.nema.org/gov/energy/efficiency/ 

upload/ 

nema_premium_electronic_ballast_program.pdf. 

disappearance of the baseline efficiency 

tier, which would significantly harm 

profitability. Because of this pricing 

dynamic described by manufacturers 

and because of the pressure from 

luminaire manufacturers to 

commoditize the baseline efficiency tier, 

DOE also modeled a two-tier markup 

scenario. In this scenario, DOE assumed 

that the markup on fluorescent lamp 

ballasts varies according to two 

efficiency tiers in both the base case and 

the standards case. During the MIA 

interviews, manufacturers provided 

information on the range of typical 

efficiency levels in those two tiers and 

the change in profitability at each level. 

DOE used this information, retail prices 

derived in its product price 

determination, and industry average 

gross margins to estimate markups for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts under a twotier pricing strategy in the base case. In 

the standards case, DOE modeled the 

situation in which portfolio reduction 

squeezes the margin of higher-efficiency 

products as they become the new 

baseline, presumably high-volume 

products. This scenario is consistent 

with information submitted during 

manufacturing interviews and responds 

to manufacturers’ concern that DOE 

standards could severely disrupt 

profitability. 

3. Discussion of Comments 

During the April 2010 public meeting, 

interested parties commented on the 

assumptions and results of the 

preliminary TSD. Oral and written 

comments discussed several topics, 

including conversion costs, impact on 

competition, potential benefits to ballast 

manufacturers, and manufacturer 

information. DOE addresses these 

comments below. 

a. Conversion Costs 

Several manufacturers expressed 

concerns about the capital and product 

conversion costs that would be 

necessary to meet particular efficiency 

levels. Philips stated that improvements 

would yield only minor efficiency gains, 

but may require redesigning entire 

product lines. As such, the 

manufacturer questioned whether the 

potential returns merited these large 

investments in time and resources. 

Philips noted that this phenomenon of 

diminishing returns is particularly true 

for those efficiency levels DOE 

identified as max tech. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 12 at p. 155– 

156) 

In this NOPR, DOE estimates the 

capital and product conversion costs 

required to meet all TSLs, including the 

max tech level. These conversion costs 

are a key input into the GRIM and 

directly impact the change in INPV 

(which is outputted from the model) 

due to standards. DOE conducts the 

manufacturing impact analysis, 

including the calculation of conversion 

costs, regardless of the energy savings 

that result from a given TSL. When 

determining which TSL to propose, 

DOE weighs the benefits, such as energy 

savings, against the burdens, such as 

loss of INPV, to determine the highest 

TSL that is both technologically feasible 

and economically justified. 

Philips and NEMA also expressed 

concern that the investments made to 

meet new or amended energy 

conservation standards may never be 

recouped because of potential changes 

to the lighting market landscape. Philips 

stated that the industry is transitioning 

from traditional fixed light output 

lighting to alternatives such as control 

systems and solid-state lighting, so the 

opportunity for investment payback will 

be severely diminished. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 12 at p. 274– 

275) NEMA similarly stated that the 

additional cost required to meet max 

tech standard levels would be a burden 

for manufacturers without subsequent 

benefit because the demand for fixed 

output ballasts is expected to 

significantly decline in the future. 

(NEMA, No. 29 at p. 17–18) 

As stated in section 0 above, DOE 

recognizes that rapidly emerging new 

lighting technologies, such as LEDs, 

could penetrate the fluorescent lighting 

market and significantly affect ballast 

shipment forecasts. Therefore, DOE 

modeled an emerging technologies 

scenario in its shipments analysis. DOE 

input this scenario into the GRIM to 

demonstrate the impact that reduced 

demand could have on fluorescent lamp 

ballast manufacturers. The INPV results 

presented under the emerging 

technologies scenario show the impacts 

of the capital and product conversion 

costs required to meet each TSL under 

the base-case assumption that emerging 

lighting technologies will penetrate the 

ballast market. The INPV results for the 

existing and emerging technologies 

scenarios are shown in section 0, and 

more information on the methodology 

behind these scenarios can be found in 

chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. 

NEMA was also concerned about the 

conversion costs required for a 

particular product class. NEMA noted 

that for 8-foot HO lamps product 

offerings are limited and the power 

levels involved can make development 

of a reliable product more timeconsuming than the other product 

categories considered. (NEMA, No. 29 at 

p. 7) DOE takes development time into 

account in its product conversion cost 

estimates. The increased development 

time for 8-foot HO lamps is reflected 

through higher estimated R&D costs due 

to the need to put more resources 

toward product design for a longer 

period of time. 

b. Impact on Competition 

NEMA stated that adoption of NEMA 

Premium levels for national 

requirements could impose a 

disproportionate burden on companies 

that do not currently have product lines 

compliant with the NEMA Premium 

program, which could unfairly impact 

the competitive nature of the 

marketplace. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 4) 

Similarly, NEMA stated that adoption of 

the max tech levels in the preliminary 

analysis could impose a 

disproportionate burden on companies 

that do not currently have product lines 

utilizing the latest technology from the 

major manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 29 at 

p. 6) 

According to a NEMA Premium 

publication 41 that lists qualifying 

electronic ballast models, at least 

fourteen ballast manufacturers already 

have product lines compliant with the 

NEMA Premium program. These 

manufacturers represent both large 

manufacturers, with over 90 percent of 

fluorescent lamp ballast market share, 

and smaller, niche manufacturers. 

While DOE will solicit the views of the 

Attorney General on impacts of these 

proposed standards as required by 

EPCA, DOE does not believe at this time 

that setting standards at NEMA 

Premium levels would unfairly impact 

competition in the ballast market 

because a large quantity and variety of 

manufacturers already offer NEMA 

Premium models. DOE agrees, however, 

that adoption of max tech levels 

presented in the preliminary analysis 

could impose a disproportionate burden 

on smaller manufacturers. During 

manufacturer interviews, DOE 

questioned whether any firms held 

intellectual property that gave them a 

competitive advantage. DOE did not 

learn of any technologies that some 

manufacturers employ that enable them 

to meet max tech levels that other 

manufacturers cannot. However, DOE 

believes that smaller manufacturers may 

not be able to redesign all of their 

product offerings within the 3-year 

compliance period because of limited 

R&D resources and low shipment 

volumes over which to spread out 

conversion costs. See the Regulatory 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20139 

Flexibility Analysis in section 0 for a 

full discussion on DOE’s assessment of 

potential impacts on small 

manufacturers. 

c. Potential Benefits to Ballast 

Manufacturers 

Earthjustice stated that if DOE 

concludes that amended standards for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts would result 

in a market shift to other lighting 

products such as LEDs, DOE must take 

into account any positive impacts of 

that market shift on fluorescent lamp 

ballast manufacturers who also produce 

those substitute technologies. 

Earthjustice further commented that 

EPCA requires DOE to consider positive 

impacts (due to revenues from 

substitute products) in addition to any 

negative impacts from new or amended 

standards because DOE must consider 

the impact on the entire company rather 

than only the ballasts division. 

(Earthjustice, No. 31 at p. 1–2) 

DOE does believe that there is 

potential for the market to increasingly 

migrate from traditional fixed light 

output fluorescent lamp ballasts to 

alternate technologies such as LEDs. For 

this reason, DOE models the emerging 

technologies shipment scenario as 

described in section 0 above and in 

chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. This 

market shift to emerging technologies 

occurs in the base case. That is, the shift 

is not standards-induced. DOE excludes 

the revenue from substitute technologies 

earned by manufacturers who produce 

ballasts in the GRIM since the revenue 

stream would be present in both the 

base case and the standards case, 

resulting in no impact on the change in 

INPV. 

4. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

representing more than 90 percent of 

fluorescent lamp ballast sales. These 

interviews were in addition to those 

DOE conducted as part of the 

engineering analysis. The information 

gathered during these interviews 

enabled DOE to tailor the GRIM to 

reflect the unique financial 

characteristics of the ballasts industry. 

All interviews provided information 

that DOE used to evaluate the impacts 

of potential new and amended energy 

conservation standards on manufacturer 

cash flows, manufacturing capacities, 

and employment levels. Appendix 13A 

of the NOPR TSD contains the interview 

guides DOE used to conduct the MIA 

interviews. 

During the manufacturer interviews, 

DOE asked manufacturers to describe 

their major concerns about this 

rulemaking. The following sections 

describe the most significant issues 

identified by manufacturers. DOE also 

includes additional concerns in chapter 

13 of the TSD. 

a. Component Shortage 

An ongoing shortage of electronic 

components critical to the production of 

ballasts remains a key concern for all 

ballast manufacturers. Because the 

shortage is particularly acute for those 

components critical to high efficiency 

ballasts, new and amended standards 

could exacerbate the market situation, 

according to manufacturers. 

During the recent economic 

downturn, component suppliers 

significantly scaled back production. 

When demand recovered as the 

recession ended, electronics suppliers 

lacked the capacity to meet demand 

beginning in the fall of 2009. Since then, 

component suppliers have been 

reluctant to invest in additional capacity 

because of concerns that the downturn 

has not actually ended. Additionally, 

component manufacturers have seen 

customers place duplicate orders with 

several suppliers (only to later cancel 

the orders with all but one supplier), a 

practice that has reinforced supplier 

skepticism over market demand. 

Electrolytic capacitors and transistors, 

which are produced almost entirely in 

Asia, are key examples of ballast 

components in relatively short supply. 

The fact that these components are 

shared among many electronics 

industries has exacerbated the problem 

for the ballast industry. Manufacturers 

of more expensive electronic 

applications, such as televisions and 

cell phones, can more easily absorb 

what for them are relatively smaller cost 

increases. In turn, these other industries 

can afford to pay more and receive 

priority over the ballast industry. 

As a result, manufacturers have faced 

longer lead times and higher rush-order 

charges to fill their own customers’ 

orders. Manufacturers predicted the 

component shortage will last at least 

into 2011 and were concerned that 

energy conservation standards for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts would 

exacerbate the ongoing component 

shortage. 

b. Market Erosion 

Manufacturers stated that emerging 

technologies are penetrating the 

fluorescent lamp ballasts market. 

Several manufacturers worried that new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards for ballasts would force them 

to invest in a shrinking market. 

Depending on the pace of market 

penetration of emerging technologies— 

such as LEDs—these investments might 

never be recouped. Also, manufacturers 

were concerned that new and amended 

standards on ballasts could hasten the 

switch to emerging technologies by 

lowering the difference in their first-cost 

price. If the standard did increase the 

natural migration toward new 

technology, manufacturers said they 

would be less likely to make the 

substantial investments to modify 

ballasts production equipment for some 

of their product lines. (To address 

emerging technologies issues discussed 

by manufacturers, DOE included several 

shipment scenarios in both the NIA and 

the GRIM. See chapter 10 and chapter 

13 of the NOPR TSD for a discussion of 

the shipment scenarios used in the 

respective analyses.) 

c. Opportunity Cost of Investments 

Manufacturers also stated that the 

financial burden of developing products 

to meet amended energy conservation 

standards has an opportunity cost due 

to the limited pool of capital and R&D 

dollars. Currently, manufacturers are 

reinvesting a significant share of the 

cash flow from fluorescent lamp ballast 

operations into emerging technologies 

such as LEDs and control systems. Any 

investments incurred to meet amended 

ballast standards would therefore reflect 

foregone investments in these emerging 

technologies, which the industry 

believes offer both better prospects for 

market growth and greater potential for 

energy savings than traditional fixedlight-output fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

Compared to these emerging 

technologies, manufacturers stated that 

they have little room for efficiency 

improvements within their ballast 

product lines. 

d. Maintaining Product Tiers 

Several manufacturers stated that they 

would not want standards to be so 

stringent that they eliminate the ability 

to carry two efficiency tiers within a 

product class. Most manufacturers—and 

all major manufacturers—currently offer 

both standard-efficiency and highefficiency product lines. The standardefficiency product lines are typically 

lower cost and lower margin. These 

high-volume products provide 

economies of scale and, by establishing 

a market presence and brand, enhance 

manufacturers’ ability to enter the more 

profitable retrofit and aftermarket sales. 

Meanwhile, the high-efficiency product 

lines allow manufacturers to bundle 

other features within these products, 

which allows them to command a better 

margin. Utility rebates and other similar 

programs also play a large role in 

driving the purchase of higher efficiency 

ballasts. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20140 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

If DOE set standards that did not leave 

room for a high-efficiency product to 

differentiate itself from a baseline 

product, manufacturers believe the new 

standard would commoditize these 

now-premium products. In turn, prices 

of the high-efficiency ballasts would fall 

to the level of what were formerly the 

lower-tier products, harming 

manufacturer profitability. Utility 

companies and other programs would 

have little incentive to offer rebates for 

these former upper-tier products, which 

would then be baseline units. Without 

rebate incentives, sales to the energy 

retrofit market could decrease greatly 

due to cost, which would diminish the 

potential for energy savings due to the 

standard. 

e. Adequate Compliance Periods 

A number of manufacturers expressed 

concern about the timing between the 

announcement of the standard and the 

compliance date of the standard. 

Manufacturers stated that they need 

adequate time to develop products that 

meet the amended efficiency standards. 

Without enough development time, 

manufacturers may not have the 

resources to redesign and test all of their 

product lines before the required 

compliance date, which could result in 

lost sales opportunities in the market. 

F. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a proposed standard. 

Employment impacts consist of direct 

and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are any changes in 

the number of employees working for 

manufacturers of the appliance products 

that are the subject of this rulemaking, 

their suppliers, and related service 

firms. Indirect employment impacts are 

changes in employment within the 

larger economy that occur due to the 

shift in expenditures and capital 

investment caused by the purchase and 

operation of more efficient appliances. 

The MIA addresses the direct 

employment impacts that concern 

ballast manufacturers in section 0. 

The indirect employment impacts of 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

outside of the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced 

spending on energy by end users; (2) 

reduced spending on new energy 

supplies by the utility industry; (3) 

increased spending on new products to 

which the new standards apply; and (4) 

the effects of those three factors 

throughout the economy. DOE expects 

the net monetary savings from standards 

to be redirected to other forms of 

economic activity, and expects these 

shifts in spending and economic activity 

to affect the demand for labor in the 

short term, as explained below. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects of such shifts in economic 

activity on the demand for labor is to 

compare sector employment statistics 

developed by the Labor Department’s 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (Data 

on industry employment, hours, labor 

compensation, value of production, and 

the implicit price deflator for output for 

these industries are available upon 

request by calling the Division of 

Industry Productivity Studies (202–691– 

5618) or by sending a request by e-mail 

to dipsweb@bls.gov. These data are also 

available at http://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/prin1.nr0.htm.) The BLS 

regularly publishes its estimates of the 

number of jobs per million dollars of 

economic activity in different sectors of 

the economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy. There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital intensive and less 

labor intensive than other sectors. See 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the 

Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

(RIMS II), Washington, DC, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1992. 

Energy conservation standards have 

the effect of reducing consumer utility 

bills. Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and manufacturing sectors). Thus, based 

on the BLS data alone, the Department 

believes net national employment will 

increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from new and 

amended standards for ballasts. 

In developing today’s proposed 

standards, DOE estimated indirect 

national employment impacts using an 

input/output model of the U.S. economy 

called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies (ImSET). ImSET is a 

spreadsheet model of the U.S. economy 

that focuses on 188 sectors most 

relevant to industrial, commercial, and 

residential building energy use. (Roop, J. 

M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, 

ImSET: Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies (PNNL–15273 Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory) (2005). 

Available at http://www.pnl.gov/main/ 

publications/external/technical_reports/ 

PNNL-15273.pdf.) ImSET is a special 

purpose version of the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark 

National Input-Output’’ (I–O) model, 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model with structural coefficients to 

characterize economic flows among the 

188 sectors. ImSET’s national economic 

I–O structure is based on a 1997 U.S. 

benchmark table (Lawson, Ann M., Kurt 

S. Bersani, Mahnaz Fahim-Nader, and 

Jiemin Guo, ‘‘Benchmark Input-Output 

Accounts of the U.S. Economy, 1997,’’ 

Survey of Current Business (Dec. 2002) 

pp. 19–117), specially aggregated to the 

188 sectors. DOE estimated changes in 

expenditures using the NIA spreadsheet. 

Using ImSET, DOE estimated the net 

national, indirect-employment impacts 

on employment by sector of potential 

new efficiency standards for ballasts. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis, see NOPR TSD chapter 

15. 

G. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the effects of the adopting new or 

amended standards on the utility 

industry. For this analysis, DOE used 

the NEMS–BT model to generate 

forecasts of electricity consumption, 

electricity generation by plant type, and 

electric generating capacity by plant 

type that would result from each TSL. 

DOE conducted the impact analysis as 

a scenario that departed from the latest 

AEO reference case. In other words, the 

estimated impacts of a standard are the 

differences between values forecasted 

by NEMS–BT and the values in the 

AEO2010 reference case. 

Chapter 14 of the TSD accompanying 

this notice presents results of the utility 

impact analysis. 

H. Environmental Assessment 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI) and 6316(a), DOE 

has prepared a draft environmental 

assessment (EA) of the impacts of the 

potential standards for the fluorescent 

lamp ballasts in today’s proposed rule, 

which it has included as chapter 16 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

In the EA, DOE estimated the 

reduction in power sector emissions of 

carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and mercury (Hg) using the 

NEMS–BT computer model. In the EA, 

NEMS–BT is run similarly to the AEO 

NEMS, except that ballast energy use is 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20141 

reduced by the amount of energy saved 

(by fuel type) due to each TSL. The 

inputs of national energy savings come 

from the NIA spreadsheet model, while 

the output is the forecasted physical 

emissions. The net benefit of each TSL 

in today’s proposed rule is the 

difference between the forecasted 

emissions estimated by NEMS–BT at 

each TSL and the AEO 2010 Reference 

Case. NEMS–BT tracks CO2 emissions 

using a detailed module that provides 

results with broad coverage of all sectors 

and inclusion of interactive effects. For 

today’s NOPR, DOE used the AEO2010. 

