[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81558-81586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27045]



[[Page 81557]]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 242

December 16, 2020

Part II





Department of Energy





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





 Federal Railroad Administration





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





10 CFR Part 430





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 81558]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006]
RIN 1905-AD51


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

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

ACTION: Final determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including fluorescent 
lamp ballasts (``FLBs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of 
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent 
standards would be technologically feasible and cost effective, and 
would result in significant energy savings. In this final 
determination, DOE has determined that energy conservation standards 
for fluorescent lamp ballasts do not need to be amended.

DATES: The effective date of this final determination is December 16, 
2020.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for 
review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f3e0f0f13161e111c1a2c0b1e111b1e0d1b0c2e0a1a0c0b1610110c3f1a1a511b101a51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d6c5d5d41444c434e487e594c43494c5f495e7c58485e594442435e6d484803494248034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1692. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e9a89999858088878a8cba9d88878d889b8d9ab89c8c9a9d8086879aa98c8cc78d868cc78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c1d2c2c30353d323f390f283d32383d2e382f0d29392f283533322f1c393972383339723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f6b79b939a9f97d8a19e9f829f9891b69e87d8929993d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="36775b535a5f5718615e5f425f5851765e471852595318515940">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
III. General Discussion
    A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    B. Test Procedure
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    E. Cost Effectiveness
    F. Other Analyses
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Analysis Approach and Determination
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Scope of Coverage
    2. Metric
    3. Product Classes
    4. Technology Options
    C. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened-Out Technologies
    2. Remaining Technologies
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Representative Product Classes
    2. Baseline Ballasts
    3. More Efficient Ballasts
    4. Efficiency Levels
    5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    E. Product Price Determination
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Product Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    6. Product Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    9. Payback Period Analysis
    H. Shipments Analysis
    I. National Impact Analysis
    1. Product Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    3. Net Present Value Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Manufacturer Production Costs
    3. Shipments Projections
    4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    5. Markup Scenarios
    6. Manufacturer Interviews
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    2. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    3. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    B. Final Determination
    1. Technological Feasibility
    2. Cost Effectiveness
    3. Significant Conservation of Energy
    4. Other Analysis
    5. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    M. Information Quality
    N. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Determination

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These 
products include fluorescent lamp ballasts, the subject of this final 
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the EPCA requirement that not later than 6 years after 
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending an energy 
conservation standard for a covered product, DOE must publish either a 
notice of determination indicating that standards for the product do 
not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') 
including new proposed energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A) and (B))

[[Page 81559]]

    DOE analyzed fluorescent lamp ballasts subject to standards 
specified in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') 
430.32(m). In addition, DOE evaluated whether current standards should 
be extended to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts. Specifically, DOE 
considered standards for dimming ballasts and 4-foot T8 medium bipin 
(``MBP'') programmed start (``PS'') ballasts with an average current 
less than 140 milliampere (``mA'') (hereafter low-current PS ballasts). 
Hence, potential amended energy conservation standards in this final 
determination refer not only to changes to existing standards but also 
extension of standards to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.
    DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more efficient 
fluorescent lamp ballasts. For those fluorescent lamp ballasts for 
which DOE determined it to be technologically feasible to have higher 
standards or be subject to standards, DOE estimated energy savings that 
would result from potential energy conservation standards by conducting 
a national impact analysis (``NIA''). DOE evaluated whether these 
amended standards would be cost effective by conducting life-cycle cost 
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses, and estimated the net 
present value (``NPV'') of the total costs and benefits experienced by 
consumers. In addition to the consideration of these criteria, DOE 
conducted a manufacturer impact analyses (``MIA'').
    Based on the results of these analyses summarized in section V of 
this document, DOE has determined that current standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts do not need to be amended because amended 
standards would not be cost effective and would not result in 
significant energy savings.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this final determination, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts.

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III Part B 
of EPCA, established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include fluorescent 
lamp ballasts, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(13)) 
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for these products (42 
U.S.C. 6295(g)(5), and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to 
determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(A)-
(B)) Through amendments to EPCA under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
(``EPACT 2005''), Public Law 109-58, Congress promulgated new energy 
conservation standards for certain fluorescent lamp ballasts. (EPACT 
2005 section 135(c)(2); codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(8)(A))
    The energy conservation program under EPCA, consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of the EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, 
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products 
comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The 
DOE test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts appear at title 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Q.
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    Pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140, any final 
rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after 
July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy 
use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard 
for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the 
criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), 
incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single 
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for 
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's 
current test procedure and standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts 
address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this analysis, DOE 
considers such energy use in its determination of whether energy 
conservation standards need to be amended.
    DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(m), which states that DOE must periodically review its already 
established energy conservation standards for a covered product no 
later than 6 years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or 
amending a standard for a covered product. As a result of this review, 
DOE must either publish a determination that standards do not need to 
be amended or a NOPR, including new proposed standards (proceeding to a 
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) EPCA further 
provides that, not later than 3 years after the issuance of a final 
determination not to amend standards, DOE must make a new determination 
and publish either a notice of determination that standards for the 
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
    DOE must make the analysis on which the determination is based 
publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) A determination that amended standards are not 
needed must be based on consideration of whether amended standards will 
result in significant conservation of energy, are technologically 
feasible, and are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, any new or amended energy conservation 
standard prescribed by the Secretary for any type (or class) of covered 
product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors 
DOE

[[Page 81560]]

considers in evaluating whether a proposed standard level is 
economically justified includes whether the proposed standard at that 
level is cost-effective, as defined under 42 U. S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an 
evaluation of cost effectiveness requires that DOE consider savings in 
operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered 
products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price 
of, or initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered 
products that are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In a final rule published on November 14, 2011, DOE prescribed the 
current energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts 
manufactured on and after November 14, 2014 (``2011 FL Ballast Rule''). 
76 FR 70548. These standards require a minimum power factor of 0.9 or 
greater for ballasts that are not residential ballasts or 0.5 or 
greater for residential ballasts and a minimum ballast luminous 
efficiency (``BLE'') as set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 
430.32(m) and repeated in Table II.1.

 Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp
                                Ballasts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 BLE = A / (1 + B * average total lamp arc power [supcaret]-C) Where A,
                        B, and C are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
                           Description                                   A               B               C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as                  0.993            0.27            0.25
 residential) that are designed and marketed to operate:........
    4-foot medium bipin lamps.
    2-foot U-shaped lamps.
    8-foot slimline lamps.
Programmed start ballasts (not classified as residential) that             0.993            0.51            0.37
 are designed and marketed to operate:..........................
    4-foot medium bipin lamps.
    2-foot U-shaped lamps.
    4-foot miniature bipin standard output lamps.
    4-foot miniature bipin high output lamps.
Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as sign             0.993            0.38            0.25
 ballasts) that are designed and marketed to operate 8-foot high
 output lamps...................................................
Programmed start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that           0.973            0.70            0.37
 are designed and marketed to operate 8-foot high output lamps..
Sign ballasts that are designed and marketed operate 8-foot high           0.993            0.47            0.25
 output lamps...................................................
Instant start and rapid start residential ballasts that are                0.993            0.41            0.25
 designed and marketed operate:.................................
    4-foot medium bipin lamps.
    2-foot U-shaped lamps.
    8-foot slimline lamps.
Programmed start residential ballasts that are designed and                0.973            0.71            0.37
 marketed to operate:...........................................
    4-foot medium bipin lamps.
    2-foot U-shaped lamps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
    In support of the present review of the fluorescent lamp ballast 
energy conservation standards, DOE prepared the ``Energy Conservation 
Standards Rulemaking Framework Document for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts'' 
(``Framework Document''), which describes the procedural and analytical 
approaches DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy conservation 
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. On June 23, 2015, DOE 
published a notice announcing the availability of the Framework 
Document. 80 FR 35886. The Framework Document is available in the 
docket provided under the ADDRESSES section. DOE held a public meeting 
on July 17, 2015, at which it described the various analyses that DOE 
would conduct as part of its review of the energy conservation 
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts, such as the engineering 
analysis, the LCC and PBP analyses, and the NIA. Representatives for 
manufacturers, trade associations, environmental and energy efficiency 
advocates, and other interested parties attended the meeting. The 
transcript of the public meeting is available in the docket provided 
under the ADDRESSES section.
    On October 22, 2019, DOE published a notice of proposed 
determination (``October 2019 NOPD'') with the initial determination 
that energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts do not 
need to be amended. 84 FR 56540. DOE held a webinar on October 30, 2019 
to discuss the analysis and results of the October 2019 NOPD. A 
transcript of the webinar is available in the docket provided under the 
ADDRESSES section.
    DOE received six comments in response to the October 2019 NOPD from 
the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

                                 Table II.2--October 2019 NOPD Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Reference in this final
             Organization(s)                         determination                     Organization type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E),  CA IOUs...........................  Utilities.
 San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
 Southern California Edison (SCE).
Signify North America Corporation.......  Signify...........................  Manufacturer.
National Electrical Manufacturers         NEMA..............................  Trade Association.
 Association.
Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.............  Lutron............................  Manufacturer.

[[Page 81561]]

 
Institute for Policy Integrity..........  IPI...............................  Think Tank.
John Danison............................  Danison...........................  Individual.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. (Docket 
No. EERE- EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006, which is maintained at http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006). The references 
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number 
at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed the conclusions in this notice after considering oral 
and written comments, data, and information from interested parties 
that represent a variety of interests.

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such 
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors 
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
    The product classes for this proposed determination are discussed 
in further detail in section IV.B.3 of this document. This final 
determination covers fluorescent lamp ballasts defined as devices that 
are used to start and operate fluorescent lamps by providing a starting 
voltage and current and limiting the current during normal operation. 
10 CFR 430.2. The scope of coverage is discussed in further detail in 
section IV.B.1 of this document.

B. Test Procedure

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation 
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's 
current energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts are 
expressed in terms of BLE. 10 CFR 430.32(m)
    DOE initiated a review of the FLB test procedure and on March 18, 
2019, published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the FLB test 
procedure. In that NOPR DOE proposed to (1) update references to 
industry standards, (2) clarify the selection of reference lamps, (3) 
provide a second stabilization option for measuring ballast luminous 
efficiency, (4) provide a test procedure for measuring the performance 
of ballasts at light outputs less than full light output, and (5) 
revise the test procedure for measuring standby mode energy 
consumption. 84 FR 9910. In the final rule published September 14, 2020 
DOE adopted (1) updates to references to industry standards, (2) 
clarification of selection reference lamps, (3) a second stabilization 
option for measuring BLE and general updates to the stabilization 
steps, and (4) revision of the standby mode energy consumption test 
procedure. 85 FR 56475. DOE did not adopt the proposed test procedure 
for measuring performance of ballasts at light output less than full 
light output. 85 FR 56485

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list 
of technology options for consideration in consultation with 
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. Section 
6(c)(1) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (the ``Process 
Rule''). DOE then determines which of those means for improving 
efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies 
incorporated in commercially available products or in working 
prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(c)(3)(i) and 
7(b)(1) of the ``Process Rule''.
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 
Sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section 
IV.C of this document discusses the results of the screening analysis 
for fluorescent lamp ballasts, particularly the designs DOE considered, 
those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards 
considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening 
analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the final determination 
technical support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE considers amended standards 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 
such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering 
analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max-
tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for fluorescent lamp 
ballasts, using the design parameters for the most efficient products 
available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels 
that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.D 
of this final determination and in chapter 5 of the final determination 
TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each efficiency level (``EL''), DOE projected energy savings 
from the application of the EL to fluorescent lamp ballasts purchased 
in the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance with the 
potential standards

[[Page 81562]]