For the final rule, DOE intends to revise 

the emissions analysis using the most 

current version of NEMS. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs, and DOE has 

preliminarily determined that these 

programs create uncertainty about the 

potential amended standards’ impact on 

SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air 

Act sets an annual emissions cap on SO2

for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous 

States and the District of Columbia (DC). 

SO2 emissions from 28 eastern states 

and D.C. are also limited under the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an 

allowance-based trading program. 

Although CAIR has been remanded to 

EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit), see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), it remains in 

effect temporarily, consistent with the 

D.C. Circuit’s earlier opinion in North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). On July 6, 2010, EPA issued the 

Transport Rule proposal, a replacement 

for CAIR, which would limit emissions 

from EGUs in 32 states, potentially 

through the interstate trading of 

allowances, among other options. 75 FR 

45210 (Aug. 2, 2010). 

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, and under the 

Transport Rule if it is finalized, any 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand caused by the imposition of an 

efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. 

However, if the amended standards 

resulted in a permanent increase in the 

quantity of unused emissions 

allowances, there would be an overall 

reduction in SO2 emissions from the 

standards. While there remains some 

uncertainty about the ultimate effects of 

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, the NEMS–BT modeling system 

that DOE uses to forecast emissions 

reductions currently indicates that no 

physical reductions in power sector 

emissions would occur for SO2. 

A cap on NOX emissions, affecting 

electric generating units in the CAIR 

region, means that the energy 

conservation standards for ballasts may 

have little or no physical effect on NOX

emissions in the 28 eastern States and 

the DC covered by CAIR or any States 

covered by the proposed Transport Rule 

if the Transport Rule if finalized. The 

proposed standards would, however, 

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 states 

not affected by the CAIR. As a result, 

DOE used NEMS–BT to forecast 

emission reductions from the standards 

considered for today’s NOPR. 

Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOX, 

future emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps. In May 2005, 

EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule 

(CAMR). 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

CAMR would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and 

existing coal-fired power plants in all 

states by 2010. However, on February 8, 

2008, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision 

in New Jersey v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008), in which it vacated CAMR. 

EPA has decided to develop emissions 

standards for power plants under 

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, 

consistent with the DC Circuit’s opinion 

on CAMR. See http://www.epa.gov/air/ 

mercuryrule/pdfs/ 

certpetition_withdrawal.pdf. Pending 

EPA’s forthcoming revisions to the rule, 

DOE is excluding CAMR from its 

environmental assessment. In the 

absence of CAMR, a DOE standard 

would likely reduce Hg emissions and 

DOE used NEMS–BT to estimate these 

reductions. However, DOE continues to 

review the impact of rules that reduce 

energy consumption on Hg emissions, 

and may revise its assessment of Hg 

emission reductions in future 

rulemakings. 

I. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 and NOX that are expected to result 

from each of the TSLs considered. In 

order to make this calculation similar to 

the calculation of the NPV of consumer 

benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the 

lifetime of products shipped in the 

forecast period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

monetary values used for each of these 

emissions and presents the values 

considered in this rulemaking. 

For today’s NOPR, DOE is relying on 

a set of values for the social cost of 

carbon (SCC) that was developed by an 

interagency process. A summary of the 

basis for these values is provided below, 

and a more detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided as an 

appendix to chapter 16 of the TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 

12866, agencies must, to the extent 

permitted by law, ‘‘assess both the costs 

and the benefits of the intended 

regulation and, recognizing that some 

costs and benefits are difficult to 

quantify, propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that the benefits of the intended 

regulation justify its costs.’’ The purpose 

of the SCC estimates presented here is 

to allow agencies to incorporate the 

monetized social benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses 

of regulatory actions that have small, or 

‘‘marginal,’’ impacts on cumulative 

global emissions. The estimates are 

presented with an acknowledgement of 

the many uncertainties involved and 

with a clear understanding that they 

should be updated over time to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed these SCC estimates, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this 

process was to develop a range of SCC 

values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing 

scientific and economic literatures. In 

this way, key uncertainties and model 

differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking 

process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20142 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

42National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC (2009). 

43 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

44Throughout this section, references to tons of 

CO2 refer to metric tons. 

number of serious challenges. A recent 

report from the National Research 

Council 42 points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about (1) Future emissions of 

greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of past 

and future emissions on the climate 

system, (3) the impact of changes in 

climate on the physical and biological 

environment, and (4) the translation of 

these environmental impacts into 

economic damages. As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the 

harms associated with climate change 

will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. Consistent with the 

directive in Executive Order 12866 

quoted above, the purpose of the SCC 

estimates presented here is to make it 

possible for Federal agencies to 

incorporate the social benefits from 

reducing carbon dioxide emissions into 

cost-benefit analyses of regulatory 

actions that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ 

impacts on cumulative global emissions. 

Most Federal regulatory actions can be 

expected to have marginal impacts on 

global emissions. 

For such policies, the agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or 

costs from increased) emissions in any 

future year by multiplying the change in 

emissions in that year by the SCC value 

appropriate for that year. The net 

present value of the benefits can then be 

calculated by multiplying each of these 

future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all 

affected years. This approach assumes 

that the marginal damages from 

increased emissions are constant for 

small departures from the baseline 

emissions path, an approximation that 

is reasonable for policies that have 

effects on emissions that are small 

relative to cumulative global carbon 

dioxide emissions. For policies that 

have a large (non-marginal) impact on 

global cumulative emissions, there is a 

separate question of whether the SCC is 

an appropriate tool for calculating the 

benefits of reduced emissions. This 

concern is not applicable to this notice, 

and DOE does not attempt to answer 

that question here. 

At the time of the preparation of this 

notice, the most recent interagency 

estimates of the potential global benefits 

resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in 

2010, expressed in 2009$, were $4.9, 

$22.1, $36.3, and $67.1 per metric ton 

avoided. For emissions reductions that 

occur in later years, these values grow 

in real terms over time. Additionally, 

the interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic 

effects,43 although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. Specifically, the 

interagency group has set a preliminary 

goal of revisiting the SCC values within 

2 years or at such time as substantially 

updated models become available, and 

to continue to support research in this 

area. In the meantime, the interagency 

group will continue to explore the 

issues raised by this analysis and 

consider public comments as part of the 

ongoing interagency process. 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

To date, economic analyses for 

Federal regulations have used a wide 

range of values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. In the final model year 2011 

CAFE rule, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used both a 

‘‘domestic’’ SCC value of $2 per ton of 

CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of $33 per 

ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions 

(in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 

percent per year.44 DOT also included a 

sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of 

CO2. See Average Fuel Economy 

Standards Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 FR 14196 

(March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90 

(Oct. 2008) (Available at: http:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A 

domestic SCC value is meant to reflect 

the value of damages in the United 

States resulting from a unit change in 

carbon dioxide emissions, while a 

global SCC value is meant to reflect the 

value of damages worldwide. 

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission 

reductions (with a range of $0–$14 for 

sensitivity analysis), also increasing at 

2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars 

and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011– 

2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) 

(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger 

Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015 at 3–58 (June 2008) 

(Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

fuel-economy). A regulation for 

packaged terminal air conditioners and 

packaged terminal heat pumps finalized 

by DOE in October of 2008 used a 

domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton 

CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 

2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 

2008) In addition, EPA’s 2008 Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 

Greenhouse Gases identified what it 

described as ‘‘very preliminary’’ SCC 

estimates subject to revision. See 

Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Under the Clean Air Act, 73 FR 44354 

(July 30, 2008). EPA’s global mean 

values were $68 and $40 per ton CO2 for 

discount rates of approximately 2 

percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 

2006$ for 2007 emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible 

method, specifically designed for the 

rulemaking process, to quantify avoided 

climate change damages from reduced 

CO2 emissions. The interagency group 

did not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2. 

These interim values represent the first 

sustained interagency effort within the 

U.S. government to develop an SCC for 

use in regulatory analysis. The results of 

this preliminary effort were presented in 

several proposed and final rules and 

were offered for public comment in 

connection with proposed rules, 

including the joint EPA–DOT fuel 

economy and CO2 tailpipe emission 

proposed rules. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20143 

45The models are described in appendix 16–A of 

the TSD. 

46Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. 

For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050 

using the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by 

the interagency group. 

47For additional information, refer to U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on 

the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities, Washington, DC. 

48OMB, Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 

17, 2003). 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates, 

which were considered for this 

proposed rule. Specifically, the group 

considered public comments and 

further explored the technical literature 

in relevant fields. The interagency group 

relied on three integrated assessment 

models (IAMs) commonly used to 

estimate the SCC: The FUND, DICE, and 

PAGE models.45 These models are 

frequently cited in the peer-reviewed 

literature and were used in the last 

assessment of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Each model 

was given equal weight in the SCC 

values that were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three values are based on the 

average SCC from three integrated 

assessment models, at discount rates of 

2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The fourth value, 

which represents the 95th percentile 

SCC estimate across all three models at 

a 3-percent discount rate, is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts 

from temperature change further out in 

the tails of the SCC distribution. For 

emissions (or emission reductions) that 

occur in later years, these values grow 

in real terms over time, as depicted in 

Table V.8. 

TABLE V.8—SOCIAL COST OF CO2, 

2010–2050 (IN 2007 DOLLARS PER

METRIC TON) 

VII. 

Discount rate 

5% 

Avg 

3% 

Avg 

2.5% 

Avg 

3% 

95th 

2010 .......... 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 .......... 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 .......... 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 .......... 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 .......... 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 .......... 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 .......... 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 .......... 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 .......... 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of concerns and 

problems that should be addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the Federal agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

DOE recognizes the uncertainties 

embedded in the estimates of the SCC 

used for cost-benefit analyses. As such, 

DOE and others in the U.S. Government 

intend to periodically review and 

reconsider those estimates to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. In this 

context, statements recognizing the 

limitations of the analysis and calling 

for further research take on exceptional 

significance. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

most recent values identified by the 

interagency process, adjusted to 2009$ 

using the GDP price deflator values for 

2008 and 2009. For each of the four 

cases specified, the values used for 

emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.1, 

$36.3, and $67.1 per metric ton avoided 

(values expressed in 2009$).46 To 

monetize the CO2 emissions reductions 

expected to result from amended 

standards for ballasts, DOE used the 

values identified in Table A1 of the 

‘‘Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866,’’ which is reprinted in appendix 

16–A of the NOPR TSD, appropriately 

adjusted to 2009$. To calculate a 

present value of the stream of monetary 

values, DOE discounted the values in 

each of the four cases using the specific 

discount rate that had been used to 

obtain the SCC values in each case. 

1. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the TSLs it considered. 

As noted above, new or amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

NOX emissions in those 22 states that 

are not affected by the CAIR. DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX

emissions reductions resulting from 

each of the TSLs considered for today’s 

NOPR based on environmental damage 

estimates found in the relevant 

scientific literature. Available estimates 

suggest a very wide range of monetary 

values, ranging from $370 per ton to 

$3,800 per ton of NOX from stationary 

sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent 

to a range of $447 to $4,591 per ton in 

2009$).47 In accordance with OMB 

guidance, DOE conducted two 

calculations of the monetary benefits 

derived using each of the economic 

values used for NOX, one using a real 

discount rate of 3 percent and another 

using a real discount rate of 7 percent.48

DOE is aware of multiple agency 

efforts to determine the appropriate 

range of values used in evaluating the 

potential economic benefits of reduced 

Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent 

valuation and reporting of Hg emissions 

before it once again monetizes Hg 

emissions in its rulemakings. 

Commenting on the preliminary TSD, 

NEEA and NPCC supported DOE 

monetizing emissions reductions, but 

urged that the monetary values be 

accounted for in the NIA, and not used 

only as a qualitative decision factor. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 32 at p. 11) In 

contrast, NEMA advocated keeping the 

environmental assessment and NIA 

separate, citing the ranges of emission 

dollar values and other uncertainties in 

DOE’s emissions monetization 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20144 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

approach. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 18) In 

the NIA, DOE estimates the national net 

present value of total consumer costs 

and savings that would be expected to 

result from new or amended standards 

at specific efficiency levels. Separately, 

DOE considers the estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and other 

pollutants that are expected to result 

from each of the considered TSLs. The 

NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. In section 0 of today’s 

NOPR, DOE presents the NPV values 

that result from adding the estimates of 

the potential economic benefits 

resulting from reduced CO2 and NOX

emissions in each of four valuation 

scenarios to the NPV of consumer 

savings calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking, at both a 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rate. 

VIII. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of a number of TSLs for the 

ballasts that are the subject of today’s 

proposed rule. Table VIII.1 presents the 

trial standard levels and the 

corresponding product class efficiency 

levels. See the engineering analysis in 

section 0 of this NOPR for a more 

detailed discussion of the efficiency 

levels. 

In this section, DOE presents the 

analytical results for the TSLs of the 

product classes that DOE analyzed 

directly (the ‘‘representative product 

classes’’). DOE scaled the standards for 

these representative product classes to 

create standards for other product 

classes that were not directly analyzed 

(programmed start ballasts that operate 

8-foot HO lamps), as set forth in chapter 

5 of the TSD. 

TABLE VIII.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

Representative product class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

4-foot MBP lamps, 8-foot slimline lamps ............................................................................................... EL1 EL2 EL3 

PS ballasts that operate: 

4-foot MBP lamps, 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps, 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ................................................ EL1 EL2 EL3 

IS and RS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps ........................................................................................ EL1 EL2 EL3 

Ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor signs ................................................... EL1 EL1 EL1 

TSL 1, which would set energy 

conservation standards at EL1 for all 

product classes, would eliminate 

currently available 2-lamp MBP T12 RS 

(commercial and residential), lowefficiency 2-lamp 4-foot MBP T8 PS, 

magnetic 8-foot HO, and magnetic sign 

ballasts. TSL 1 would require IS and RS 

2-lamp MBP ballasts that operate T8 

lamps. TSL 1 does not impact 8-foot 

slimline or 4-lamp MBP IS and RS 

ballasts. TSL 1 also prevents the 

baseline inefficient T5 standard and 

high output ballasts from becoming 

prevalent in future years. For the 

reasons explained in section 0, sign 

ballasts have only one EL, so TSL 1 

represents the max tech level for the 

sign ballast representative product class. 

TSL 2 and TSL 3 also require EL1 for 

sign ballasts. 

TSL 2 would set energy conservation 

standards at EL2 for the IS and RS, PS, 

and 8-foot HO IS and RS product 

classes. This level would eliminate 

standard-efficiency, dedicated voltage 2- 

lamp MBP T8 IS ballasts (commercial 

and residential), but can be met with 

standard-efficiency universal input 

voltage 2-lamp MBP T8 IS ballasts 

commercial ballasts and high-efficiency 

dedicated input voltage 2-lamp MBP T8 

IS residential ballasts. TSL 2 eliminates 

the least efficient T12 2-lamp slimline 

ballasts, and is just met by the least 

efficient T8 8-foot slimline ballasts. TSL 

2 does not affect 4-lamp MBP T8 IS 

ballasts. For PS ballasts, high-efficiency 

4-foot MBP and high-efficiency T5 

standard and high output ballasts are 

required at TSL 2. This TSL would 

eliminate the least efficient currently 

available standard and high output T5 

ballasts. TSL 2 for the 8-foot HO IS and 

RS product class results in the 

elimination of current T12 electronic 

ballasts, but can be met with T8 

electronic ballasts. All three of these ELs 

represent the elimination of the least 

efficient T8 electronic ballasts. 

TSL 3 would set energy conservation 

standards at EL3 for the IS and RS, PS, 

and 8-foot HO IS and RS product class. 

TSL 3 represents the highest EL 

analyzed in all representative product 

classes and is the max tech TSL. Ballasts 

that meet TSL 3 represent the most 

efficient models tested by DOE in their 

respective representative product 

classes. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Consumers affected by new or 

amended standards usually experience 

higher purchase prices and lower 

operating costs. Generally, these 

impacts on individual consumers are 

best captured by changes in LCCs and 

by the payback period. Therefore, DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP analyses for 

the potential standard levels considered 

in this rulemaking. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses provide key outputs for each 

TSL, which are reported by product 

class in Table VIII.2–Table VIII.15 

below. Each table includes the average 

total LCC and the average LCC savings, 

as well as the fraction of product 

consumers for which the LCC will either 

decrease (net benefit), or increase (net 

cost) relative to the base-case forecast. 

The last outputs in the tables are the 

median PBPs for the consumer that is 

purchasing a design compliant with the 

TSL. Negative PBP values indicate 

standards that reduce both operating 

costs and installed costs. Entries of 

‘‘N/A’’ indicate standard levels that do 

not reduce operating costs; which 

prevents the consumer from recovering 

the increased purchase cost. This 

occurred with residential ballasts 

operating 4-foot MBP lamps (T8 

baseline), where the system input power 

ratings for the standards-case 

replacements were greater than that for 

the baseline system. As discussed in 

section 0 above, the replacement 

systems use more energy but produce 

more light with greater efficiency than 

the baseline T8 system. 