(2023-2052).\4\ The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of 
fluorescent lamp ballasts purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE 
quantified the energy savings attributable to each EL as the difference 
in energy consumption between each standards case and the no-new-
standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a projection of 
energy consumption that reflects how the market for a product would 
likely evolve in the absence of amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers 
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate national energy 
savings (``NES'') from potential amended standards for fluorescent lamp 
ballasts. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.I of this 
document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is 
the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they 
are used. For electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of primary energy 
savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to generate 
and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy 
savings are considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also 
calculates NES in terms of full fuel cycle (``FFC'') energy savings. 
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, 
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of 
energy conservation standards.\5\ DOE's approach is based on the 
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by 
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy 
savings, see section V.A.2.a of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and 
notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended 
at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    In determining whether amended standards are needed, DOE must 
consider whether such standards will result in significant conservation 
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) The term 
``significant'' is not defined in EPCA. DOE has established a 
significance threshold for energy savings. (See Section 6(b) of the 
Process Rule.) In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE 
conducts a two-step approach that considers both an absolute site 
energy savings threshold and a threshold that is the percent reduction 
in the covered energy use. Id. DOE first evaluates the projected energy 
savings from a potential max-tech standard over a 30-year period 
against a 0.3 quads of site energy threshold. (See Section 6(b)(2) of 
the Process Rule.) If the 0.3 quad-threshold is not met, DOE then 
compares the max-tech savings to the total energy usage of the covered 
equipment to calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage. (See 
Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule.) If this comparison does not yield 
a reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year 
period, DOE proposes that no significant energy savings would likely 
result from setting new or amended standards. (See Section 6(b)(4) of 
the Process Rule.) The two-step approach allows DOE to ascertain 
whether a potential standard satisfies EPCA's significant energy 
savings requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) to ensure that DOE 
avoids setting a standard that ``will not result in significant 
conservation of energy.''
    EPCA defines ``energy efficiency'' as the ratio of the useful 
output of services from a consumer product to the energy use of such 
product, measured according to the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(5), emphasis added) EPCA defines ``energy use'' as the quantity of 
energy directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, as 
measured by the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Further, 
EPCA uses a household energy consumption metric as a threshold for 
setting standards for new covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)(A-B)) 
Given this context, DOE relies on site energy as the appropriate metric 
for evaluating the significance of energy savings.
    At the time of the October 2019 NOPD analysis, the two-step 
approach to determining significant energy savings had not been 
finalized. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE reported the projected site 
energy savings over a 30-year analysis period for each EL evaluated. 
DOE tentatively determined in the October 2019 NOPD that amended 
standards at the evaluated ELs would not be cost effective. 84 FR 
56540, 56583.

E. Cost Effectiveness

    Under EPCA's six-year-lookback review provision for existing energy 
conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of 
potential amended standards is a relevant consideration both where DOE 
proposes to adopt such standards, as well as where it does not. In 
considering cost-effectiveness when making a determination of whether 
existing energy conservation standards do not need to be amended, DOE 
considers the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the 
price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, 
the covered product that is likely to result from a standard. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A)(referencing 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))) Additionally, 
any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the 
Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed 
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the 
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) Cost-effectiveness is one of the 
factors that DOE must ultimately consider under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) 
to support a finding of economic justification, if it is determined 
that amended standards are appropriate under the applicable statutory 
criteria. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II))

F. Other Analyses

    In addition to the analyses conducted in consideration of the 
statutory criteria under EPCA's periodic review requirement at 42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1), DOE also conducted an MIA that determines the 
potential economic impact of amended standards on FLB manufacturers.
    The analyses employed by DOE in its consideration of each of the 
criteria applied are discussed in the following sections.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
final determination with regards to fluorescent lamp ballasts. Separate 
subsections address each component of DOE's analyses and respond to 
comments received.

A. Analysis Approach and Determination

    DOE conducted several analyses (described in the following 
subsections) to estimate the impact of the standards considered in this 
document. Several of these analyses utilized spreadsheets as tools to 
generate quantitative results. The first spreadsheet calculates the LCC 
savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation 
standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides 
shipments projections and calculates NES and net NPV of total consumer 
costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation 
standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet, the Government

[[Page 81563]]

Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer impacts of 
potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the 
DOE website for this rulemaking: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006.
    DOE received several comments on its analytical approach. IPI 
stated that by not including an analysis of potential emissions 
reductions from setting higher efficiency standards for fluorescent 
lamp ballasts DOE violated the statutory requirements. (IPI, No. 26 at 
p. 1) First, IPI discussed the significance of energy conservation 
criteria and asserted that even if significance of the energy 
conservation, technological feasibility, and cost effectiveness are the 
criteria for a determination, emissions reductions are directly 
relevant to the ``significance'' of the energy savings. Further, IPI 
stated that ``significance'' can be evaluated by comparing whether the 
``value'' of energy savings ``outweighed'' the ``cost'' (citing NRDC v. 
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1374 n.19 (D.C. Cir. 1985)) and under that 
interpretation, environmental benefits should be a central factor in 
weighing the significance of energy savings. (IPI, No. 26 at p. 2) IPI 
further asserted EPCA provides analogous factors to the ``significance 
of energy'' criteria, such as consideration of the ``need for national 
energy . . . conservation'' in evaluating the economic justification 
for standards, which include consideration of environmental effects, 
and that DOE must consider these additional factors. (IPI, No. 26 at 
pp. 2, 3; referencing Zero Zone Inc. v. Dept. of Energy, 832 F.3d 654, 
677 (7th Cir. 2016)) IPI also relied on court interpretations of 
statutory authority other than that governing the Appliance Standards 
Program. (IPI, No. 26 at p. 3)
    Second, IPI discussed DOE's reliance on cost effectiveness rather 
than economic justification for the determination. IPI stated that DOE 
summarizes it review of standards as fulfilling the requirements ``to 
periodically determine whether more stringent, amended standards would 
be technologically feasible and economically justified'', but failed to 
explain why it ignored the factors for determining if a standard is 
economically justified. IPI asserted that there are two possible 
outcomes outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) of a single review process 
and that criteria for developing an amended standard should be relevant 
in determination if amended standards are appropriate or not, which 
includes ``the need for nation energy . . . conservation''. (IPI, No. 
26 at pp. 2-3)
    Additionally, IPI stated that by not including an analysis of the 
potential emissions reductions and the monetized values of such 
reductions, DOE violated the 2015 Framework Document, which described 
emissions analysis as part of the methodology DOE would employ. 
Additionally, IPI stated DOE contravened past DOE practices of 
routinely analyzing emissions and considering the social cost of 
greenhouse gasses in its analysis. (IPI, No. 26 at p. 1)
    DOE disagrees with IPI's characterization of the statutory 
requirements applicable in the present case. In the Process Rule, DOE 
defined how to determine significance of energy savings under EPCA and 
developed a two-step process to make that determination. (See 85 FR 
8703, 8655-8676.) In this rulemaking DOE applied the two-step approach 
which considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold and a 
threshold that is the percent reduction in the covered energy use. (See 
Section 6(b) of the Process Rule.)
    Further, as stated in section II.A of this document, DOE is issuing 
this final determination pursuant to periodic review required under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(m). Section 6295(m) provides that not later than 6 years 
after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, 
the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') shall publish (A) a notice of 
the determination of the Secretary that standards for the product do 
not need to be amended, based on the criteria established under 
subsection (n)(2); or (B) a notice of proposed rulemaking including new 
proposed standards based on the criteria established under subsection 
(o) and the procedures established under subsection (p). (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A) and (B)) The statute plainly provides two separate sets 
of criteria--one set for a determination that standards do not need to 
be amended, and one set for proposed standards. The criteria that are 
the basis for proposed standards include the requirements that any new 
or amended standard for a covered product must 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(m)(1)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(3)(B)) A determination of ``economically justified'' requires 
consideration of seven factors,\6\ including the ``need for national 
energy conservation'' factor cited by IPI. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically 
justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard 
exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this 
determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and 
by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory factors: (1) The economic impact of the standard on 
manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard; 
(2) the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for 
the covered products that are likely to result from the standard; 
(3) the total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard; (4) any 
lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products 
likely to result from the standard; (5) the impact of any lessening 
of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, 
that is likely to result from the standard; (6) the need for 
national energy and water conservation; and (7) other factors the 
Secretary considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, DOE did not propose amended or new standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts, and is not adopting any such amendments. DOE 
proposed to determine that energy conservation standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts do not need to be amended. EPCA explicitly 
provides a more limited set of criteria on which a determination that 
standards do not need to be amended must be based. Such a determination 
must be based on consideration of whether amended standards will result 
in significant conservation of energy, are technologically feasible, 
and are cost effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 
6295(n)(2); emphasis added) The ``cost effective'' consideration is a 
more limited consideration than the ``economically justified'' 
consideration required for proposing and adopting amended energy 
conservation standards.
    EPCA specifies that consideration of cost effectiveness requires 
DOE consider, only one of the seven factors for economic justification, 
savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the 
covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the 
price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered 
products that are likely to result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) The cost effectiveness 
evaluation required by the plain language of EPCA requires DOE to 
evaluate impacts to consumers (i.e., operating costs and increase in 
initial price). DOE has historically addressed the ``cost 
effectiveness'' criterion