The results for each TSL are relative 

to the energy use distribution in the 

base case (no amended standards), 

based on energy consumption under 

conditions of actual product use. The 

rebuttable presumption PBP is based on 

test values under conditions prescribed 

by the DOE test procedure, as required 

by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20145 

TABLE VIII.2—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (COMMERCIAL, T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 64.63 234.65 299.28 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 55.91 225.82 281.73 17.54 0.0 100.0 ¥8.99 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 58.58 215.70 274.27 25.00 0.0 100.0 ¥2.88 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 59.16 197.70 256.87 42.41 0.0 100.0 ¥1.35 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 67.02 234.65 301.66 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 58.30 199.89 258.19 43.47 0.0 100.0 ¥2.29 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 60.97 191.12 252.09 49.58 0.0 100.0 ¥1.27 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 61.55 187.43 248.98 52.68 0.0 100.0 ¥1.06 

* Negative PBP values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs. 

TABLE VIII.3—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (COMMERCIAL, T8 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 55.08 225.82 280.90 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 57.74 215.70 273.44 7.46 0.0 100.0 2.43 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 58.33 197.70 256.03 24.87 0.0 100.0 1.07 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 57.47 225.82 283.29 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 60.13 215.79 275.92 7.37 0.0 100.0 2.46 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 60.72 211.57 272.28 11.00 0.0 100.0 2.11 

TABLE VIII.4—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (RESIDENTIAL, T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 52.99 67.73 120.72 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 45.02 56.40 101.42 19.29 0.0 100.0 ¥7.60 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 46.24 57.30 103.53 17.18 0.0 100.0 ¥6.99 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 55.38 67.73 123.10 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 47.41 56.00 103.40 19.70 0.0 100.0 ¥7.34 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 48.63 53.54 102.16 20.94 0.0 100.0 ¥5.14 

* Negative PBP values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20146 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.5—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (RESIDENTIAL, T8 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 44.11 56.40 100.51 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 45.33 57.30 102.63 ¥2.11 100.0 0.0 N/A 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 46.50 56.40 102.90 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 47.72 53.93 101.65 1.26 10.6 89.4 5.37 

* Entries of ‘‘N/A’’ indicate standard levels that do not reduce operating costs. 

TABLE VIII.6—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 76.77 407.73 484.49 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 79.33 398.46 477.79 6.70 0.0 100.0 2.56 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 79.16 407.73 486.88 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 81.72 402.21 483.94 2.95 0.7 99.3 4.31 

TABLE VIII.7—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8–FOOT SLIMLINE LAMPS (T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 90.06 434.50 524.56 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 89.34 413.71 503.05 21.50 0.0 100.0 ¥0.31 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 89.68 401.02 490.69 33.86 0.0 100.0 ¥0.10 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 92.45 434.50 526.94 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 91.73 420.63 512.37 14.58 0.0 100.0 ¥0.47 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 92.07 414.38 506.45 20.50 0.0 100.0 ¥0.17 

* Negative PBP values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20147 

TABLE VIII.8—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT SLIMLINE LAMPS (T8 BASELINE): 

LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 90.03 413.71 503.74 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 90.37 401.02 491.38 12.36 0.0 100.0 0.24 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 92.42 413.71 506.13 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 92.75 407.57 500.33 5.80 0.0 100.0 0.50 

TABLE VIII.9—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 57.92 202.24 260.16 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ........................... 59.17 188.88 248.04 12.12 0.0 100.0 1.07 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 59.60 186.40 246.00 14.17 0.0 100.0 1.22 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 60.31 202.24 262.55 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ........................... 61.55 188.79 250.34 12.21 0.0 100.0 1.06 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 61.99 186.62 248.60 13.95 0.0 100.0 1.23 

TABLE VIII.10—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 75.31 372.68 448.00 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 79.20 368.71 447.92 0.08 71.7 28.3 11.27 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 81.28 359.20 440.48 7.52 1.3 98.7 5.09 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 77.70 372.68 450.39 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 81.59 340.40 421.99 28.39 0.0 100.0 1.39 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 83.67 332.50 416.17 34.22 0.0 100.0 1.71 

TABLE VIII.11—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MINIBP SO LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 63.45 252.21 315.66 .................... .................... .................... ....................


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20148 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.11—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MINIBP SO LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS—Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 63.55 238.21 301.76 13.90 0.0 100.0 0.06 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 65.04 228.05 293.09 22.57 0.0 100.0 0.61 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 69.84 243.99 313.83 1.83 39.1 60.9 7.19 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 65.84 252.21 318.05 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 65.94 238.21 304.15 13.90 0.0 100.0 0.06 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 67.43 236.07 303.50 14.55 0.0 100.0 0.91 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 72.23 230.07 302.30 15.75 0.0 100.0 2.67 

TABLE VIII.12—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MINIBP HO LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 63.55 338.93 402.49 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 67.70 315.58 383.28 19.21 0.0 100.0 1.28 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 70.65 310.87 381.52 20.96 0.0 100.0 1.82 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 73.52 308.29 381.81 20.68 0.0 100.0 2.34 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 65.94 338.93 404.88 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 70.08 315.58 385.67 19.21 0.0 100.0 1.28 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 73.04 312.98 386.02 18.85 0.0 100.0 1.97 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 75.91 310.04 385.95 18.92 0.0 100.0 2.48 

TABLE VIII.13—PRODUCT CLASS 3—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT HO LAMPS (T12 BASELINE): 

LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 116.92 619.03 735.95 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 111.77 554.36 666.13 69.82 0.0 100.0 ¥0.57 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 96.97 404.53 501.51 234.45 0.0 100.0 ¥0.67 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 101.02 398.16 499.18 236.77 0.0 100.0 ¥0.52 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 119.31 619.03 738.34 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 114.15 574.24 688.39 49.95 0.0 100.0 ¥0.83 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 99.36 499.29 598.65 139.69 0.0 100.0 ¥1.21 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 103.41 494.49 597.89 140.45 0.0 100.0 ¥0.93 

* Negative PBP values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20149 

TABLE VIII.14—PRODUCT CLASS 3—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT HO LAMPS (T8 BASELINE): LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 94.07 404.53 498.61 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 98.12 398.16 496.28 2.33 13.2 86.8 4.57 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 96.46 404.53 501.00 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 100.51 400.71 501.22 ¥0.22 70.4 29.6 7.62 

TABLE VIII.15—PRODUCT CLASS 5—BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 8-FOOT HO LAMPS IN COLD TEMPERATURE

OUTDOOR SIGNS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 163.93 1,403.06 1,566.99 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2, 3 .................... 1 ........................... 157.45 1,019.63 1,177.07 389.91 0.0 100.0 ¥0.16 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 166.32 1,403.06 1,569.38 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2, 3 .................... 1 ........................... 159.84 1,177.81 1,337.64 231.73 0.0 100.0 ¥0.27 

* Negative PBP values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs. 

b. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis 

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, 

DOE determined the impact of the trial 

standard levels on the following 

consumer sub-groups: Low-income 

consumers, institutions of religious 

worship, and institutions that serve lowincome populations. Representative 

ballast designs used in the industrial 

sector (e.g., ballasts operating HO 

lamps) are not typically used by the 

identified sub-groups, and were not 

included in the sub-group analysis. 

Similarly, DOE assumed that lowincome consumers use residential 

ballasts only, and did not include 

commercial ballast designs in the LCC 

analysis for this sub-group. DOE 

assumed that institutions of religious 

worship and institutions that serve lowincome populations use commercial 

ballasts only, and did not include 

residential ballast designs in their subgroup analysis. 

To reflect conditions faced by the 

identified subgroups, DOE adjusted 

particular inputs to the LCC model. For 

low-income consumers, DOE adjusted 

electricity prices to represent rates paid 

by consumers living below the poverty 

line. DOE assumed that institutions of 

religious worship have lower annual 

operating hours than the commercial 

sector average used in the main LCC 

analysis. For institutions serving lowincome populations, DOE assumed that 

the majority of these institutions are 

small nonprofits, and used a higher 

discount rate of 10.7 percent (versus 6.9 

percent for the main commercial sector 

analysis). 

Table VIII.16 through Table VIII.25 

below show the LCC impacts and 

payback periods for identified subgroups that purchase ballasts. Negative 

PBP values indicate standards that 

reduce operating costs and installed 

costs. Entries of ‘‘N/A’’ indicate standard 

levels that do not reduce operating 

costs. In general, the average LCC 

savings for the identified sub-groups at 

the considered efficiency levels are not 

significantly different from the average 

for all consumers. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.16—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (COMMERCIAL, T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 64.63 185.70 250.33 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 55.91 178.85 234.76 15.57 0.0 100.0 ¥15.61 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 58.58 170.82 229.40 20.93 0.0 100.0 ¥5.00 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 59.16 156.54 215.71 34.62 0.0 100.0 ¥2.35 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 67.02 185.70 252.72 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 58.30 158.28 216.58 36.14 0.0 100.0 ¥3.98 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 60.97 151.32 212.29 40.43 0.0 100.0 ¥2.21 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 61.55 148.39 209.95 42.77 0.0 100.0 ¥1.84 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 64.63 198.59 263.22 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 55.91 191.11 247.02 16.20 0.0 100.0 ¥8.99 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 58.58 182.54 241.12 22.10 0.0 100.0 ¥2.88 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 59.16 167.32 226.48 36.74 0.0 100.0 ¥1.35 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 67.02 198.59 265.61 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 58.30 169.17 227.47 38.14 0.0 100.0 ¥2.29 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 60.97 161.75 222.71 42.90 0.0 100.0 ¥1.27 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 61.55 158.63 220.18 45.43 0.0 100.0 ¥1.06 

* Negative PBP values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs. 

TABLE VIII.17—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (COMMERCIAL, T8 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 55.08 178.85 233.93 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 57.74 170.82 228.56 5.37 0.1 99.9 4.23 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 58.33 156.54 214.87 19.06 0.0 100.0 1.86 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 57.47 178.85 236.32 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 60.13 170.89 231.02 5.29 0.1 99.9 4.27 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 60.72 167.54 228.26 8.06 0.0 100.0 3.66 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 55.08 191.11 246.19 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 57.74 182.54 240.29 5.90 0.0 100.0 2.43 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 58.33 167.32 225.64 20.54 0.0 100.0 1.07 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20151 

TABLE VIII.17—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (COMMERCIAL, T8 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS—Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 57.47 191.11 248.58 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 60.13 182.62 242.75 5.82 0.0 100.0 2.46 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 60.72 179.05 239.77 8.81 0.0 100.0 2.11 

TABLE VIII.18—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (RESIDENTIAL, T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Low-Income Consumers 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 52.99 67.85 120.84 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 45.02 56.51 101.53 19.31 0.0 100.0 ¥7.60 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 46.24 57.41 103.64 17.20 0.0 100.0 ¥6.99 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 55.38 67.85 123.23 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 47.41 56.10 103.51 19.72 0.0 100.0 ¥7.43 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 48.63 53.64 102.27 20.96 0.0 100.0 ¥5.14 

* Negative PBP values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs. 

TABLE VIII.19—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (RESIDENTIAL, T8 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Low-Income Consumers 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 44.11 56.51 100.62 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 45.33 57.41 102.74 ¥2.12 100.0 0.0 N/A 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 46.50 56.51 103.01 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 47.72 54.03 101.75 1.26 10.6 89.4 5.37 

* Entries of ‘‘N/A’’ indicate standard levels that do not reduce operating costs. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.20—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS: LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 76.77 323.00 399.77 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 79.33 315.65 394.98 4.78 0.3 99.7 4.45 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 79.16 323.00 402.16 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 81.72 318.63 400.35 1.81 13.7 86.3 7.48 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 76.77 345.04 421.81 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 79.33 337.21 416.54 5.27 0.0 100.0 2.56 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 79.16 345.04 424.20 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 81.72 340.38 422.10 2.10 6.7 93.3 4.31 

TABLE VIII.21—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT SLIMLINE LAMPS (T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 90.06 343.91 433.97 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 89.34 327.51 416.86 17.12 0.0 100.0 ¥0.55 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 89.68 317.44 407.12 26.85 0.0 100.0 ¥0.18 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 92.45 343.91 436.36 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 91.73 333.01 424.74 11.68 0.0 100.0 ¥0.81 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 92.07 328.05 420.11 16.25 0.0 100.0 ¥0.30 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 90.06 367.73 457.79 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 89.34 350.13 439.48 18.31 0.0 100.0 ¥0.31 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 89.68 339.39 429.07 28.72 0.0 100.0 ¥0.10 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............ 92.45 367.73 460.18 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 91.73 355.99 447.72 12.45 0.0 100.0 ¥0.47 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 92.07 350.70 442.77 17.41 0.0 100.0 ¥0.17 

* Negative PBP values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20153 

TABLE VIII.22—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT SLIMLINE LAMPS (T8 BASELINE): 

LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 90.03 327.51 417.55 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 90.03 317.44 407.81 9.74 0.0 100.0 0.42 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 92.42 327.51 419.93 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 92.75 322.64 415.40 4.54 0.0 100.0 0.88 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 90.03 350.13 440.16 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 90.37 339.39 429.76 10.41 0.0 100.0 0.24 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............ 92.42 350.13 442.55 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 92.75 344.94 437.69 4.86 0.0 100.0 0.50 

TABLE VIII.23—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 57.92 147.32 205.24 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ........................... 59.17 137.56 196.73 8.51 0.0 100.0 1.85 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 59.60 135.76 195.35 9.89 0.0 100.0 2.11 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 60.31 147.32 207.63 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ........................... 61.55 137.50 199.05 8.58 0.0 100.0 1.84 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 61.99 135.91 197.90 9.73 0.0 100.0 2.14 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 57.92 161.44 219.37 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ........................... 59.17 150.78 209.94 9.42 0.0 100.0 1.07 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 59.60 148.80 208.40 10.97 0.0 100.0 1.22 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 60.31 161.44 221.76 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ........................... 61.55 150.71 212.26 9.49 0.0 100.0 1.06 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 61.99 148.97 210.96 10.79 0.0 100.0 1.23 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20154 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.24—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 75.31 271.57 346.88 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 79.20 268.67 347.87 ¥0.99 94.4 5.6 19.57 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 81.28 261.72 343.01 3.88 22.4 77.6 8.84 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 77.70 271.57 349.27 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 81.59 248.00 329.60 19.67 0.0 100.0 2.41 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 83.67 242.23 325.91 23.36 0.0 100.0 2.97 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 75.31 297.48 372.80 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 79.20 294.31 373.52 -0.72 89.3 10.7 11.27 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 81.28 286.72 368.00 4.79 11.2 88.8 5.09 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 77.70 297.48 375.18 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 81.59 271.72 353.31 21.87 0.0 100.0 1.39 

2, 3 ........................ 3 ........................... 83.67 265.41 349.08 26.10 0.0 100.0 1.71 

TABLE VIII.25—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MINIBP SO LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 63.45 199.70 263.15 

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 63.55 188.59 252.15 11.01 0.0 100.0 0.11 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 65.04 180.53 245.58 17.57 0.0 100.0 1.06 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 69.84 193.18 263.02 0.13 72.9 27.1 12.49 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 65.84 199.70 265.54 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 65.94 188.59 254.53 11.01 0.0 100.0 0.11 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 67.43 186.89 254.33 11.21 0.0 100.0 1.58 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 72.23 182.14 254.37 11.17 0.5 99.5 4.64 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 63.45 213.44 276.90 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 63.55 201.60 265.15 11.75 0.0 100.0 0.06 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 65.04 193.00 258.05 18.85 0.0 100.0 0.61 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 69.84 206.49 276.33 0.57 67.0 33.0 7.19 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 65.84 213.44 279.29 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ........................... 65.94 201.60 267.54 11.75 0.0 100.0 0.06 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20155 

TABLE VIII.25—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MINIBP SO LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

SUB-GROUP RESULTS—Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

2 ............................ 2 ........................... 67.43 199.79 267.22 12.07 0.0 100.0 0.91 

3 ............................ 3 ........................... 72.23 194.72 266.94 12.34 0.0 100.0 2.67 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed above, EPCA provides a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the increased purchase 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. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values that calculate 

the payback period for consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards, 

which includes, but is not limited to, 

the 3-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 on 

consumers, manufacturers, the nation, 

and the environment—as required 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). 

In the present case, DOE calculated a 

rebuttable presumption payback period 

for each TSL. Rather than using 

distributions for input values, DOE used 

discrete values and, as required by 

EPCA, based the calculation on the 

assumptions in the DOE test procedures 

for ballasts. As a result, DOE calculated 

a single rebuttable presumption payback 

value, rather than a distribution of 

payback periods, for each TSL. Table 

VIII.26 shows the rebuttable 

presumption payback periods that are 

less than 3 years. Negative PBP values 

indicate standards that reduce operating 

costs and installed costs. 

While DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

for today’s rule are economically 

justified through a more detailed 

analysis of the economic impacts of 

these levels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

evaluate the economic justification for a 

potential standard level definitively 

(thereby supporting or rebutting the 

results of any preliminary determination 

of economic justification). 

TABLE VIII.26—BALLAST EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN THREE YEARS

IX. Product class X. Ballast type XI. Efficiency 

level 

Mean payback period * years 

Event I: 

Replacement 

Event II: New 

construction/ 

renovation 

1 ................................................................ IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial, 

T12 baseline).

1 ¥8.99 ¥2.29 

2 ¥2.88 ¥1.27 

3 ¥1.35 ¥1.06 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial, 

T8 baseline).

2 2.43 2.46 

3 1.07 2.11 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (residential, 

T12 baseline).

1 ¥7.60 ¥7.34 

2, 3 ¥6.99 ¥5.14 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ..................... 3 2.56 ............................