[[Page 81564]]

through LCC, PBP, and NPV analyses,\7\ and has continued to do so in 
the present case. IPI's reliance on the ``need for national energy 
conservation'' and related interpretations are misplaced. EPCA does not 
direct DOE to consider the ``need for national energy conservation'' as 
part of a determination that energy conservation standards do not need 
to be amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See e.g., 76 FR 70548, 70595 (``Consumers affected by new or 
amended standards usually experience higher purchase prices and 
lower operating costs. Generally, these effects on individual 
consumers are best summarized by changes in LCCs and by the payback 
period.'') and 76 FR 70548, 70562 (``For consumers in the aggregate, 
DOE calculates the NPV from a national perspective of the economic 
impacts on consumers over the forecast period used in a particular 
rulemaking.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In advance of the October 2019 NOPD, DOE prepared the Framework 
Document, which describes the procedural and analytical approaches DOE 
anticipated using to evaluate FLB standards. As stated in that 
document, the Framework Document provided a starting point for 
developing standards used to facilitate input and was not definitive 
with respect to any issue to be determined in the rulemaking. 
(Framework Document, No. 1 at p. 1) Discussion of an emissions analysis 
in the Framework Document was presented in the context of the analyses 
DOE would expect to conduct for a NOPR, i.e., analyses that would be 
conducted in support of proposed standards. (Framework Document, No. 1 
at pp. 5-6) As stated, DOE is not proposing new or amended standards 
for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
    DOE received general comments agreeing with its tentative 
conclusion in the October 2019 NOPD that amended FLB standards are not 
warranted. NEMA, Signify, Lutron, and CA IOUs agreed with DOE's 
proposed determination to not amend FLB standards. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 
2; Signify, No. 27 at p. 2; Signify, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 21 
at p. 50; Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 1) CA IOUs 
stated that because of the steady decline of ballast shipments due to 
advances in light-emitting diode (``LED'') luminaires, the changes in 
ballast technology to achieve what would be minimal energy savings are 
not warranted and would also likely not be cost effective. (CA IOUs, 
No. 25 at p. 2) Lutron also cited the small potential for energy 
savings and conclusions of DOE's NPV analysis as reasons not to amend 
standards. (Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2) NEMA stated that manufacturers are 
focusing on LED lighting systems and are not investing now or in the 
future in fluorescent ballast technology. NEMA stated that any changes 
to existing standards would result in manufacturers discontinuing 
products, thereby limiting product availability. NEMA stated that the 
burdens and negative impacts of such actions would not be outweighed by 
the minor energy savings that may remain at the max tech efficiency 
level. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 1-3) Signify added that regulatory action 
was not necessary to accelerate the transition from fluorescent 
lighting to LED lighting. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 2) Lutron agreed that 
amended standards would result in discontinuing products that in turn 
could require end users to replace entire systems when doing only minor 
retrofits or replacing failed components. (Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2)
    NEMA asserted that there is naturally-occurring market adoption of 
LED technology by users of fluorescent technology. NEMA stated that the 
switch to LED fixtures can be triggered by (1) newer lamp/older ballast 
compatibility problems in lamp replacements, (2) ballast failure, (3) 
reducing electricity operating costs, or (4) building renovation. NEMA 
added that lower cost and longer life are driving forces for migration 
away from FLB technology, and this consumer and technology driven shift 
is a good example of ``other than regulatory action'' accomplishing an 
intended outcome without government regulation. NEMA concluded that 
regulations that impacted cost or availability of products to hasten 
migration to other technology are unnecessary. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 5-
6)
    Lutron requested that if DOE changed the conclusion of the proposed 
determination based on stakeholder comments, a supplementary NOPR or 
similar document with an updated analysis be published for comment. 
(Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2)
    In this final determination, DOE is finalizing its initial 
conclusion that changes to FLB standards are not warranted (see section 
V.B for further details). The following sections describe the analyses 
DOE conducted in support of this final determination.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products 
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available 
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology 
assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) A determination of the 
scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and 
industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments 
information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or 
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of fluorescent 
lamp ballasts. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are 
summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the Final 
Determination TSD for further discussion of the market and technology 
assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
    Fluorescent lamp ballast means a device that is used to start and 
operate fluorescent lamps by providing a starting voltage and current 
and limiting the current during normal operation. 10 CFR 430.2. In this 
analysis, DOE relied on the definition of ``fluorescent lamp'' in 10 
CFR 430.2, which provides the specific lamp lengths, bases, and 
wattages included by the term. Any product meeting the definition of 
fluorescent lamp ballast is included in DOE's scope of coverage, though 
all products within the scope of coverage may not be subject to 
standards.
    As part of its review of energy conservation standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts, DOE evaluated whether current standards 
should be extended to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.
    Fluorescent lamp ballasts manufactured on or after November 14, 
2014, that are designed and marketed to operate at an input voltage at 
or between 120 volts (V) and 277 V, to operate with an input current 
frequency of 60 hertz, and for use with fluorescent lamps as defined in 
10 CFR 430.2 are currently required to comply with the energy 
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(m)(1).
    Fluorescent lamp ballasts manufactured on or after November 14, 
2014, that are designed and marketed to operate at an input voltage at 
or between 120 and 277 V; to operate with an input current frequency of 
60 hertz for dimming to 50 percent or less of the maximum output of the 
ballast; and to operate one or two F34T12 lamps, two F96T12 Energy 
Saver (``ES'') lamps, or two F96T12 high output (``HO'') ES lamps are 
required to comply with the energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 
430.32(m)(2).
    The following fluorescent lamp ballasts are exempt from standards: 
(1) A dimming ballast designed and marketed to operate exclusively lamp 
types other than one F34T12, two