Two 8-foot slimline lamps (T12 baseline).2 ¥0.31 ¥0.47 

3 ¥0.10 ¥0.17 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps (T8 baseline).3 0.24 0.50 

2 ................................................................ PS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ..................... 1, 2 1.07 1.06 

3 1.22 1.23 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ..................... 1 ............................ 1.39 

3 ............................ 1.71 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ........... 1 0.06 0.06 

2 0.61 0.91 

3 ............................ 2.67 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ........... 1 1.28 1.28 

2 1.82 1.97 

3 2.34 2.48 

3 ................................................................ IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps (T12 baseline) 1 ¥0.57 ¥0.83 

2 ¥0.67 ¥1.21 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20156 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.26—BALLAST EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN THREE YEARS— 

Continued 

IX. Product class X. Ballast type XI. Efficiency 

level 

Mean payback period * years 

Event I: 

Replacement 

Event II: New 

construction/ 

renovation 

3 ¥0.52 ¥0.93 

5 ................................................................ Ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor signs.1, 2, 3 ¥0.16 ¥0.27 

* Negative PBP values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs. 

1. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of fluorescent lamp 

ballasts. The section below describes the 

expected impacts on manufacturers at 

each TSL. Chapter 13 of the TSD 

explains the analysis in further detail. 

The tables below depict the financial 

impacts (represented by changes in 

INPV) of amended energy standards on 

manufacturers as well as the conversion 

costs that DOE estimates manufacturers 

would incur at each TSL. DOE shows 

the results for all product classes in one 

group, as most product classes are 

generally made by the same 

manufacturers. DOE breaks out results 

for the sign ballast manufacturer subgroup in section 0 below. To evaluate 

the range of cash flow impacts on the 

ballast industry, DOE modeled eight 

different scenarios using different 

assumptions for markups, shipments, 

and technologies that correspond to the 

range of anticipated market responses to 

new and amended standards. Each 

scenario results in a unique set of cash 

flows and corresponding industry value 

at each TSL. Two of these scenarios are 

presented below, corresponding to the 

bounds of a range of market responses 

that DOE anticipates could occur in the 

standards case. In the following 

discussion, the INPV results refer to the 

difference in industry value between the 

base case and the standards case that 

result from the sum of discounted cash 

flows from the base year (2011) through 

the end of the analysis period. The 

results also discuss the difference in 

cash flow between the base case and the 

standards case in the year before the 

compliance date for new and amended 

energy conservation standards. This 

figure represents how large the required 

conversion costs are relative to the cash 

flow generated by the industry in the 

absence of new and amended energy 

conservation standards. In the 

engineering analysis, DOE presents its 

findings of the common technology 

options that achieve the efficiencies for 

each of the representative product 

classes. To refer to the description of 

technology options and the required 

efficiencies at each TSL, see section 0 of 

today’s notice. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

The set of results below shows two 

tables of INPV impacts: The first table 

reflects the lower (less severe) bound of 

impacts and the second represents the 

upper bound. To assess the lower end 

of the range of potential impacts, DOE 

modeled the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario. As discussed in 

section 0, the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario assumes that in 

the standards case, manufacturers 

would be able to earn the same 

operating margin in absolute dollars in 

the standards case as in the base case. 

In general, the larger the product price 

increases, the less likely manufacturers 

are to preserve the cash flow from 

operations calculated in this scenario 

because it is less likely that 

manufacturers would be able to markup 

these larger cost increases to the same 

degree. 

DOE also incorporated the existing 

technologies scenario and the shift 

shipment scenario to assess the lower 

bound of impacts. Under the existing 

technologies scenario, base-case 

shipments of fluorescent lamp ballasts 

are not impacted by any emerging 

technologies that could potentially 

penetrate the market over the analysis 

period. Under the shift shipment 

scenario, all base-case consumer 

purchases are affected by the standard 

(regardless of whether their base-case 

efficiency is below the standard) as 

consumers may seek to shift to a higher 

efficiency level. Of all the scenario 

combinations analyzed in the MIA, 

conditions for generating cash flow are 

greatest under the preservation of 

operating profit markup, existing 

technologies, and shift shipment 

scenarios—the annual shipment 

volume, efficiency mix, and the ability 

to preserve operating margins is 

greatest. Thus, this scenario set yields 

the greatest modeled industry 

profitability. 

Through its discussions with 

manufacturers, DOE found that many 

manufacturers typically offer two tiers 

of product lines differentiated by 

efficiency level, with the higher 

efficiency tier earning a premium over 

the baseline efficiency tier. Several 

manufacturers expected that the 

premium currently earned by the higher 

efficiency tier would erode under new 

or amended standards due to the 

disappearance of the baseline efficiency 

tier. The market effect would be to 

commoditize the higher tier product 

line (the new baseline in the standards 

case), which would significantly harm 

profitability. Therefore, to assess the 

higher (more severe) end of the range of 

potential impacts, DOE modeled a twotier markup scenario in which higher 

energy conservation standards result in 

lower manufacturer markups for 

products that earn a premium in the 

base case. In this scenario, DOE 

assumed that the markup on fluorescent 

lamp ballasts varies according to two 

efficiency tiers in both the base case and 

the standards case. In the standards 

case, DOE modeled the situation in 

which portfolio reduction squeezes the 

margin of higher-efficiency products as 

they become lower-relative-efficiencytier products. This commoditization 

would occur for several reasons. The 

large fixture manufacturers have 

substantial purchasing power due to the 

share of the market they represent 

(approximately two-thirds of the ballast 

market) and the high-volume orders 

placed by the largest fixture OEMs. 

Ballast manufacturers must compete 

aggressively for this business, not 

simply because of the volume of sales, 

but also because of the need to keep 

factories utilized and achieve economies 

of scale. By manufacturing in high 

volumes, ballast manufacturers can 

drive down fixed costs per unit, as they 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20157 

spread overhead over more volume. 

Manufacturers can also lower variable 

costs per unit. Large volumes allow 

manufacturers to order from their 

component suppliers in large quantities, 

enabling better purchasing terms, 

thereby reducing per unit costs. 

Price is often the primary rationale in 

purchasing decisions for fixture 

manufacturers, so ballast manufacturers 

face intense pressure to make their 

baseline models as cost-competitive as 

possible, even if the baseline model was 

once a premium model. To meet the 

needs of these price-driven customers 

by reducing costs, ballast manufacturers 

may have to remove features in the new 

baseline models that had commanded a 

price premium when bundled with 

high-efficiency. Without being able to 

use these extra features as a selling 

point, margins could decrease even 

further. As a result, ballast 

manufacturers would earn the same 

markup on these new high-volume 

baseline models as they did on their 

lower efficiency, former baseline 

models. This scenario represents the 

upper end (more severe) of the range of 

potential impacts on manufacturers 

because units that commanded a higher 

markup under the base case earn a 

lower markup under the standards case. 

DOE also incorporated the emerging 

technologies scenario and the roll-up 

shipment scenario to assess the upper 

bound of impacts. Under the emerging 

technologies scenario fluorescent lamp 

ballasts lose market share to emerging 

technologies such as LEDs over the 

analysis period. Under the roll-up 

shipment scenario, no consumer 

purchases beyond those that do not 

meet the new standard level are affected 

by the standard, so premium pricing 

tiers are not continually maintained. 

Thus, under the two-tier markup 

scenario, emerging technologies 

scenario, and roll-up shipment scenario, 

the quantity of annual shipments is 

lowest and manufacturers have the least 

ability to pass on costs to consumers. 

TABLE VIII.27—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING

PROFIT MARKUP, EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES, AND SHIFT SHIPMENT SCENARIO

XII. Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV .......................................................... (2009$ millions) ........................................ 1,241 1,221 1,189 1,145 

Change in INPV ........................................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... (19.4) (51.6) (95.3) 

(%) ............................................................ .................... ¥1.6% ¥4.2% ¥7.7% 

Product Conversion Costs ........................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 5 24 57 

Capital Conversion Costs ......................... (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 11 25 34 

Total Conversion Costs ............................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 17 49 91 

TABLE VIII.28—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS—TWO-TIER MARKUP, EMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES, AND ROLL-UP SHIPMENT SCENARIO

XIII. Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV .......................................................... (2009$ millions) ........................................ 853 740 635 557 

Change in INPV ........................................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... (112.7) (217.9) (296.2) 

(%) ............................................................ .................... ¥13.2% ¥25.5% ¥34.7% 

Product Conversion Costs ........................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 5 24 57 

Capital Conversion Costs ......................... (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 11 25 34 

Total Conversion Costs ............................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 17 49 91 

TSL 1 represents EL1 for all four 

representative product classes. At TSL 

1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to 

range from ¥$19.4 million to ¥$112.7 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥1.6 

percent to ¥13.2 percent. At this 

proposed level, industry free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 11.9 percent to $43.8 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $49.7 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

The INPV impacts at TSL 1 are 

relatively minor, in part because the 

vast majority of shipments already meet 

EL1. DOE estimates that in 2014, the 

year in which compliance with any new 

and amended standards is proposed to 

be required, 98 percent of product class 

1 shipments, 69 percent of product class 

2 shipments, 88 percent of product class 

3 shipments, and 64 percent of product 

class 5 shipments would meet EL1 or 

higher in the base case. The majority of 

shipments that are at baseline efficiency 

levels and would need to be converted 

at TSL 1 are 2-lamp, 4-foot MBP IS/RS 

residential ballasts in product class 1, 

2-lamp and 4-lamp, 4ft MBP PS ballasts 

in product class 4, and 4-lamp sign 

ballasts in product class 5. 

Because most fluorescent lamp ballast 

shipments already meet the efficiency 

levels analyzed at TSL 1, DOE expects 

conversion costs to be small compared 

to the industry value. DOE estimates 

product conversion costs of $5 million 

due to the research, development, 

testing, and certification costs needed to 

upgrade product lines that do not meet 

TSL 1. For capital conversion costs, 

DOE estimates $11 million for the 

industry, largely driven by the cost of 

converting all magnetic sign ballast 

production lines to electronic sign 

ballast production lines. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, impacts on 

manufacturers are marginally negative 

because while manufacturers earn the 

same operating profit as is earned in the 

base case for 2015 (the year following 

the compliance date of amended 

standards), they are faced with $17 

million in conversion costs. INPV 

impacts on manufacturers are not as 

significant under this scenario as in 

other scenarios because despite most 

shipments already meeting TSL 1, the 

shift shipment scenario moves products 

beyond the eliminated baseline to 

higher-price (and higher gross profit) 

levels. This results in a shipmentweighted average MPC increase of 7.8 

percent applied to a growing market 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20158 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

over the analysis period. While total 

shipments increase under both 

technology scenarios, shipments under 

the existing technologies scenario are 

216 percent greater than shipments 

under the emerging technologies 

scenario by the end of the analysis 

period. At TSL 1, the moderate price 

increase applied to a large quantity of 

shipments lessens the impact of the 

minor conversion costs estimated at TSL 

1, resulting in slightly negative impacts 

at TSL 1 under the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario. 

Under the two-tier markup scenario, 

manufacturers are not able to fully pass 

on additional costs to consumers and 

are not guaranteed base-case operating 

profit levels. Rather, products that once 

earned a higher-than-average markup at 

EL1 become commoditized once 

baseline products are eliminated at TSL 

1. Thus, the average markup drops 

below the base-case average markup 

(which is equal to the flat manufacturer 

markup of 1.4). There is a slight increase 

in shipment-weighted average MPC (less 

than 1 percent) under the roll-up 

scenario, but this increase is much 

smaller than under the shift scenario 

because shipments above the baseline 

do not move to higher efficiencies with 

greater costs. This MPC increase is 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.38 and $17 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in more negative 

impacts at TSL 1 under the two-tier 

markup scenario. These impacts 

increase on a percentage basis under the 

emerging technologies scenario relative 

to the existing technologies scenario 

because the base-case INPV against 

which changes are compared is 31 

percent lower. 

TSL 2 represents EL1 for product 

class 5 (4-lamp sign ballasts). For 

product classes 1 (4-foot MBP IS/RS and 

8-foot SP Slimline), 2 (4-foot MBP PS, 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO, and 4-foot T5 

MiniBP HO),and 3 (2-lamp 8-foot HO), 

TSL 2 represents EL2. At TSL 2, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$51.6 million to ¥$217.9 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥4.2 

percent to ¥25.5 percent. At this 

proposed level, industry free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 32.9 percent to $33.3 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $49.7 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

Because product class 5 remains at 

EL1 at TSL 2, the additional impacts at 

TSL 2 relative to TSL 1 result from 

increasing product classes 1, 2, and 3 to 

EL2. At TSL 2, DOE estimates that 40 

percent of product class 1 shipments, 13 

percent of product class 2 shipments, 

and 27 percent of product class 3 

shipments would meet EL2 or higher in 

the base case. Since product class 3 

represents only 0.1 percent of the 

fluorescent lamp ballast market, the vast 

majority of impacts at TSL 2 relative to 

TSL 1 result from changes in product 

classes 1 and 2. 

At TSL 2, conversion costs nearly 

triple compared to TSL 1 but remain 

small compared to the industry value. 

Product conversion costs increase to $24 

million due to the increase in the 

number of product lines within product 

classes 1 and 2 that would need to be 

redesigned at TSL 2. Capital conversion 

costs grow to $25 million at TSL 2 

because manufacturers would need to 

invest in additional testing equipment 

and convert some production lines. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, INPV impacts 

are negative because manufacturers are 

not able to fully pass on higher product 

costs to consumers. The shipmentweighted average MPC increases by 11.1 

percent compared to the baseline MPC, 

but this increase does not generate 

enough cash flow to outweigh the $49 

million in conversion costs at TSL 2, 

resulting in a ¥4.2 percent change in 

INPV at TSL 2 compared to the base 

case. 

Under the two-tier markup scenario, 

more products are commoditized to a 

lower markup at TSL 2. The impact of 

this lower average markup of 1.36 

outweighs the impact of a 10.3 percent 

increase in shipment-weighted average 

MPC, resulting in a negative change in 

INPV at TSL 2. The $49 million in 

conversion costs further erodes 

profitability, and the lower base case 

INPV against which the change in INPV 

is compared under the emerging 

technologies scenario increases impacts 

on a percentage basis. 

TSL 3 represents EL1 for product 

class 5 and EL3 for product classes 1, 2, 

and 3. At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts 

on INPV to range from ¥$95.3 million 

to ¥$296.2 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥7.7 percent to ¥34.7 percent. At 

this proposed level, industry free cash 

flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 57.4 percent to $21.2 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $49.7 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

Because product class 5 remains at 

EL1 at TSL 3, the additional impacts at 

TSL 3 relative to TSL 2 result from 

increasing product classes 1, 2, and 3 to 

EL3. At TSL 3, DOE estimates that only 

20 percent of product class 1 shipments, 

5 percent of product class 2 shipments, 

and 2 percent of product class 3 

shipments would meet the efficiency 

levels proposed by TSL 3 or higher in 

the base case. 

At TSL 3, conversion costs nearly 

double again compared to TSL 2. 

Product conversion costs increase to $57 

million because a far greater number of 

product lines within product classes 1, 

2, and 3 would need to be redesigned 

at TSL 3. Capital conversion costs rise 

to $34 million at TSL 3 because 

manufacturers would need to invest in 

equipment such as surface-mount 

device placement machinery and solder 

machines to convert production lines 

for the manufacturing of more efficient 

ballast designs. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup, existing technologies, 

and shift shipment scenarios, INPV 

decreases by 7.7 percent at TSL 3 

compared to the base case, which is 

nearly double the percentage impact at 

TSL 2. The shipment-weighted average 

MPC increases by 19.5 percent, but 

manufacturers are not able to pass on 

the full amount of these higher costs to 

consumers. This MPC increase is 

outweighed by the $91 million in 

conversion costs at TSL 3. 

Under the two-tier markup scenario, 

at TSL 3, products are commoditized to 

a lower markup to an even greater 

extent. The impact of this lower average 

markup of 1.34 outweighs the impact of 

a 19.3 percent increase in shipmentweighted average MPC, resulting in a 

negative change in INPV at TSL 3 

compared to TSL 2. Profitability is 

further impacted by the $91 million in 

conversion costs and the lower basecase INPV over which change in INPV 

is compared under the emerging 

technologies scenario. 

a. Impacts on Employment 

DOE typically presents modeled 

quantitative estimates of the potential 

changes in production employment that 

could result following amended energy 

conservation standards. However, for 

this rulemaking, DOE determined that 

none of the major manufacturers, which 

compose more than 90 percent of the 

market, have domestic fluorescent lamp 

ballast production. Although a few 

niche manufacturers have relatively 

limited domestic production, based on 

interviews, DOE believes there are very 

few domestic production employees in 

the United States Because many niche 

manufacturers did not respond to 

interview requests, DOE is unable to 

fully quantify domestic production 

employment. Therefore, while DOE 

qualitatively discusses potential 

employment impacts below, DOE did 

not model direct employment impacts 

explicitly because the results would not 

be meaningful given the very low 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20159 

number of domestic production 

employees. 

Based on interviews, DOE believes 

that direct employment impacts of 

relatively significant magnitude would 

only occur in the event that one or more 

businesses chose to exit the market due 

to new standards. Discussions with 

manufacturers indicated that, at the 

highest efficiency level (TSL 3), some 

small manufacturers will be faced with 

the decision to make the investments 

necessary to remain in the market based 

on their current technical capabilities. 

In general, however, DOE believes that 

TSL 3, the level proposed in today’s 

notice, will not have significant adverse 

impacts on employment because 

achieving these levels is within the 

expertise of most manufacturers, 

including small manufacturers, due to 

the lack of intellectual property 

restrictions and similarity of products 

among manufacturers. 

In summary, however, given the low 

number of production employees and 

the unlikelihood that manufacturers 

would exit the market at the efficiency 

levels proposed in today’s notice, DOE 

does not expect a significant impact on 

direct employment following new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE notes that the employment 

impacts discussed here are independent 

of the employment impacts from the 

broader U.S. economy, which are 

documented in chapter 15, Employment 

Impact Analysis, of the NOPR TSD. 

b. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Manufacturers stated that new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

could harm manufacturing capacity due 

to the current component shortage 

discussed in section 0 above. 

Manufacturers presently are struggling 

to produce enough fluorescent lamp 

ballasts to meet demand because of a 

worldwide shortage of electrical 

components. The components most 

affected by this shortage are highefficiency parts, for which demand 

would increase even further following 

new and amended conservation 

standards. The increased demand could 

exacerbate the component shortage, 

thereby impacting manufacturing 

capacity in the near term. While DOE 

recognizes that the component shortage 

is currently a significant issue for 

manufacturers, DOE believes it is a 

relatively short term phenomenon to 

which component suppliers will 

ultimately adjust. According to 

manufacturers, suppliers have the 

ability to ramp up production to meet 

ballast component demand by the 

compliance date of potential new 

standards, but those suppliers have 

hesitated to invest in additional 

capacity due to economic uncertainty 

and skepticism about the sustainability 

of demand. The state of the 

macroeconomic environment through 

2014 will likely impact the duration of 

the component shortage. However, 

potential mandatory standards could 

create more certainty for suppliers about 

the eventual demand for these 

components. Additionally, the 

components at issue are not new 

technologies; rather, they have simply 

not historically been demanded in large 

quantities by ballast manufacturers. 

c. Impacts on Sub-Groups of 

Manufacturers 

As discussed in section 0, using 

average cost assumptions to develop an 

industry cash-flow estimate is 

inadequate to assess differential impacts 

among manufacturer sub-groups. DOE 

used the results of the industry 

characterization to group ballast 

manufacturers exhibiting similar 

characteristics. DOE identified two subgroups that would experience 

differential impacts: Small 

manufacturers and sign ballast 

manufacturers. For a discussion of the 

impacts on the small manufacturer subgroup, see the Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis in section 0 and chapter 13 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

DOE is not presenting results under 

the two-tier markup scenario for sign 

ballasts because it did not observe this 

two-tier effect in the sign ballast market. 

Electronic ballasts at EL1 neither 

command a higher price nor a higher 

markup in the base case. Additionally, 

roll-up and shift scenarios do not have 

separate impacts for sign ballasts 

because there are no higher ELs above 

the new baseline to which products 

could potentially shift in the standards 

case. As such, the tables below present 

the cash-flow analysis results under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

and roll-up shipment scenarios with 

existing or emerging technologies for 

sign ballast manufacturers. 

TABLE VIII.29—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR SIGN BALLASTS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP, 

EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES, AND ROLL-UP SHIPMENT SCENARIO

XIV. Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV .......................................................... (2009$ millions) ........................................ 142 138 138 138 

Change in INPV ........................................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... (4.2) (4.2) (4.2) 

(%) ............................................................ .................... ¥2.9% ¥2.9% ¥2.9% 

Product Conversion Costs ........................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 2 2 2 

Capital Conversion Costs ......................... (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 6 6 6 

Total Conversion Costs ............................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 8 8 8 

TABLE VIII.30—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR SIGN BALLASTS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP, 

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, AND ROLL-UP SHIPMENT SCENARIO

XV. Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

INPV .......................................................... (2009$ millions) ........................................ 116 111 111 111 

Change in INPV ........................................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... (5.1) (5.1) (5.1) 

(%) ............................................................ .................... ¥4.4% ¥4.4% ¥4.4%. 

Product Conversion Costs ........................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 2 2 2 

Capital Conversion Costs ......................... (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 6 6 6 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20160 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.30—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR SIGN BALLASTS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP, 

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, AND ROLL-UP SHIPMENT SCENARIO—Continued 

XV. Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 

Total Conversion Costs ............................ (2009$ millions) ........................................ .................... 8 8 8 

For sign ballasts (product class 5), 

DOE analyzed only one efficiency level; 

thus, the results are the same at each 

TSL. TSLs 1 through 3 represent EL1 for 

product class 5. At TSLs 1 through 3, 

DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$4.2 million to ¥$5.1 million, or 

a change in INPV of ¥2.9 percent to 

¥4.4 percent. At these proposed levels, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 38.4 percent 

to $4.9 million, compared to the basecase value of $7.9 million in the year 

leading up to the proposed energy 

conservation standards. 

As shown by the results, DOE expects 

sign ballast manufacturers to face small 

negative impacts under TSLs 1 through 

3. DOE estimates that 64 percent of 

product class 5 shipments would meet 

EL1 in the base case. This means that 

many manufacturers already produce 

electronic sign ballasts, which is the 

design option represented by EL1. 

However, many other manufacturers 

produce only magnetic T12 sign ballasts 

and therefore would face significant 

capital exposure moving from magnetic 

to electronic to meet TSLs 1 through 3. 

For that reason, DOE estimates 

relatively high capital conversion costs 

of $6 million for sign ballast 

manufacturers. Product redesign and 

testing costs are expected to total $2 

million for sign ballasts. 

Unlike most product classes, sign 

ballasts are expected to decrease rather 

than increase in price moving from 

baseline to EL1 by a shipment-weighted 

average decrease in MPC of 4.5 percent. 

This is because electronic ballasts are a 

cheaper alternative to magnetic ballasts, 

even though the industry has not fully 

moved toward electronic production 

yet. During interviews, manufacturers 

stated that consumers were reluctant to 

convert to electronic ballasts although 

there were no technical barriers to doing 

so. Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, however, 

manufacturers are able to maintain the 

base-case operating profit for the year 

following the compliance date of 

amended standards despite lower 

production costs, so the average markup 

increases slightly to 1.41 to account for 

the decrease in MPC. Despite this 

markup increase, revenue is lower at 

TSLs 1 through 3 than in the base case 

because of the lower average unit price, 

and the $8 million in conversion costs 

increases the negative impact. When the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

is combined with the existing 

technologies scenario rather than the 

emerging technologies scenario, the 

impact of this maximized revenue per 

unit is greatest because it is applied to 

a larger total quantity of shipments. 

a. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. 

During previous stages of this 

rulemaking DOE identified a number of 

requirements, in addition to amended 

energy conservation standards for 

ballasts, that manufacturers of these 

products will face for products and 

equipment they manufacture within 

approximately 3 years prior to and 3 

years after the anticipated compliance 

date of the amended standards. The 

following section briefly addresses 

comments DOE received with respect to 

cumulative regulatory burden and 

summarizes other key related concerns 

that manufacturers raised during 

interviews. 

NEMA stated that the effects of most 

safety, electromagnetic interference 

(EMI), and toxic materials regulations 

are the same on all ballast 

manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 9) 

DOE agrees that all ballast 

manufacturers are subject to the same 

requirements as described in this 

section and in chapter 13 of the NOPR 

TSD. Small manufacturers may be 

impacted differentially and are therefore 

analyzed as a manufacturer sub-group in 

section 0. 

NEMA also stated that regulatory 

actions generally limit competitiveness 

and force ballast manufacturers to add 

cost to their base designs to comply 

with the regulatory requirements. 

(NEMA, No. 29 at p. 9) DOE asked 

manufacturers to quantify impacts of 

regulatory actions where possible, and 

in the engineering analysis, DOE 

modified the ballast efficiency, cost, or 

both at each analyzed efficiency level 

according to the impacts of these 

regulations. These specific regulatory 

actions and DOE’s treatment of their 

impacts are discussed below and in 

section 0. 

NEMA further suggested that 

regulatory pressure on traditional 

ballasts takes investments away from 

efforts to further develop dimming 

ballasts and their related controls. 

(NEMA, No. 29 at p. 12) DOE recognizes 

that there is an opportunity cost 

associated with any investment, and 

this opportunity cost is reflected in the 

discount rate used in the GRIM. In 

deciding which TSL to propose, DOE 

weighs the potential benefits of new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

against the potential burdens, including 

the impact on manufacturers, to 

determine which TSL is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

Several manufacturers expressed 

concern during interviews about the 

overall volume of DOE energy 

conservation standards with which they 

must comply. Most fluorescent lamp 

ballast manufacturers also make a full 

range of lighting products and share 

engineering and other resources with 

these other internal manufacturing 

divisions for different products 

(including certification testing for 

regulatory compliance). For example, 

DOE amended standards in 2009 for 

general service fluorescent lamps and 

incandescent reflector lamps for which 

compliance will be required in 2012. 

Manufacturers were concerned that the 

other products facing new or amended 

energy conservation standards would 

compete for the same engineering and 

financial resources. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20161 

DOE takes into account the cost of 

compliance with other published 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

such as those established in the 2009 

lamps rule, in weighing the benefits and 

burdens of today’s proposed 

rulemaking. These costs and the extent 

to which they could be incurred by 

fluorescent lamp ballast manufacturers 

are provided in chapter 13 of the NOPR 

TSD. DOE does not include the impacts 

of standards that have not yet been 

finalized because any impacts would be 

speculative. 

Several manufacturers noted the 

safety requirements ballast 

manufacturers must meet. NEMA 

described the need to add a line voltage 

disconnect to certain lighting systems 

and the need to use UL Type CC rated 

(anti-arcing) ballasts or high 

temperature circle ‘‘I’’ rated lampholders 

in OEM fixtures and UL-marked retrofit 

kits. The Type CC rating requires 

control circuitry to implement, and 

these circuits will consume system 

power, which decreases overall ballast 

electrical efficiency. (NEMA, No. 29 at 

p. 9) DOE appreciates this information 

on safety requirements, but DOE has not 

adjusted its engineering analysis 

according to these potential impacts. 

The burden for line voltage disconnect 

requirements falls solely on luminaire 

manufacturers rather than on ballast 

manufacturers. For anti-arcing 

protection, most fixture manufacturers 

comply with UL 1598 by using circle ‘‘I’’ 

lampholders. Fixture manufacturers can 

also comply by purchasing premium 

Type CC rated ballasts, which are often 

bundled with high-efficiency to 

command a higher markup. Because 

providing Type CC ballasts to fixture 

manufacturers is not required, DOE does 

not believe UL 1598 warrants 

adjustment of the TSLs proposed in 

today’s notice. See section 0 in the 

engineering analysis for more 

information on Type CC protection. 

Further detail on UL 1598 and the 

burden it imposes is provided in 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD. 

Manufacturers also discussed 

requirements regarding EMI. Currently, 

ballasts are tested only for conducted 

emissions under FCC Part 18, which is 

not as rigorous as the CISPR 15 

requirements effective in Europe. The 

burden of proof for existing EMI tests 

rests with the luminaire manufacturers. 

(NEMA, No. 29 at p. 10) Manufacturers 

noted that they could be required to 

comply with the model European EMI 

regulation in the future, which would 

result in design changes that could 

decrease efficiency. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 

10; OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

12 at p. 188) DOE has not adjusted its 

estimates for ballast efficiency or price 

because NEMA’s comment refers to 

potential EMI regulations, but DOE will 

consider adjusting its analysis for the 

final rule if these regulations are 

required prior to issuance of the final 

rule. 

Manufacturers also stated that lamp 

end-of-life (EOL) requirements are a 

regulatory burden. T5 ballasts are 

required to have EOL protection systems 

that detect characteristic electrical 

signals of a lamp in distress and activate 

control functions in the ballast to limit 

energy supplied to the lamp. 

Compliance with EOL requirements has 

added cost and design complexity to 

these systems. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 

9–10) In the future, T8 and T12 ballasts 

could also require EOL protection, 

which could add cost and decrease 

efficiency. (NEMA, No. 29 at p. 10; 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

12 at p. 185–186) DOE agrees that EOL 

requirements have affected the cost and 

design of T5 ballasts, but because all T5 

ballasts on the market, including those 

selected as representative ballast types 

for DOE’s engineering analysis, already 

include these EOL protection systems, 

the effects of this requirement are 

already taken into account. As stated in 

section 0, DOE does not expect EOL 

protection to be required for T8 and T12 

ballasts in the United States as required 

in Europe due to significant differences 

between the lamps used in the United 

States and Europe. If EOL requirements 

change prior to the issuance of the final 

rule, DOE will consider adjusting its 

analysis. 

Manufacturers also expressed concern 

about the increasing stringency of 

international energy efficiency 

standards and materials requirements. 

Compliance with many regulations such 

as the Restriction of Hazardous 

Substances (RoHS) directive in Europe 

on the use of lead-based solder and 

other toxic materials is currently 

optional but could become a 

requirement in the future. Compliance 

with toxic material regulations could 

result in cost increases, component 

shortages, and product quality concerns. 

(NEMA, No. 29 at p. 10, 13; Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 12 at p. 

186–188; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 12 at p. 243–244) As described in 

section 0, DOE does not believe any 

adjustment to ballast price or efficiency 

is necessary to comply with toxic 

material regulations because compliance 

is optional, but DOE will consider 

adjusting its analysis for the final rule 

if these regulations are required prior to 

issuance of the final rule. 

DOE discusses these and other 

requirements, and includes the full 

details of the cumulative regulatory 

burden analysis, in chapter 13 of the 

NOPR TSD. 

2. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through 2043 attributable to potential 

standards for ballasts, DOE compared 

the energy consumption of these 

products under the base case to their 

anticipated energy consumption under 

each TSL. The table below presents 

DOE’s forecasts of the national energy 

savings for each TSL, calculated using 

the AEO2010 energy price forecast. This 

table presents the results of the two 

scenarios that represent the maximum 

and minimum energy savings resulting 

from all the scenarios analyzed. Chapter 

11 of the NOPR TSD describes these 

estimates in more detail. 

TABLE VIII.31—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR BALLASTS (2014–2043) 

XVI. Trial standard level XVII. Product class and ballast type 

National energy savings 

quads 

Existing 

technologies, shift 

Emerging 

technologies, 

roll-up 

1 ........................ 1—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial) ........................................... 1 .42 0 .002 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (residential) ............................................. 0 .22 0 .01 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................ 0 0 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ............................................................. 0 0 

2—PS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................. 0 .19 0 .09 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20162 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.31—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR BALLASTS (2014–2043)—Continued 

XVI. Trial standard level XVII. Product class and ballast type 

National energy savings 

quads 

Existing 

technologies, shift 

Emerging 

technologies, 

roll-up 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................ 0 .45 0 .22 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ....................................................... 0 .37 0 .18 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ....................................................... 0 .20 0 .19 

3—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ................................................................... 0 .0003 0 .0003 

5—Ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor signs ........... 0 .90 0 .68 

Total ....................................................................................... 3 .74 1 .38 

2 ........................ 1—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial) ........................................... 1 .42 0 .68 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (residential) ............................................. 0 .23 0 .21 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................ 0 0 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ............................................................. 0 .02 0 .001 

2—PS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................. 0 .19 0 .09 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................ 0 .55 0 .29 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ....................................................... 0 .72 0 .32 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ....................................................... 0 .36 0 .32 

3—IS and RS ballasts that operate:.

Two 8-foot HO lamps ................................................................... 0 .0003 0 .0002 

5—Ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor signs ........... 0 .90 0 .68 

Total ....................................................................................... 4 .39 2 .59 

3 ........................ 1—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial) ........................................... 1 .97 1 .02 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (residential) ............................................. 0 .23 0 .21 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................ 0 .32 0 .17 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ............................................................. 0 .02 0 .02 

2—PS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................. 0 .22 0 .11 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................ 0 .55 0 .29 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ....................................................... 1 .52 0 .71 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ....................................................... 0 .52 0 .49 

3—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ................................................................... 0 .0006 0 .0005 

5—Ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor signs ........... 0 .90 0 .68 

Total ....................................................................................... 6 .25 3 .70 

a. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to 

the nation of the total costs and savings 

for consumers that would result from 

particular standard levels for ballasts. In 

accordance with the OMB’s guidelines 

on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular 

A–4, section E, September 17, 2003), 

DOE calculated NPV using both a 

7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 

rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of 

the average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and 

reflects the returns to real estate and 

small business capital as well as 

corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector, because recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return to 

capital to be near this rate. In addition, 

DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture 

the potential effects of standards on 

private consumption (e.g., through 

higher prices for products and the 

purchase of reduced amounts of energy). 

This rate represents the rate at which 

society discounts future consumption 

flows to their present value. This rate 

can be approximated by the real rate of 

return on long-term government debt 

(i.e., yield on Treasury notes minus 

annual rate of change in the Consumer 

Price Index), which has averaged about 

3 percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 

30 years. 

The table below shows the consumer 

NPV results for each TSL DOE 

considered for ballasts, using both a 

7-percent and a 3-percent discount rate. 

Similar to the results presented for NES, 

this table presents the results of the two 

scenarios that represent the maximum 

and minimum NPV resulting from all 

the scenarios analyzed. See chapter 11 

of the NOPR TSD for more detailed NPV 

results. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20163 

TABLE VIII.32—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR BALLASTS (2014–2043) 

XVIII. Trial 

standard level XIX. Product class and ballast type 

Net present value (billion 2009$) 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, 

roll-up 

7 Percent 

discount rate 

3 Percent 

discount rate 

7 Percent 

discount rate 

3 Percent 

discount rate 

1 ................... 1—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial) ..................... 3 .11 6 .82 0 .004 0 .006 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (residential) ...................... 0 .44 0 .97 0 .15 0 .24 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0 0 0 0 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ...................................... 0 0 0 0 

2—PS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0 .48 0 .93 0 .27 0 .50 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0 .97 2 .10 0 .58 1 .16 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ................................ 0 .88 1 .95 0 .56 1 .08 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ................................ 0 .32 0 .66 0 .32 0 .66 

3—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ............................................. 0 .02 0 .03 0 .001 0 .001 

5—Ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor 

signs.