[[Page 81565]]

F34T12, two F96T12/ES, or two F96T12HO/ES lamps; (2) a low-frequency 
ballast that is designed and marketed to operate T8 diameter lamps, is 
designed and marketed for use in electromagnetic interference-
sensitive-environments only, and is shipped by the manufacturer in 
packages containing 10 or fewer ballasts; and (3) a programmed start 
ballast that operates 4-foot medium bipin T8 lamps and delivers on 
average less than 140 mA to each lamp. 10 CFR 430.32(m)(3).
    Of these exemptions, in the October 2019 NOPD, DOE included in the 
analysis all fluorescent lamp ballasts that are dimmable and PS 
ballasts operating 4-foot MBP T8 lamps and using less than 140 mA 
(i.e., low-current PS ballasts). 84 FR 56540, 56545-56548.
    In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE determined that alternative options 
such as using PS ballasts with operating current at 140 mA or higher, 
paired with reduced-wattage lamps or decreasing the number of lamps in 
the system could provide low light output levels comparable to those 
attained using low-current PS ballasts. DOE identified lamp-and-ballast 
replacements that maintained system light output within 10 percent of a 
lamp-and-ballast system using a low-current PS ballast and saved 
energy. Because reasonable alternatives to providing low light output 
utility offered by low-current PS ballasts were available, DOE found no 
reason to continue the exemption of low-current PS ballasts. DOE did 
not receive any comments on this assessment. 84 FR 56540, 56547. In 
this final determination, DOE continued to include low-current PS 
ballasts in the analysis.
    In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE determined that standards for dimming 
ballasts could potentially result in energy savings. Since the 2011 FL 
Ballast Rule, DOE has observed an increase in dimming products. DOE's 
review of manufacturer catalogs indicates a wide range of dimming 
ballast products available for use with several lamp types.\8\ Further, 
DOE has observed a range of efficiencies for dimming ballasts, 
indicating that less efficient products can be improved. Additionally, 
state and local regulations and building codes with increased dimming 
and/or lighting control requirements (e.g., CA Title 24 and ANSI/
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 \9\) will continue to support 
installation of dimming ballasts in the near future. 84 FR 56540, 
56545-56546. DOE did not receive any comments on this assessment. In 
this final determination, DOE continued to include dimming ballasts in 
the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Specifically, 4-foot MBP lamps, 2-foot U-shaped lamps, 4-
foot MiniBP SO lamps, and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps.
    \9\ American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016--Energy 
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. 
Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, in addition to fluorescent lamp ballasts subject to 
current energy conservation standards, in this analysis DOE evaluated 
all fluorescent lamp ballasts that are dimmable and PS fluorescent lamp 
ballasts that operate 4-foot T8 MBP lamps and deliver on average less 
than 140 mA to each lamp.
2. Metric
    DOE's current energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp 
ballasts are expressed in terms of BLE. It is calculated using the 
following equation where A, B, and C are predefined constants and power 
is the total lamp arc power operated by a ballast (see section IV.D.4 
for further details):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE20.000

    NEMA stated that the constants used to determine BLE would need to 
be adjusted for dimming ballasts as these ballasts have greater fixed 
losses due to the additional functionality. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 3)
    In this final determination, as in the October 2019 NOPD, DOE 
evaluated dimming ballasts as a separate product class in order to 
account for the added circuitry in dimming ballasts that make them less 
efficient than comparable standard ballasts. (See section IV.B.3 and 84 
FR 56540, 56555-6). Because dimming ballasts have a separate set of 
efficiency levels, a separate equation to account for their lower 
efficiency compared to standards ballasts is not required.
    NEMA stated that due to complications in evaluating cathode heat 
losses, effective and repeatable BLE measurements of dimming ballasts 
could only be taken at full light output. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 3) 
Signify agreed stating that at full light output when the filament 
(i.e., cathode) heating circuit is disconnected. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 
1) NEMA also commented that as ballasts enter dimming mode, the 
operational frequency increases, as well introducing instrument 
uncertainty. Additionally, NEMA stated that while no change is required 
to the current DOE test procedure for measuring dimming ballasts at 100 
percent light output, at any other light output, a new test circuit and 
multiport power analyzer equipment would be required. (NEMA, No. 24 at 
p. 3)
    No comments were received suggesting that dimming ballasts be 
tested at an output other than 100 percent.
    This analysis is based on measuring the BLE at full light output 
for all ballasts, including dimming ballasts.
3. Product Classes
    In general, when evaluating and establishing energy conservation 
standards, DOE divides the covered product into classes by: (1) The 
type of energy used; (2) the capacity of the product; or (3) any other 
performance-related feature that affects energy efficiency and 
justifies different standard levels, considering factors such as 
consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1))
    In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE assessed the product classes shown in 
the following list in its analysis. 84 FR 56540, 56556. In describing 
product classes, DOE includes the types of lamps each class of ballast 
operates. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE updated the lamp types for 
existing product classes based on a review of the latest product 
offerings on the market and added 4-foot miniature bipin (MiniBP) 
standard output (``SO'') and 4-foot MiniBP HO lamp types to the instant 
start (``IS'')/rapid start (``RS'') (not classified as residential), 
IS/RS residential, and PS residential product classes. Id. 
Additionally, DOE evaluated dimming ballasts as a separate product 
class. Id. at 84 FR 56555. The product classes assessed are as follows:

(1) IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate
    (a) 4-foot MBP lamps
    (b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
    (c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
    (d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
    (e) 8-foot single pin (``SP'') slimline lamps
(2) PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate
    (a) 4-foot MBP lamps
    (b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
    (c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
    (d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
(3) IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate
    (a) 8-foot HO lamps
(4) PS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate
    (a) 8-foot HO lamps
(5) Sign ballasts that operate
    (a) 8-foot HO lamps
(6) IS and RS residential ballasts that operate

[[Page 81566]]

    (a) 4-foot MBP lamps
    (b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
    (c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
    (d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
    (e) 8-foot SP slimline lamps
(7) PS residential ballasts that operate
    (a) 4-foot MBP lamps
    (b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
    (c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
    (d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
    (8) Dimming ballasts that operate
(a) 4-foot MBP lamps
    (b) 2-foot U-shaped lamps
    (c) 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps
    (d) 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps
Id. at 84 FR 56556.

    DOE did not receive comments on product classes presented in the 
October 2019 NOPD. In this final determination DOE continues to 
separate fluorescent lamp ballasts into the same product classes as in 
the October 2019 NOPD. See chapter 3 of the final determination TSD for 
further discussion.
4. Technology Options
    In the October 2019 NOPD market and technology assessment, DOE 
identified the technology options listed in Table IV.1 to improve the 
efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts, as measured by the DOE test 
procedure.

         Table IV.1--Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Technology option                       Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Use an electronic ballast
           Electronic ballast                         design
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Components:
    Transformers/Inductors.............  Use litz wire to reduce winding
                                          losses.
                                         Use wire with multiple smaller
                                          coils instead of one larger
                                          coil to increase the number of
                                          turns of wire.
                                         Use optimized-gauge copper to
                                          increase the conductor cross
                                          section to reduce winding
                                          losses.
                                         Use shape-optimized winding to
                                          reduce the proximity effect.
                                         Use low-loss ferrite materials
                                          to create the core of the
                                          inductor.
    Diodes.............................  Use diodes with a lower voltage
                                          drop.
    Capacitors.........................  Use capacitors with a lower
                                          effective series resistance.
    Transistors........................  Use transistors with low drain-
                                          to-source resistance.
Improved Circuit Design:
    Cathode Cutout or Cutback..........  Remove or reduce cathode/
                                          filament heating after lamp
                                          has started.
    Integrated Circuits................  Substitute discrete components
                                          with an integrated circuit.
    Starting Method....................  Use the IS starting method
                                          instead of a rapid start RS
                                          starting method.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

84 FR 56540, 56552.

    CA IOUs stated that the use of smaller coils or increasing steel 
laminations would cause larger ballast sizes and that shape-optimized 
windings are not cost effective for the small savings potential. (CA 
IOUs, No. 25 at p. 1)
    As an initial matter, DOE does not consider cost when identifying 
technology options; a cost assessment of each efficiency level is 
assessed in the LCC and PBP analysis and NIA. Using multiple smaller 
coils instead of one larger coil will increase the number of turns of 
wire, which can increase the induced voltage, and thereby minimize 
losses from the transformer.\10\ The total number of windings needed is 
divided into several coils, which allows for greater flexibility in 
utilizing the space of the assembly and not changing the size of the 
ballast.\11\ Regarding increasing steel laminations, this technology 
option was not proposed in the October 2019 NOPD as DOE determined that 
it may not minimize losses in ballasts that operate at high frequencies 
(i.e., electronic ballasts), which are the ballasts analyzed in this 
determination. 84 FR 56540, 56551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ US20110018666A1, Multiple coils fluorescent lamp ballast. 
April 1, 2008. Available at https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110018666.
    \11\ US20110018666A1, Multiple coils fluorescent lamp ballast. 
April 1, 2008. Available at https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110018666.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA asserted that there had been no technological changes in FLB 
technology since the last DOE energy conservation standards rule on 
fluorescent lamp ballasts became effective in 2014. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 
2)
    Based on DOE's review of the product offerings and their 
efficiencies in manufacturer catalogs and DOE's Compliance 
Certification Database (``CCD''), there are ballasts on the market at 
multiple levels of efficiencies. DOE finds that the technology options 
identified, individually and/or in combination, are being utilized to 
improve the efficiency of products.
    DOE continues to consider the technology options identified in the 
October 2019 NOPD (see Table IV.1) in this final determination. See 
chapter 3 of the final determination TSD for further discussion.

C. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially-viable, existing 
prototypes will not be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercical products 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that 
technology will not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If a 
technology is determined that a technology would have significant 
adverse impact on the utility of the product to subgroups of consumers, 
or would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.
    (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a technology has 
proporiety protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a 
given

[[Page 81567]]

efficiency level, it will not be considered further.

Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of the Process Rule.

    In summary, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination 
of technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, 
it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
    In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE did not screen out any technology 
options identified. DOE did not receive any comments on technology 
options that should be screened out. 84 FR 56540, 56554. In this final 
determination, DOE did not screen out any technology options 
identified.
2. Remaining Technologies
    Through a review of each technology, DOE concludes that all of the 
identified technologies listed in section IV.B.4 meet all five 
screening criteria and are examined further as design options. In 
summary, DOE did not screen out the following technology options:

(1) Electronic Ballasts
(2) Improved Components

(a) Use litz wire to reduce winding losses.
(b) Use wire with multiple smaller coils instead of one larger coil to 
increase the number of turns of wire.
(c) Use optimized-gauge copper or increase the conductor cross section 
to reduce winding losses.
(d) Use shape-optimized winding to reduce the proximity effect losses.
(e) Use diodes with lower voltage drop to lower losses.
(f) Use capacitors with a lower effective series resistance.
(g) Use transistors with low drain-to-source resistance.
(h) Use low-loss ferrite to create the core of the inductor.

(3) Improved Circuit Design
(a) Remove filament heating after the lamp has started.
(b) Substitute discrete components with an integrated circuit.
    DOE determined that these technology options are technologically 
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in 
commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds 
that these technology options meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 
practicable to manufacture, install, and service; do not result in 
adverse impacts on product utility, product availability, health, or 
safety; and are not proprietary).
    John Danison, an individual commentator, stated researchers should 
make fluorescent lamp ballasts safer, more cost effective, and last 
longer. He stated the current expectancy of a ballast is 6 months after 
which it will start leaking and/or sparking, and if a bad ballast 
burns, it could release toxins resulting in serious health issues. 
(Danison, No. 22 at p. 1)
    As noted, DOE has determined that the design options used to 
achieve the efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts do not have an 
adverse impact on product utility or safety. Danison provided 
references regarding pre-1979 ballast technology and general 
information on fluorescent ballasts but did not provide any support for 
his stated safety concern, and DOE was unable to verify it through 
other resources. DOE did not receive any comments during any phase of 
this rulemaking or the previous 2011 FL Ballast Rule to indicate that a 
ballast's life expectancy is only 6 months or that its mode of failure 
could present health and safety concerns. DOE also did not find any 
similar concerns cited in relevant product or industry literature. 
Therefore, DOE continues to consider the design options identified in 
the October 2019 NOPD in this final determination. For additional 
details, see chapter 4 of the final determination TSD.