2 .72 5 .12 2 .33 4 .27 

Total ....................................................................... 8 .93 18 .58 4 .21 7 .91 

2 ................... 1—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial) ..................... 3 .11 6 .82 1 .79 3 .65 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (residential) ...................... 0 .45 0 .98 0 .45 0 .98 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0 0 0 0 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ...................................... 0 .06 0 .11 0 .01 0 .01 

2—PS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0 .48 0 .93 0 .27 0 .50 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 1 .15 2 .50 0 .71 1 .45 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ................................ 1 .06 2 .50 0 .67 1 .38 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ................................ 0 .26 0 .60 0 .26 0 .59 

3—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ............................................. 0 .03 0 .04 0 .03 0 .04 

5—Ballasts that operate: ..........................

Four 8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor 

signs.

2 .72 5 .12 2 .33 4 .27 

Total ....................................................................... 9 .31 19 .62 6 .51 12 .88 

3 ................... 1—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial) ..................... 4 .52 9 .84 2 .84 5 .73 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (residential) ...................... 0 .45 0 .98 0 .45 0 .98 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0 .44 1 .02 0 .28 0 .62 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ...................................... 0 .06 0 .12 0 .06 0 .12 

2—PS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0 .53 1 .04 0 .31 0 .58 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 1 .15 2 .50 0 .71 1 .45 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ................................ 1 .31 3 .42 0 .88 2 .07 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ................................ 0 .25 0 .63 0 .25 0 .63 

3—IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ............................................. 0 .03 0 .04 0 .03 0 .04 

5—Ballasts that operate: .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

Four 8-foot HO lamps in cold temperature outdoor 

signs.

2 .72 5 .12 2 .33 4 .27 

Total ................................................................ 11 .43 24 .71 8 .13 16 .49 

a. Impacts on Employment 

DOE develops estimates of the 

indirect employment impacts of 

potential standards on the economy in 

general. As discussed above, DOE 

expects energy conservation standards 

for ballasts to reduce energy bills for 

ballast customers and the resulting net 

savings to be redirected to other forms 

of economic activity. These shifts in 

spending and economic activity could 

affect the demand for labor. As 

described in section 0 above, DOE used 

an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy to estimate these effects. 

The input/output model suggests that 

today’s proposed standards are likely to 

increase the net demand for labor in the 

economy. However, the gains would 

most likely be very small relative to 

total national employment, and neither 

the BLS data nor the input/output 

model DOE uses includes the quality or 

wage level of the jobs. As discussed in 

section 0 above, the major 

manufacturers interviewed for this 

rulemaking indicate they have no 

domestic ballast production. DOE 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20164 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

believes, therefore, that new and 

amended standards for ballasts will not 

have a significant impact on the limited 

number of production workers directly 

employed by ballast manufacturers in 

the U.S. 

Table VIII.33 presents the estimated 

net indirect employment impacts from 

the TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. See NOPR TSD chapter 15 

for more detailed results. 

TABLE VIII.33—NET CHANGE IN JOBS FROM INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS UNDER BALLAST TSLS

XX. Analysis period year 

XXI. Trial 

standard 

level 

Net national change in jobs 

(thousands) 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, roll-up 

2020 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 12 .64 3 .67 

2 2 .89 2 .59 

3 3 .63 3 .31 

2043 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 123 .75 31 .79 

2 63 .21 37 .07 

3 89 .47 51 .06 

1. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As presented in section 0 of this 

notice, DOE concluded that none of the 

TSLs considered in this notice would 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

products under consideration in this 

rulemaking. Furthermore, 

manufacturers of these products 

currently offer ballasts that meet or 

exceed the proposed standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

2. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE has also considered any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from new and amended 

standards. The Attorney General 

determines the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard, and transmits 

such determination to the Secretary, 

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)) 

To assist the Attorney General in 

making such determination, DOE has 

provided DOJ with copies of this notice 

and the TSD for review. DOE will 

consider DOJ’s comments on the 

proposed rule in preparing the final 

rule, and DOE will publish and respond 

to DOJ’s comments in that document. 

3. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

An improvement in the energy 

efficiency of the products subject to 

today’s rule is likely to improve the 

security of the nation’s energy system by 

reducing overall demand for energy. 

Reduced electricity demand may also 

improve the reliability of the electricity 

system. As a measure of this reduced 

demand, Table VIII.34 presents the 

estimated reduction in generating 

capacity in 2043 for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. 

TABLE VIII.34—REDUCTION IN ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY IN 2043 UNDER BALLAST TSLS

XXII. Trial standard level 

Reduction in electric generating 

capacity (gigawatts) 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, roll-up 

1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4 .17 1 .51 

2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 .20 2 .99 

3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 .22 4 .37 

Energy savings from amended 

standards for ballasts could also 

produce environmental benefits in the 

form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases 

associated with electricity production. 

Table VIII.35 provides DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 

reductions projected to result from the 

TSLs considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

the environmental assessment in 

chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE VIII.35—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR BALLAST TSLS

[Cumulative for 2014 through 2043] 

XXIII. Trial standard level 

Cumulative reduction in emissions (2014 through 2043) 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, 

roll-up 

CO2

MMt 

NOX

kt 

Hg 

t 

CO2

MMt 

NOX

kt 

Hg 

t 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 70 26 0.96 14 11 0.20 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 87 32 1.20 27 22 0.40 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20165 

TABLE VIII.35—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR BALLAST TSLS—Continued 

[Cumulative for 2014 through 2043] 

XXIII. Trial standard level 

Cumulative reduction in emissions (2014 through 2043) 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, 

roll-up 

CO2

MMt 

NOX

kt 

Hg 

t 

CO2

MMt 

NOX

kt 

Hg 

t 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 121 44 1.67 40 32 0.59 

As discussed in section 0, DOE did 

not report sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions reductions from power plants 

because there is uncertainty about the 

effect of energy conservation standards 

on the overall level of SO2 emissions in 

the United States due to SO2 emissions 

caps. DOE also did not include NOX

emissions reduction from power plants 

in States subject to CAIR because an 

energy conservation standard would not 

affect the overall level of NOX emissions 

in those States due to the emissions 

caps mandated by CAIR. 

As part the analysis for this proposed 

rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits 

likely to result from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that DOE 

estimated for each of the TSLs 

considered. As discussed in section 0, 

DOE used values for the SCC developed 

by an interagency process. The four 

values for CO2 emissions reductions 

resulting from that process (expressed in 

2007$) are $4.7/ton (the average value 

from a distribution that uses a 5-percent 

discount rate), $21.4/ton (the average 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate), $35.1/ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$64.9/ton (the 95th-percentile value 

from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate). These values correspond 

to the value of emission reductions in 

2010; the values for later years are 

higher due to increasing damages as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. 

For each TSL, DOE calculated the global 

present values of CO2 emissions 

reductions, using the same discount rate 

as was used in the studies upon which 

the dollar-per-ton values are based. DOE 

calculated domestic values as a range 

from 7 percent to 23 percent of the 

global values. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this rulemaking on 

reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 

change. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this NOPR the most recent values and 

analyses resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

and Hg emissions reductions 

anticipated to result from amended 

ballast standards. Estimated monetary 

benefits for CO2, NOX and Hg emission 

reductions are detailed in chapter 16 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table VIII.36 shows an 

example of the calculation of the 

combined NPV including benefits from 

emissions reductions for the case of TSL 

3 for ballasts. The CO2 values used in 

the table correspond to the four 

scenarios for the valuation of CO2

emission reductions presented in 

section 0. 

TABLE VIII.36—ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TSL 3 FOR BALLASTS (EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES, SHIFT) 

Category Present value 

million 2009$ 

Discount rate 

(%) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................. 16,858 7 

35,284 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $4.7/Metric Ton)* ................................................................................ 429 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $21.4/Metric Ton)* .............................................................................. 2,185 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $35.1/Metric Ton)* .............................................................................. 3,699 2 .5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $64.9/Metric Ton)* .............................................................................. 6,668 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,519/Ton)* ....................................................................................... 35 7 

65 3 

Total Monetary Benefits ** ............................................................................................................................. 19,078 7 

37,534 3 

Costs 

Total Incremental Installed Costs .................................................................................................................. 5,425 7 

10,573 3 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.36—ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TSL 3 FOR BALLASTS (EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES, SHIFT)—Continued 

Category Present value 

million 2009$ 

Discount rate 

(%) 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Including CO2 and NOX** .............................................................................................................................. 13,653 7 

26,961 3 

* These values represent global values (in 2007$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.7, 

$21.4, and $35.1 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5 percent, 3 percent, and 2.5 percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $64.9 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3 percent discount rate. See section 0 

for details. 

** Total Monetary Benefits for both the 3 percent and 7 percent cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions calculated at 

a 3 percent discount rate (averaged across three IAMs), which is equal to $21.4/ton in 2010 (in 2007$). 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, the following should be 

considered: (1) The national consumer 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings found in market 

transactions, while the values of 

emissions reductions are based on 

estimates of marginal social costs, 

which, in the case of CO2, are based on 

a global value; and (2) the assessments 

of consumer savings and emissionrelated benefits are performed with 

different computer models, leading to 

different timeframes for analysis. For 

ballasts, the present value of national 

consumer savings is measured for the 

period in which units shipped (2014– 

2043) continue to operate. However, the 

time frames of the benefits associated 

with the emission reductions differ. For 

example, the value of CO2 emissions 

reductions reflects the present value of 

all future climate-related impacts due to 

emitting a ton of CO2 in that year, out 

to 2300. 

Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents 

calculations of the combined NPV 

including benefits from emissions 

reductions for each TSL. 

A. Proposed Standards 

DOE recognizes that when it 

considers proposed standards, it is 

subject to the EPCA requirement that 

any new or amended energy 

conservation standard for any type (or 

class) of covered product be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens to the greatest extent 

practicable, in light of the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 

amended standard must also result in a 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

DOE considered the impacts of 

standards at each trial standard level, 

beginning with the maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level met the 

evaluation criteria. If the max tech level 

was not justified, DOE then considered 

the next most efficient level and 

undertook the same evaluation until it 

reached the highest efficiency level that 

is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

DOE discusses the benefits and/or 

burdens of each trial standard level in 

the following sections. DOE bases its 

discussion on quantitative analytical 

results for each trial standard level 

(presented in section 0) such as national 

energy savings, net present value 

(discounted at 7 and 3 percent), 

emissions reductions, industry net 

present value, life-cycle cost, and 

consumers’ installed price increases. 

Beyond the quantitative results, DOE 

also considers other burdens and 

benefits that affect economic 

justification, including how 

technological feasibility, manufacturer 

costs, and impacts on competition may 

affect the economic results presented. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and burdens of each trial 

standard level, DOE has included tables 

below that present a summary of the 

results of DOE’s quantitative analysis for 

each TSL. In addition to the quantitative 

results presented in the tables, DOE also 

considers other burdens and benefits 

that affect economic justification. 

Section 0 presents the estimated 

impacts of each TSL for these 

subgroups. 

TABLE VIII.37—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BALLASTS

[Existing Technologies, Shift] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

National Energy Savings (quads) ................................................................................. 3.74 .................... 4.39 .................... 6.25. 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion) 

3% discount rate ........................................................................................................... 18.58 .................. 19.62 .................. 24.71. 

7% discount rate ........................................................................................................... 8.93 .................... 9.31 .................... 11.43. 

Industry Impacts 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) ........................................................................................ 1,221 .................. 1,189 .................. 1,145. 

Industry NPV (% change) ............................................................................................. ¥1.6% ............... ¥4.2% ............... ¥7.7%. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20167 

TABLE VIII.37—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BALLASTS—Continued 

[Existing Technologies, Shift] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (MMt) ..................................................................................................................... 70 ....................... 87 ....................... 121. 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................................................................... 26 ....................... 32 ....................... 44. 

Hg (t) ............................................................................................................................. 0.96 .................... 1.20 .................... 1.67. 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2009$ billion) * ...................................................................................................... 0.25 to 3.85 ........ 0.31 to 4.80 ........ 0.43 to 6.67. 

NOX—3% discount rate (2009$ million) ....................................................................... 37 ....................... 47 ....................... 65. 

NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ million) ....................................................................... 20 ....................... 25 ....................... 35. 

Mean LCC Savings (replacement event) ** (2009$) 

Product Class 1 

IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial) ..................................................................... 17.54 to 19.29 .... ¥2.11 to 25.00 .. ¥2.11 to 42.41. 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (residential).

Four 4-foot MBP lamps.

Two 8-foot slimline lamps.

Product Class 2 

PS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................................................................... 0.08 to 19.21 ...... 7.52 to 22.57 ...... 1.83 to 20.68. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps.

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps.

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps.

Product Class 3 

Ballasts that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ............................................................................................. 69.82 .................. 234.45 ................ 2.33 to 236.77. 

Product Class 5 

Ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps in cold-temperature outdoor signs ..................................... 389.91 ................ 389.91 ................ 389.91. 

Median PBP (replacement event) *** (years) 

Product Class 1 ............................................................................................................. ¥8.99 to ¥7.60 ¥6.99 to N/A ..... ¥6.99 to N/A. 

Product Class 2 ............................................................................................................. 0.06 to 11.27 ...... 0.61 to 5.09 ........ 1.22 to 7.19. 

Product Class 3 ............................................................................................................. ¥0.57 ................. ¥0.67 ................. ¥0.52 to 4.57. 

Product Class 5 ............................................................................................................. ¥0.16 ................. ¥0.16 ................. ¥0.16. 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts (see Table VIII.16 through Table VIII.25 above) 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) † ........................................................................ 4.17 .................... 5.20 .................... 7.22. 

Employment Impacts 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † ............................................................................ 123.75 ................ 63.21 .................. 89.47. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

*** For PBPs, negative values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs; ‘‘N/A’’ indicates standard levels that do not reduce operating costs. † Changes in 2043. 

TABLE VIII.38—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BALLASTS

[Emerging Technologies, Roll-up] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

National Energy Savings (quads) ................................................................................. 1.38 .................... 2.59 .................... 3.70. 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion) 

3% discount rate ........................................................................................................... 7.91 .................... 12.88 .................. 16.49. 

7% discount rate ........................................................................................................... 4.21 .................... 6.51 .................... 8.13. 

Industry Impacts 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) ........................................................................................ 740 ..................... 635 ..................... 557. 

Industry NPV (% change) ............................................................................................. ¥13.2% ............. ¥25.5% ............. ¥34.7%. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20168 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.38—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BALLASTS—Continued 

[Emerging Technologies, Roll-up] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (MMt) ..................................................................................................................... 14 ....................... 27 ....................... 40. 

NOX (kt) ......................................................................................................................... 11 ....................... 22 ....................... 32. 

Hg (t) ............................................................................................................................. 0.20 .................... 0.40 .................... 0.59. 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2009$ billion) * ...................................................................................................... 0.06 to 0.90 ........ 0.13 to 1.79 ........ 0.18 to 2.62. 

NOX—3% discount rate (2009$ million) ....................................................................... 14 ....................... 29 ....................... 42. 

NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ million) ....................................................................... 7 ......................... 13 ....................... 19. 

Mean LCC Savings (replacement event) ** (2009$) 

Product Class 1 

IS and RS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (commercial) ..................................................................... 17.54 to 19.29 .... ¥2.11 to 25.00 .. ¥2.11 to 42.41. 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps (residential).

Four 4-foot MBP lamps.

Two 8-foot slimline lamps.

Product Class 2 

PS ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................................................................... 0.08 to 19.21 ...... 7.52 to 22.57 ...... 1.83 to 20.68. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps.

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps.

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps.

Product Class 3 

Ballasts that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ............................................................................................. 69.82 .................. 234.45 ................ 2.33 to 236.77. 

Product Class 5 

Ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps in cold-temperature outdoor signs ..................................... 389.91 ................ 389.91 ................ 389.91. 

Median PBP (replacement event) *** (years) 

Product Class 1 ............................................................................................................. ¥8.99 to ¥7.60 ¥6.99 to N/A ..... ¥6.99 to N/A. 

Product Class 2 ............................................................................................................. 0.06 to 11.27 ...... 0.61 to 5.09 ........ 1.22 to 7.19. 

Product Class 3 ............................................................................................................. ¥0.57 ................. ¥0.67 ................. ¥0.52 to 4.57. 

Product Class 5 ............................................................................................................. ¥0.16 ................. ¥0.16 ................. ¥0.16. 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts (see Table VIII.16 through Table VIII.25 above) 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)† ......................................................................... 1.51 .................... 2.99 .................... 4.37. 

Employment Impacts 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands)† ............................................................................ 31.79 .................. 37.07 .................. 51.06. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

*** For PBPs, negative values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs; ‘‘N/A’’ indicates standard levels that do not reduce operating costs. † Changes in 2043. 

As discussed in previous DOE 

standards rulemakings and a recent 

Notice of Data Availability (76 FR 9696, 

Feb. 22, 2011), DOE also notes that the 

economics literature provides a wideranging discussion of how consumers 

trade off upfront costs and energy 

savings in the absence of government 

intervention. Much of this literature 

attempts to explain why consumers 

appear to undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. This undervaluation 

suggests that regulation that promotes 

energy efficiency can produce 

significant net private gains (as well as 

producing social gains by, for example, 

reducing pollution). There is evidence 

that consumers undervalue future 

energy savings as a result of (1) a lack 

of information, (2) a lack of sufficient 

savings to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases (e.g., an inefficient 

ventilation fan in a new building or the 

delayed replacement of a water pump), 

(3) inconsistent (e.g., excessive shortterm) weighting of future energy cost 

savings relative to available returns on 

other investments, (4) computational or 

other difficulties associated with the 

evaluation of relevant tradeoffs, and (5) 

a divergence in incentives (e.g., renter 

versus owner; builder vs. purchaser). 