D. Engineering Analysis

    As in the October 2019 NOPD, for this final determination, DOE 
selected more efficient substitutes in the engineering analysis and 
determined the end-user consumer prices of those substitutes in the 
product price determination. DOE estimated the consumer price of 
ballasts directly because reverse engineering ballasts is impractical 
due to the use of potting, which is a black pitch added to the ballast 
enclosure to reduce vibration damage and act as a heat sink for the 
circuit board. Potting does not allow for the visual observation and 
identification of individual components of the ballast making it 
infeasible to apply a reverse-engineering approach. By combining the 
results of the engineering analysis and the product price 
determination, DOE derived typical inputs for use in the LCC analysis 
and NIA. Section IV.E discusses the product price determination (see 
chapter 6 of the final determination TSD for further detail).
    The methodology for the engineering analysis consists of the 
following steps:
    (1) selecting representative product classes,
    (2) selecting baseline ballasts,
    (3) identifying more efficient substitutes,
    (4) developing efficiency levels, and
    (5) scaling efficiency levels to non-representative product 
classes.
    DOE used the BLE values from the compliance certification database 
to identify ballasts for all product classes except dimming. Because 
most dimming ballasts are not currently subject to standards and 
therefore do not have data in the compliance certification database, 
DOE determined BLE values by using catalog input power and the 
associated total lamp arc power. As fluorescent lamp ballasts are 
designed to operate fluorescent lamps, DOE considered properties of the 
entire lamp-and-ballast system in the engineering analysis. DOE paired 
baseline and more-efficient ballasts with full-wattage and/or reduced 
wattage lamps, where appropriate, to reflect the most common 
configurations of lamp-and-ballast systems.
    The results of these steps are summarized in the following 
sections. The details of the engineering analysis are discussed in 
chapter 5 of the final determination TSD.
1. Representative Product Classes
    In the case where a covered product has multiple product classes, 
DOE may identify and select certain product classes as 
``representative'' and concentrates its analytical effort on those 
classes. For fluorescent lamp ballasts, DOE chose product classes as 
representative primarily because of their high market volumes. Within 
certain representative product classes, DOE also selected multiple 
representative ballast types to account for multiple high-volume units 
within the same product class.
    Table IV.2 shows the FLB product classes, and shaded in grey are 
the representative product classes and representative ballast types 
selected for analysis in the October 2019 NOPD.

  Table IV.2--Representative Product Classes and Representative Ballast
                                  Types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Product class description *         Representative ballast type(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            IS/RS Commercial
IS/RS Commercial ballasts that operate:  2L 4-foot MBP; 4L 4-foot MBP,
                                          2L 8-foot SP slimline.

[[Page 81568]]

 
    <bullet> 4-foot MBP.
    <bullet> 2-foot U-shaped.
    <bullet> 4-foot MiniBP SO.
    <bullet> 4-foot MiniBP HO.
    <bullet> 8-foot SP slimline lamps.
             PS Commercial
PS Commercial ballasts that operate:     2L 4-foot MBP, 4L 4-foot MBP,
<bullet> 4-foot MBP                       2L 4-foot MiniBP SO, 2L 4-foot
<bullet> 2-foot U-shaped                  MiniBP HO.
<bullet> 4-foot T5 SO
<bullet> 4-foot T5 HO lamps
            IS/RS 8-foot HO
IS/RS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO    2L 8-foot recessed double
 lamps                                    contact (RDC) HO.
              PS 8-foot HO
PS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO       N/A.
 lamps.
Sign
Sign ballasts that operate 8-foot HO     4L 8-foot RDC HO.
 lamps.
           IS/RS Residential
IS/RS Residential ballasts that          2L 4-foot MBP.
 operate:
    <bullet> 4-foot MBP.
    <bullet> 2-foot U-shaped.
    <bullet> 4-foot MiniBP SO.
    <bullet> 4-foot MiniBP HO.
    <bullet> 8-foot SP slimline lamps.
             PS Residential
PS Residential ballasts that operate:    N/A.
    <bullet> 4-foot MBP.
    <bullet> 4-foot MiniBP SO.
    <bullet> 4-foot MiniBP HO.
    <bullet> 2-foot U-shaped.
                Dimming
Dimming ballasts that operate:           2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V, 2L 4-foot
<bullet> 4-foot MBP.                      MiniBP SO 0-10 V, 2L 4-foot
<bullet> 4-foot MiniBP SO.                MiniBP HO 0-10 V.
<bullet> 4-foot MiniBP HO.
<bullet> 2-foot U-shaped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Grey shading indicates a representative product class.

84 FR 56540, 56558.

    DOE did not receive any comments on the representative product 
classes presented in the October 2019 NOPD. DOE continues to analyze 
the representative product classes analyzed in the October 2019 NOPD in 
this final determination.
2. Baseline Ballasts
    For each representative product class, DOE selected a baseline 
ballast as a reference point against which to measure changes resulting 
from energy conservation standards. Typically, the baseline ballast is 
the most common, least efficient ballast that meets existing energy 
conservation standards. In this analysis, DOE selected as baselines the 
least efficient ballast meeting standards that operated the most common 
lamp type (i.e., wattage and diameter) and where possible, has the most 
common ballast factor, input voltage, and operating voltage type \12\ 
for the product class. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE directly analyzed 
the baseline ballasts shown in Table IV.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Operating voltage type denotes whether the ballast can 
operate multiple voltages and is considered universal or can only 
operate one voltage and is considered dedicated.

                                                              Table IV.3--Baseline Ballasts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Input voltage/
        Product class              Ballast type         Lamp type      Starting    operating voltage     Power       Ballast    Input power      BLE
                                                                        method           * (V)           factor       factor         (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS Commercial.............  2L 4-foot MBP.......  32 W T8........  IS          277, Universal....         0.97         0.89         57.6        0.903
                               4L 4-foot MBP.......  32 W T8........  IS          277, Universal....         0.98         0.88        112.2        0.916
                               2L 8-foot SP          59 W T8........  IS          277, Universal....         0.98         0.88        109.2        0.920
                                slimline.
PS Commercial................  2L 4-foot MBP.......  32 W T8........  PS          277, Universal....         0.90         0.88         57.1        0.900
                               4L 4-foot MBP.......  32 W T8........  PS          277, Universal....         0.90         0.87        110.5        0.920
                               2L 4-foot MiniBP SO.  28 W T5........  PS          277, Universal....         0.98         1.00         62.4        0.891
                               2L 4-foot MiniBP HO.  54 W T5........  PS          277, Universal....         0.98         0.99        116.8        0.912
IS/RS 8-foot HO..............  2L 8-foot RDC HO....  110 W T12......  RS          277, Universal....         0.99         0.89        197.7        0.900
Sign.........................  4L 8-foot RDC HO....  110 W T12......  RS          120, Dedicated....         0.90    \**\ 0.61        271.6        0.898
IS/RS Residential............  2L 4-foot MBP.......  32 W T8........  IS          120, Dedicated....         0.50         0.88         58.9        0.872
Dimming......................  2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V.  32 W T8........  PS          277, Universal....         0.98         0.88         59.0        0.871
                               2L 4-foot MiniBP SO   28 W T5........  PS          277, Universal....         0.98         1.00         64.0        0.869
                                0-10V.