Other literature indicates that with less 

than perfect foresight and a high degree 

of uncertainty about the future, 

consumers may trade off these types of 

investments at a higher than expected 

rate between current consumption and 

uncertain future energy cost savings. In 

the abstract, it may be difficult to say 

how a welfare gain from correcting 

under-investment compares in 

magnitude to the potential welfare 

losses associated with no longer 

purchasing a machine or switching to an 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20169 

49A good review of the literature related to this 

issue can be found in Gillingham, K., R. Newell, K. 

Palmer. (2009). ‘‘Energy Efficiency Economics and 

Policy,’’ Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1: 

597–619; and Tietenberg, T. (2009). ‘‘Energy 

Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the 

Future?’’ Review of Environmental Economics and 

Policy. Vol. 3, No. 2: 304–320. 

50A draft paper, ‘‘Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice,’’ proposes a broad theoretical framework on 

which an empirical model might be based and is 

posted on the DOE Web site along with this notice 

at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards. 

imperfect substitute, both of which still 

exist in this framework. 

Other literature indicates that with 

less than perfect foresight and 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off these types of investments 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. Some studies 

suggest that this seeming 

undervaluation may be explained in 

certain circumstances by differences 

between tested and actual energy 

savings, or by uncertainty and 

irreversibility of energy investments. 

The mix of evidence in the empirical 

literature suggests that if feasible, 

analysis of regulations mandating 

energy efficiency improvements should 

explore the potential for both welfare 

gains and losses and move toward fuller 

economic framework where all relevant 

changes can be quantified.49 While DOE 

is not prepared at present to provide a 

fuller quantifiable framework for this 

discussion, DOE seeks comments on 

how to assess these possibilities.50

1. Trial Standard Level 3 

DOE first considered the most 

efficient level, TSL 3, which would save 

an estimated total of 3.7 to 6.3 quads of 

energy through 2043—a significant 

amount of energy. For the nation as a 

whole, TSL 3 would have a net savings 

of $8.1 billion–$11.4 billion at a 7- 

percent discount rate, and $16.5 billion– 

24.7 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. 

The emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 

estimated at 40–121 MMt of CO2, 32–44 

kilotons (kt) of NOX, and 0.59–1.67 tons 

of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2043 

is estimated to decrease compared to the 

reference case by 4.37–7.22 gigawatts 

under TSL 3. As seen in section 0, for 

almost all representative ballast types, 

consumers have available ballast 

designs which result in positive LCC 

savings, ranging from $1.83–$389.91, at 

TSL 3. The consumers that experience 

negative LCC savings at TSL 3 are those 

that currently have a 2-lamp 8-foot HO 

T8 ballast (for the new construction/ 

renovation event only) or a 2-lamp 4- 

foot MBP T8 ballast in the residential 

sector (for the replacement event only). 

The projected change in industry value 

would range from a decrease of $95.3 

million to a decrease of $296.2 million, 

or a net loss of 7.7 percent to a net loss 

of 34.7 percent in INPV. 

DOE based TSL 3 on the most 

efficient commercially available 

products for each representative ballast 

type analyzed. This TSL represents the 

highest efficiency level that is 

technologically feasible for a sufficient 

diversity of products (spanning several 

ballast factors, number of lamps per 

ballast, and types of lamps operated) 

within each product class. Although 

consumers that currently have a 2-lamp 

8-foot HO T8 ballast or a 2-lamp 4-foot 

MBP T8 ballast in the residential sector 

experience negative LCC savings of 

¥$0.22 and ¥$2.11 respectively, 

overall LCC savings for consumers of 

these ballast types are positive. 

After considering the analysis, 

comments on the preliminary analysis, 

and the benefits and burdens of TSL 3, 

the Secretary has reached the following 

tentative conclusion: TSL 3 offers the 

maximum improvement in efficiency 

that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

The Secretary has reached the initial 

conclusion that the benefits of energy 

savings, emissions reductions (both in 

physical reductions and the monetized 

value of those reductions), the positive 

net economic savings to the nation, and 

positive life-cycle cost savings would 

outweigh the potentially large reduction 

in INPV for manufacturers and 

increased LCC for a small subset of 

consumers. Therefore, DOE today 

proposes to adopt the energy 

conservation standards for ballasts at 

TSL 3. DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal of TSL 3. DOE will consider 

the comments and information received 

in determining the final energy 

conservation standards. 

B. Backsliding 

As discussed in section 0, EPCA 

contains what is commonly known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Because 

DOE is evaluating amended standards in 

terms of ballast luminous efficiency, 

DOE converted the existing BEF 

standards to BLE to verify that the 

proposed standards did not constitute 

backsliding. The following describes 

how DOE completed this comparison. 

Ballast efficacy factor is defined as 

ballast factor divided by input power 

times 100. Ballast factor, in turn, is 

currently defined as the test system light 

output divided by a reference system 

light output. As mentioned in section 0, 

the active mode test procedure SNOPR 

proposed a new method for calculating 

ballast factor. 75 FR 71570, 71577–8 

(November 24, 2010). The new 

methodology entails measuring the 

lamp arc power of the test system and 

dividing it by the lamp arc power of the 

reference system. Because this new 

method calculates a ballast factor 

equivalent to the existing method, DOE 

believes this definition can be 

incorporated into the equation for BEF. 

After this substitution, BEF can be 

converted to BLE by dividing by 100 

and multiplying by the appropriate 

reference arc power. Table VIII.39 below 

contains the existing standard in terms 

of BEF, the existing standard in terms of 

BLE, and the proposed standard in 

terms of BLE. 

TABLE VIII.39—EXISTING FEDERAL BEF STANDARDS AND THE CORRESPONDING BLE 

Application for operation of BEF 

standard 

Equivalent BLE Proposed 

BLE standLow freq High freq ard * 

One F40T12 lamp .................................................................................................................... 2.29 80.4 83.2 89.9 

Two F40T12 lamps .................................................................................................................. 1.17 82.1 85.0 91.0 

Two F96T12 lamps .................................................................................................................. 0.63 85.1 89.7 92.2 

Two F96T12/HO lamps ........................................................................................................... 0.39 74.4 78.0 90.4 

One F34T12 lamp .................................................................................................................... 2.61 75.2 77.8 89.4 

Two F34T12 lamps .................................................................................................................. 1.35 77.8 80.5 90.6 

Two F96T12/ES lamps ............................................................................................................ 0.77 83.9 88.4 91.8 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20170 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.39—EXISTING FEDERAL BEF STANDARDS AND THE CORRESPONDING BLE—Continued 

Application for operation of BEF 

standard 

Equivalent BLE Proposed 

BLE standLow freq High freq ard * 

Two F96T12/HO/ES lamps ...................................................................................................... 0.42 68.0 71.3 90.1 

* For ballast types that could be in more than one product class, this table presents the lowest standard the ballast would be required to meet. 

For example, 8-foot HO ballasts can have a PS starting method in addition to IS or RS. Therefore, DOE presents the standard for the PS product class as it is the lowest. The proposed BLE standard includes a 0.8 percent reduction for lab to lab variation and compliance requirements. 

As seen in the table above, the 

standards proposed in this NOPR are 

higher than the existing standards, 

regardless of low or high frequency 

operation. As such, the proposed 

standards do not decrease the minimum 

required energy efficiency of the 

covered products and therefore do not 

violate the anti-backsliding provision in 

EPCA. 

XXIV. Procedural Issues and 

Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that today’s 

standards address are as follows: 

(1) There is a lack of consumer 

information and/or information 

processing capability about energy 

efficiency opportunities in the lighting 

market. 

(2) There is asymmetric information 

(one party to a transaction has more and 

better information than the other) 

and/or high transactions costs (costs of 

gathering information and effecting 

exchanges of goods and services). 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of ballasts that are not 

captured by the users of such 

equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to environmental 

protection and energy security that are 

not reflected in energy prices, such as 

reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

requires that DOE prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule 

and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

review this rule. DOE presented to OIRA 

for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the technical 

support document (Chapter 17) for this 

rulemaking. They are available for 

public review in the Resource Room of 

DOE’s Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review established 

in Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, agencies are required 

by these Executive Orders to, among 

other things: (1) Propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s proposed rule is consistent 

with these principles. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule 

that by law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site (http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov). DOE reviewed the 

potential standard levels considered in 

today’s NOPR under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. 

As a result of this review, DOE has 

prepared an IRFA for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, a copy of which DOE will 

transmit to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). As presented and 

discussed below, the IFRA describes 

potential impacts on small ballast 

manufacturers associated with the 

required capital and product conversion 

costs at each TSL and discusses 

alternatives that could minimize these 

impacts. 

A statement of the reasons for the 

proposed rule, and the objectives of, and 

legal basis for, the proposed rule, are set 

forth elsewhere in the preamble and not 

repeated here. 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the 

Number of Small Entities 

For manufacturers of fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, the Small Business 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20171 

Administration (SBA) has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 

2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53545 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 

CFR part 121.The size standards are 

listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/ 

documents/sba_homepage/ 

serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. Fluorescent 

lamp ballast manufacturing is classified 

under NAICS 335311, ‘‘Power, 

Distribution and Specialty Transformer 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 750 employees or less for 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

To estimate the number of companies 

that could be small business 

manufacturers of products covered by 

this rulemaking, DOE conducted a 

market survey using all available public 

information to identify potential small 

manufacturers. DOE’s research involved 

industry trade association membership 

directories (including NEMA), product 

databases (e.g., CEC and CEE databases), 

individual company Web sites, and 

market research tools (e.g., Dun and 

Bradstreet reports) to create a list of 

every company that manufactures or 

sells fluorescent lamp ballasts covered 

by this rulemaking. DOE also asked 

stakeholders and industry 

representatives if they were aware of 

any other small manufacturers during 

manufacturer interviews and at previous 

DOE public meetings. DOE contacted 

select companies on its list, as 

necessary, to determine whether they 

met the SBA’s definition of a small 

business manufacturer of covered 

fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE screened 

out companies that did not offer 

products covered by this rulemaking, 

did not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign owned and 

operated. 

DOE initially identified at least 54 

potential manufacturers of fluorescent 

lamp ballasts sold in the U.S. DOE 

reviewed publically available 

information on these 54 potential 

manufacturers and determined 30 were 

large manufacturers, manufacturers that 

are foreign owned and operated or did 

not manufacture ballasts covered by this 

rulemaking. DOE then attempted to 

contact the remaining 24 companies that 

were potential small business 

manufacturers. Though many 

companies were unresponsive, DOE was 

able to determine that approximately 10 

meet the SBA’s definition of a small 

business and likely manufacture ballasts 

covered by this rulemaking. 

b. Manufacturer Participation 

Before issuing this NOPR, DOE 

attempted to contact the small business 

manufacturers of fluorescent lamp 

ballasts it had identified. Two of the 

small businesses consented to being 

interviewed during the MIA interviews, 

and DOE received feedback from one 

additional small business through a 

survey response. DOE also obtained 

information about small business 

impacts while interviewing large 

manufacturers. 

c. Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Industry 

Structure 

Four major manufacturers with nondomestic production supply the vast 

majority of the marketplace. None of the 

four major manufacturers is considered 

a small business. The remaining market 

share is held by foreign manufacturers 

and several smaller domestic companies 

with relatively negligible market share. 

Even for these U.S.-operated firms, most 

production is outsourced to overseas 

vendors or captive overseas 

manufacturing facilities. Some very 

limited production takes place in the 

United States—mostly magnetic ballasts 

for specialty applications. DOE is 

unaware of any fluorescent lamp ballast 

companies, small or large, that produce 

only domestically. See chapter 3 of the 

TSD for further details on the 

fluorescent lamp ballast market. 

d. Comparison Between Large and Small 

Entities 

The four large manufacturers typically 

offer a much wider range of designs of 

covered ballasts than small 

manufacturers. Ballasts can be designed, 

or optimized, to operate different lamp 

lengths and numbers of lamps under 

various start methods, often in 

combination with various additional 

features. Large manufacturers typically 

offer many SKUs per product line to 

meet this wide range of potential 

specifications. Generally, one product 

family shares some fundamental 

characteristic (i.e., lamp diameter, 

number of lamps, etc.) and hosts a large 

number of SKUs that are manufactured 

with minor variations on the same 

product line. Some product lines, such 

as the 4-foot MBP IS ballast, are 

manufactured in high volumes, while 

other products may be produced in 

much lower volumes but can help 

manufacturers meet their customers’ 

specific needs and provide higher 

margin opportunities. For their part, 

small manufacturers generally do not 

have the volume to support as wide a 

range of products. 

Beyond variations in ballast types and 

features, the large manufacturers also 

offer multiple tiers of efficiency, 

typically including a baseline efficiency 

product and a high-efficiency product 

within the same family. On the other 

hand, some small manufacturers 

frequently only offer one efficiency level 

in a given product class to reduce the 

number of SKUs and parts they must 

maintain. This strategy is important to 

small-scale manufacturers because 

many product development costs (e.g., 

testing, certification, and marketing) are 

relatively fixed per product line. 

Small manufacturers are able to 

compete in the fluorescent lamp ballast 

industry despite the dominance of the 

four major manufacturers due, in large 

part, to the fragmented nature of the 

fixture industry. The largest four fixture 

manufacturers compose about 60 

percent of the industry, while as many 

as 200 smaller fixture manufacturers 

hold the remaining share. Many small 

ballast manufacturers have developed 

relationships with these small fixture 

manufacturers, whose production 

volumes may not be attractive to the 

larger players. The same structure 

applies to the electrical distributor 

market—while small ballast 

manufacturers often cannot compete for 

the business of the largest distributors, 

they are able to successfully target small 

distributors, often on a regional basis. 

Lastly, like the major manufacturers, 

small manufacturers usually offer 

products in addition to those 

fluorescent lamp ballasts covered by 

this rulemaking, such as additional 

dimming ballasts, LED drivers, and 

compact fluorescent ballasts. 

2. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

At TSL 3, the level proposed in 

today’s notice, DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $0.3 million and 

product conversion costs of $1.3 million 

for a typical small manufacturer, 

compared to capital and product 

conversion costs of $7.6 million and 

$12.7 million, respectively, for a typical 

large manufacturer. These costs and 

their impacts are described in detail 

below. 

a. Capital Conversion Costs 

Those small manufacturers DOE 

interviewed did not expect increased 

capital conversion costs to be a major 

concern because most of them source all 

or the majority of their products from 

Asia. Those that source their products 

would likely not make the direct capital 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20172 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

investments themselves. Small 

manufacturers experience the impact of 

sourcing their products through a higher 

cost of goods sold, and thus a lower 

operating margin, as compared to large 

manufacturers. The capital costs 

estimated are largely associated with 

those small manufacturers producing 

magnetic ballasts. DOE estimates capital 

costs of approximately $340,000 for a 

typical small manufacturer at TSL 3, 

based on the cost of converting magnetic 

production lines, such as sign ballasts, 

to electronic production lines. 

Another challenge facing the industry 

is the component shortage discussed in 

the section 0. As with large 

manufacturers, the component shortage 

is a significant issue for small 

manufacturers, but some small 

manufacturers stated that the shortage 

does not differentially impact them. At 

times, they actually can obtain 

components more easily than large 

manufacturers: because their volumes 

are lower, they generally pay higher 

prices for parts than their larger 

competitors, which incentivizes 

suppliers to fill small manufacturers’ 

orders relatively quickly. The lowervolume orders also allow small 

manufacturers to piggyback off the 

orders for certain components that are 

used throughout the consumer 

electronics industry. 

b. Product Conversion Costs 

While capital conversion costs were 

not a large concern to the small 

manufacturers DOE interviewed, 

product conversion costs could 

adversely impact small manufacturers at 

TSL 3, the level proposed in today’s 

notice. To estimate the differential 

impacts of the proposed standard on 

small manufacturers, DOE compared 

their cost of compliance with that of the 

major manufacturers. First, DOE 

examined the number of basic models 

and SKUs available from each 

manufacturer to determine an estimate 

for overall compliance costs. The 

number of basic models and SKUs 

attributed to each manufacturer is based 

on information obtained during 

manufacturer interviews and an 

examination of the different models 

advertised by each on company Web 

sites. DOE assumed that the product 

conversion costs required to redesign 

basic models and test and certify all 

SKUs to meet the standard levels 

presented in today’s notice would be 

lower per model and per SKU for small 

manufacturers, as detailed below. (A 

full description of DOE’s methodology 

for developing product conversion costs 

is found in section 0 above and in 

chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.) The table 

below compares the estimated product 

conversion costs of a typical small 

manufacturer as a percentage of annual 

R&D expense to those of a typical large 

manufacturer. 

TABLE XXIV.1—COMPARISON OF A TYPICAL SMALL AND LARGE MANUFACTURER’S PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS TO

ANNUAL R&D EXPENSE

XXV. 

Large manufacturer Small manufacturer 

Product conversion 

costs for a typical 

large manufacturer 

(2009$ millions) 

Product conversion 

costs as a percentage 

of annual R&D 

expense (%) 

Product conversion 

costs for a typical 

small manufacturer 

(2009$ millions) 

Product conversion 

costs as a percentage 

of annual R&D 

expense (%) 

Baseline ........................................................... $0.00 0 $0.00 0 

TSL 1 ............................................................... 1.48 17 0.15 39 

TSL 2 ............................................................... 10.19 116 1.05 269 

TSL 3 ............................................................... 12.73 145 1.31 336 

Based on discussions with 

manufacturers, DOE estimated that the 

cost to fully redesign every ballast 

model for large manufacturers is 

approximately $120,000 per model and 

the cost to test and certify every SKU is 

approximately $20,000 per SKU. A 

typical major manufacturer offers 

approximately 80 basic covered models 

and 300 SKUs. Based on DOE’s GRIM 

analysis, a typical major manufacturer 

has an annual R&D expense of $8.6 

million. Because not all products would 

need to be redesigned at TSL 3, DOE 

estimates $12.7 million in product 

conversion costs for a typical major 

manufacturer at TSL 3 (compared to 

$15.5 million if all products had to be 

fully redesigned), which represents 145 

percent of its annual R&D expense. This 

means that a typical major manufacturer 

could redesign its products in under a 

year and a half if it were to devote its 

entire R&D budget for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts to product redesign and could 

retain the engineering resources. 

On the other hand, DOE’s research 

indicated that a typical small 

manufacturer offers approximately 50 

basic covered models and 100 SKUs. 

However, based on manufacturer 

interviews, DOE does not believe that 

small manufacturers would incur the 

same level of costs per model and SKU 

as large manufacturers. Small 

manufacturers would not be as likely to 

redesign models in-house as large 

manufacturers. Instead, they would 

source and rebrand products from the 

Asian manufacturers who supply their 

ballasts. As a result, DOE assumed a 

lower R&D investment, in absolute 

dollars, per model. Because this design 

is effectively sourced, DOE believes 

smaller manufacturers would face a 

higher level of cost of goods sold (i.e. a 

higher MPC). Therefore, in a 

competitive environment, small 

manufacturers would earn a lower 

markup than their larger peers and 

consequently operate at lower margins. 

Small manufacturers would also have to 

test and certify every SKU they offer, 

but they would not conduct the same 

extent of pilot runs and internal testing 

as large manufacturers because less 

production takes place in internal 

factories. As such, DOE estimates that 

their testing and certification costs are 

expected to be $10,000 per SKU for UL 

and other certifications. Thus, the 

product conversion costs for a typical 

small manufacturer could total $1.6 

million, but because not all products 

would need to be fully redesigned at 

TSL 3, DOE estimates product 

conversion costs of $1.3 million at TSL 

3. Based on scaling GRIM results to an 

average small-manufacturer market 

share of 1.0 percent, DOE assumed that 

a small manufacturer has an annual 

R&D expense of $0.4 million, so the 

estimated product conversion costs at 

TSL 3 would represent 336 percent of 

its annual R&D expense. This means 

that a typical small manufacturer could 

redesign its products in a little over the 

three year compliance period if it were 

to devote its entire R&D budget for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts to product 

redesign and could retain the 

engineering resources. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20173 

a. Summary of Compliance Impacts 

Although the conversion costs 

required can be considered substantial 

for all companies, the impacts could be 

relatively greater for a typical small 

manufacturer because of much lower 

production volumes and the relatively 

fixed nature of the R&D resources 

required per model. The table below 

compares the total conversion costs of a 

typical small manufacturer as a 

percentage of annual revenue and 

earnings before taxes and interest (EBIT) 

to those of a typical large manufacturer. 

TABLE XXIV.2—COMPARISON OF A TYPICAL SMALL AND LARGE MANUFACTURER’S TOTAL CONVERSION COSTS TO

ANNUAL REVENUE AND EBIT 

XXVI. 

Large manufacturer Small manufacturer 

Total conversion 

costs for a 

typical large mfr. 

(2009$ millions) 

Total conversion 

costs as a 

percentage of 

annual revenue 

(%) 

Total conversion 

costs as a 

percentage of 

annual EBIT 

(%) 

Total conversion 

costs for a typical small mfr. 

(2009$ millions) 

Total conversion 

costs as a 

percentage of 

annual revenue 

(%) 

Total conversion 

costs as a 

percentage of 

annual EBIT 

(%) 

Baseline ........................... $0.00 0 0 $0.00 0 0 

TSL 1 ............................... 4.06 2 21 0.27 3 38 

TSL 2 ............................... 15.85 7 81 1.30 12 184 

TSL 3 ............................... 20.33 9 104 1.65 16 233 

As seen in the table above, the 

impacts for a typical small manufacturer 

are relatively greater than for a large 

manufacturer at TSL 3. Total conversion 

costs represent 233 percent of annual 

EBIT for a typical small manufacturer 

compared to 104 percent of annual EBIT 

for a typical large manufacturer. DOE 

believes these estimates reflect a worstcase scenario because they assume small 

manufacturers would redesign all 

proprietary models immediately, and 

not take advantage of the industry’s 

supply chain dynamics or take other 

steps to mitigate the impacts. However, 

DOE anticipates that small 

manufacturers would take several steps 

to mitigate the costs required to meet 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. 

At TSL 3, it is more likely that ballast 

manufacturers may temporarily reduce 

the number of SKUs they offer as inhouse designs to keep their product 

conversion costs at manageable levels in 

the year preceding the compliance date. 

As noted above, the typical small 

manufacturer business model is not 

predicated on the supply of a wide 

range of models and specifications. 

They frequently either focus on a few 

niche markets or on customers seeking 

only basic, low-cost solutions. They 

therefore can satisfy the needs of their 

customers with a smaller product 

portfolio than large manufacturers who 

often compete on brand reputation and 

the ability to offer a full product 

offering. As such, DOE believes that 

under the proposed standards small 

businesses would likely selectively 

upgrade existing product lines to offer 

products that are in high demand or 

offer strategic advantage. Small 

manufacturers could then spread out 

further investments over a longer time 

period by upgrading some product lines 

prior to the compliance date while 

sourcing others until resources allow— 

and the market supports—in-house 

design. Furthermore, while the initial 

redesign costs are relatively large, the 

estimates assume small manufacturers 

would bring compliant designs to 

market in concert with large 

manufacturers. In reality, there is a 

possibility some small manufacturers 

would conserve resources by selectively 

upgrading certain products until new 

baseline designs become commonplace 

to the point where their in-house 

development is less resource-intensive. 

The commonality of many consumer 

electronics components, designs, and 

products fosters considerable sharing of 

experience throughout the electronics 

supply chain, particularly when 

unrestricted by proprietary 

technologies. DOE did not find any 

intellectual property restrictions that 

would prevent small manufacturers 

from achieving the technologies 

necessary to meet today’s proposed 

levels. 

DOE seeks comment on the potential 

impacts of amended standards on the 

small fluorescent lamp ballast 

manufacturers. (See Issue 0 under 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ 

in section 0 of this NOPR.) 

1. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered 

today. 

2. Significant Alternatives to the 

Proposed Rule 

The Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

discussion in Section VI.B.2 analyzes 

impacts on small businesses that would 

result from the other TSLs DOE 

considered. Though TSLs lower than 

the proposed TSLs are expected to 

reduce the impacts on small entities, 

DOE is required by EPCA to establish 

standards that achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

are technically feasible and 

economically justified, and result in a 

significant conservation of energy. As 

discussed in Section VI.C, DOE has 

weighed the costs and benefits of the 

TSLs considered in today’s proposed 

rule and rejected the lower TSLs based 

on the criteria set forth in EPCA and set 

forth in Section II.A. 

In addition to the other TSLs being 

considered, the NOPR TSD includes a 

regulatory impact analysis in chapter 

17. For fluorescent lamp ballasts, this 

report discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) No standard, (2) 

consumer rebates, (3) consumer tax 

credits, (4) manufacturer tax credits, and 

(5) early replacement. DOE does not 

intend to consider these alternatives 

further because they are either not 

feasible to implement, or not expected 

to result in energy savings as large as 

those that would be achieved by the 

standard levels under consideration. 

DOE continues to seek input from 

businesses that would be affected by 

this rulemaking and will consider 

comments received in the development 

of any final rule. 

B. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of fluorescent lamp 

ballasts must certify to DOE that their 

product complies with any applicable 

energy conservation standard. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their product according to the 

DOE test procedure for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, including any amendments 

adopted for that test procedure. DOE has 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20174 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

proposed regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including ballasts. 75 FR 56796 (Sept. 

16, 2010). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been submitted to OMB for 

approval. Public reporting burden for 

the certification is estimated to average 

20 hours per response, including the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collection of information. 

Public comment is sought regarding: 

whether this proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the burden estimate; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Send comments 

on these or any other aspects of the 

collection of information to Dr. Tina 

Kaarsberg (see ADDRESSES) and by 

e-mail to 

Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

C. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE has prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) of the 

impacts of the proposed rule pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(10 CFR part 1021). This assessment 

includes an examination of the potential 

effects of emission reductions likely to 

result from the rule in the context of 

global climate change, as well as other 

types of environmental impacts. The 

draft EA has been incorporated into the 

NOPR TSD as chapter 16. Before issuing 

a final rule for fluorescent lamp ballasts, 

DOE will consider public comments 

and, as appropriate, determine whether 

to issue a finding of no significant 

impact (FONSI) as part of a final EA or 

to prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for this rulemaking. 

D. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. EPCA governs and prescribes 

Federal preemption of State regulations 

as to energy conservation for the 

products that are the subject of today’s 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed rule meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

F. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For a proposed regulatory action likely 

to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

Although today’s proposed rule does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may impose expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Specifically, the proposed rule 

will likely result in a final rule that 

could impose expenditures of $100 

million or more. Such expenditures may 

include (1) investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by fluorescent lamp ballast 

manufacturers in the years between the 

final rule and the compliance date for 

the new standard, and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

to purchase higher-efficiency ballasts, 

starting in 2014. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an 

agency to respond to the content 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20175 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the notice of proposed rulemaking and 

the ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ 

section of the TSD for this proposed rule 

respond to those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(h) and (o), 6313(e), and 

6316(a), today’s proposed rule would 

establish energy conservation standards 

for fluorescent lamp ballasts that are 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

DOE has determined to be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the TSD for today’s 

proposed rule. 

G. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

H. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

I. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s NOPR under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

Is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

today’s regulatory action, which sets 

forth energy conservation standards for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts, is not a 

significant energy action because the 

proposed standards are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the proposed rule. 

K. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 

14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that 

certain scientific information shall be 

peer reviewed by qualified specialists 

before it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have or does have a clear 

and substantial impact on important 

public policies or private sector 

decisions.’’ 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

XXVII. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As 

explained in the ADDRESSES section, 

foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

residential/ 

fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html). 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this NOPR. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be e-mailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via e-mail. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make a follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via e-mail, 

hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via e-mail, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, e-mail 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. E-mail 

submissions are preferred. If you submit 

via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and are free 

of any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via e-mail, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

one copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 20177 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via e-mail or 

on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its 

own determination about the 

confidential status of the information 

and treat it according to its 

determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

The Department is particularly 

interested in receiving comments and 

views of interested parties concerning: 

(1) The appropriateness of creating an 

exemption for T8 magnetic ballasts as a 

solution to the problems caused by 

excessive EMI from electronic ballasts 

in EMI sensitive environments; 

(2) The appropriateness of 

establishing efficiency standards using 

an equation dependent on lamp-arc 

power; 

(3) The appropriateness of combining 

several product classes from the 

preliminary TSD. In particular, DOE 

requests feedback on the decision to 

include several IS and RS ballasts (IS 

and RS ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP 

and 8-foot slimline lamps) and PS 

ballasts in the same product class (PS 

ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP and 4- 

foot T5 lamps); 

(4) The appropriateness of including 

residential ballasts in the same product 

class as those that operate in the 

commercial sector; 

(5) The appropriateness of 

establishing a separate product class for 

ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps; 

(6) The methodology DOE used to 

calculate manufacturer selling prices; 

(7) The efficiency levels DOE 

considered for fluorescent ballasts, in 

particular the efficiency level identified 

for sign ballasts. 

(8) The selection of the maximum 

technologically feasible level and 

whether it is technologically feasible to 

attain such higher efficiencies for the 

full range of instant start ballast 

applications. Specifically, DOE seeks 

quantitative information regarding the 

potential change in efficiency, the 

design options employed, and the 

associated change in cost. Any design 

option that DOE considers to improve 

efficiency must meet the four criteria 

outlined in the screening analysis: 

technological feasibility; practicability 

to manufacture, install, and service; 

adverse impacts on product or 

equipment utility to consumers or 

availability; and adverse impacts on 

health or safety. DOE also requests 

comments on any technological barriers 

to an improvement in efficiency above 

TSL 3 for all or certain types of ballasts. 

(9) Typical markups, as well as ballast 

pricing data, that it could use to verify 

the price markups it developed for the 

proposed rule; 

(10) The appropriateness of including 

T12 ballasts in the baseline analysis for 

life cycle costs. 

(11) The magnitude and timing of its 

forecasted ballast shipment trends (e.g., 

rising and declining shipments, 

plateaus, etc.) as well as the impacts of 

current regulatory initiatives on future 

ballast shipments; 

(12) The methodology and inputs 

DOE used for the manufacturer impact 

analysis—specifically, DOE’s 

assumptions regarding markups, capital 

costs, and conversion costs; 

(13) The potential impacts of 

amended standards on the small 

fluorescent lamp ballast manufacturers. 

(14) The appropriateness of the TSLs 

DOE considered for fluorescent ballasts, 

in particular the combinations of 

efficiency levels for each product class; 

(15) The proposed standard level for 

fluorescent ballasts; 

(16) Potential approaches to maximize 

energy savings while mitigating impacts 

to certain fluorescent ballast consumer 

subgroups; 

XXVIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 24, 

2011. 

Henry Kelly, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

2. Section 430.2 is amended by 

adding the definition of ‘‘Ballast 

luminous efficiency’’ in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Ballast luminous efficiency means the 

total fluorescent lamp arc power 

divided by the fluorescent lamp ballast 

input power multiplied by the 

appropriate frequency adjustment 

factor. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 430.32 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (m)(1) 

introductory text. 

b. Adding paragraphs (m)(8), (m)(9), 

and m(10). 

These revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(m)(1) Fluorescent lamp ballasts 

(other than specialty application 

mercury vapor lamp ballasts). Except as 

provided in paragraphs (m)(2), (m)(3), 

(m)(4), (m)(5), (m)(6), (m)(7), (m)(8), 

(m)(9), and (m)(10) of this section, each 

fluorescent lamp ballast— 

* * * * * 

(8) Except as provided in paragraph 

(m)(9) of this section, each fluorescent 

lamp ballast— 

(i) Manufactured on or after [date 3 

years after publication of the 

Fluorescent Lamp—Ballast Energy 

Conservation Standard final rule]; 

(ii) Designed— 

(A) To operate at nominal input 

voltages of 120 or 277 volts; 

(B) To operate with an input current 

frequency of 60 Hertz; and 

(C) For use in connection with 

fluorescent lamps (as defined in § 430.2) 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) Shall have— 

(A) A power factor of 0.9 or greater 

except for those ballasts defined in 

paragraph (m)(8)(iii)(B) of this section; 

(B) A power factor of 0.5 or greater for 

residential ballasts, which meet FCC 

consumer limits as set forth in 47 CFR 

part 18 and are designed and labeled for 

use only in residential applications; 

(C) A ballast luminous efficiency of 

not less than the following: 

Description Shall have a minimum ballast luminous 

efficiency of— 

Instant start and rapid start ballasts that are designed to operate: 

4-foot linear or 2-foot U-shaped medium bipin lamps ................................................................... 1.32 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 86.11. 

8-foot slimline lamps.

Programmed start ballasts that are designed to operate: 

4-foot linear or 2-foot U-shaped medium bipin lamps ................................................................... 1.79 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 83.33. 

4-foot miniature bipin standard output lamps.

4-foot miniature bipin high output lamps.

Instant start and rapid start ballasts that are designed to operate: 

8-foot HO lamps ............................................................................................................................. 1.49 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 84.32. 

Programmed start ballasts that are designed to operate: 

8-foot HO lamps ............................................................................................................................. 1.46 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 82.63. 

Ballasts that are designed to operate: 

8-foot high output lamps at ambient temperatures of ¥20 °F or less that are used in outdoor 

signs.

1.49 * ln (total lamp arc power) + 81.34. 

(9) The standards described in 

paragraph (m)(8) of this section do not 

apply to: 

(i) A ballast that is designed for 

dimming to 50 percent or less of the 

maximum output of the ballast except 

for those specified in m(10); and 

(ii) A low frequency ballast that: 

(A) Is designed to operate T8 diameter 

lamps; 

(B) Is designed and labeled for use in 

EMI-sensitive environments only; 

(C) Is shipped by the manufacturer in 

packages containing not more than 10 

ballasts. 

(10) Each fluorescent lamp ballast— 

(i) Manufactured on or after [Date 3 

Years after publication of the 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Energy 

Conservation Standard final rule]; 

(ii) Designed— 

(A) To operate at nominal input 

voltages of 120 or 277 volts; 

(B) To operate with an input current 

frequency of 60 Hertz; and 

(C) For use in connection with 

fluorescent lamps (as defined in 

§ 430.2); 

(D) For dimming to 50 percent or less 

of the maximum output of the ballast 

(iii) Shall have— 

(A) A power factor of 0.9 or greater 

except for those ballasts defined in 

paragraph (m)(8)(iii)(B) of this section; 

(B) A power factor of 0.5 or greater for 

residential ballasts, which meet FCC 

Part B consumer limits and are designed 

and labeled for use only in residential 

applications; 

(C) A ballast luminous efficiency of 

not less than the following: 

Designed for the operation of Ballast input 

voltage 

Total 

nominal 

lamp watts 

Ballast luminous 

efficiency 

Low 

frequency 

ballasts 

High 

frequency 

ballasts 

One F34T12 lamp ............................................................................................................ 120/277 34 75.2 77.8 

Two F34T12 lamps .......................................................................................................... 120/277 68 77.8 80.5 

Two F96T12/ES lamps .................................................................................................... 120/277 120 83.9 88.4 

Two F96T12HO/ES lamps ............................................................................................... 120/277 190 68.0 71.3 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–7592 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2