[[Page 81569]]

 
                               2L 4-foot MiniBP HO   54 W T5........  PS          277, Universal....         0.98         1.00        118.0        0.912
                                0-10V.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V); dedicated indicates it can only operate the voltage
  specified.
** DOE found limited information on ballast factors of ballasts in the Sign product class. Based on this information, DOE used the most common ballast
  factor found in catalogs for the product class for representative units that did not specify ballast factor.

84 FR 56540, 56559.

    DOE did not receive any comments on the baseline ballasts selected 
in the October 2019 NOPD and maintained the selected baseline ballasts 
for this final determination. See chapter 5 of the final determination 
TSD for more detail.
3. More Efficient Ballasts
    In the analysis for the October 2019 NOPD, DOE selected more-
efficient ballasts as replacements for each of the baseline ballasts by 
considering technologies not eliminated in the screening analysis. 84 
FR 56540, 56559. DOE considered these technologies in the engineering 
analysis, either by modeling potential efficiency improvements due to 
the design options or by analyzing commercially available ballasts in 
which the design options are incorporated. Id.
    DOE selected a more-efficient fluorescent lamp ballast with the 
same or similar ballast factor as the baseline ballast, so that light 
output would be maintained without needing to change the spacing of the 
fixture. Id. Specifically, DOE ensured that potential substitutes 
maintained the system light output within 10 percent of the baseline 
lamp-and-ballast system light output. Id. Finally, DOE selected more-
efficient substitutes that showed an improvement in BLE and a reduction 
in input power. Id.
    DOE did not receive any comments on the more-efficient ballasts 
selected in the October 2019 NOPD. DOE maintained the more-efficient 
ballasts selected in the October 2019 NOPD for this final 
determination. See section IV.D.4 and chapter 5 of the final 
determination TSD for more detail.
4. Efficiency Levels
    After identifying more-efficient substitutes for each of the 
baseline ballasts, DOE developed ELs based on the consideration of 
several factors, including: (1) The design options associated with the 
specific ballasts being studied, (2) the ability of ballasts across 
wattages to comply with the standard level of a given product class, 
and (3) the max-tech level. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE used the same 
equation-based approach used in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule. 84 FR 56540, 
56560. DOE determined that a power law equation best modeled the 
observed trend between total lamp arc power and average BLE. 
Specifically, DOE used the following equation to develop ELs that 
relate the total lamp arc power operated by a ballast to BLE:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16DE20.001

    The ELs and the characteristics of the representative units 
identified in the October 2019 NOPD (84 FR 56540, 56564) are summarized 
in Table IV.4 to Table IV.9. Product classes have up to two or three 
levels of efficiencies. EL 1 represents an improved ballast with more-
efficient components (e.g., transformers, diodes, capacitors, 
transistors) that minimize losses and improved circuit design (e.g., 
integrated circuitry). EL 2 represents an advanced ballast with 
improved components and improved circuit design. EL 3 represents a 
ballast with the most efficient combination of improved components and 
circuit design.
    CA IOUs stated that the last FLB standards rule set requirements 
that drove the market to achieve the highest tier of efficiency 
practically available and they were unaware of higher efficiency 
ballasts on the market. CA IOUs stated that ballasts on the market are 
at or close to achieving the highest operational efficiency that is 
still cost effective, and there is no premium ballast that represents 
EL 4. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 1-2) NEMA also commented that no changes 
should be made to the ELs. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 3)
    Signify stated it was unsure of the validity of the data used to 
project a BLE increase from 0.913 (EL 1) to 0.940 (max-tech) for the 2-
lamp 4-foot MBP ballasts in the IS/RS commercial product class and that 
it had to conduct a more detailed review. Signify further stated that 
regardless, the increase in BLE is too small to support amending 
standards. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 1)
    DOE used BLE values certified by manufacturers in the DOE 
compliance certification database to develop efficiency levels. For 
each representative ballast type, DOE examined the spread of BLE 
values, including clusters of similar BLE values and distinctive 
increases in BLE values to identify ELs. DOE also examined BLE values 
for different product families for each of several manufacturers to 
confirm tiers of efficiencies.
    DOE maintained the ELs and associated representative units 
presented in the October 2019 NOPD in this final determination. The ELs 
and the representative units for each representative product class are 
shown in Table IV.4 through Table IV.9. See chapter 5 of the final 
determination TSD for more detail.

                                                    Table IV.4--IS/RS Commercial Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Input voltage/
      Product class           EL          Ballast type       Lamp type    Starting   operating  voltage,     Power      Ballast      Input        BLE
                                                                           method            (V) *          factor      factor     power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS Commercial........  EL 1.....  2L 4-foot MBP........     32 W T8  IS           277, Universal.....        0.98        0.88        56.3       0.913
                                     4L 4-foot MBP........     32 W T8  IS           277, Universal.....        0.98        0.88       110.9       0.927
                                     2L 8-foot SP slimline     59 W T8  IS           277, Universal.....        0.98        0.88       108.5       0.926
IS/RS Commercial........  EL 2.....  2L 4-foot MBP........     32 W T8  IS           277, Universal.....        0.98        0.88        55.7       0.923
                                     4L 4-foot MBP........     32 W T8  IS           277, Universal.....        0.98        0.88       109.7       0.937
                                     2L 8-foot SP slimline     59 W T8  IS           277, Universal.....        0.98        0.87       106.4       0.934
IS/RS...................  EL 3.....  2L 4-foot MBP........     32 W T8  IS           277, Universal.....        0.99        0.89        55.3       0.940
                                     4L 4-foot MBP........     32 W T8  IS           277, Universal.....        0.98        0.87       107.0       0.950

[[Page 81570]]

 
                                     2L 8-foot SP slimline     59 W T8  IS           277, Universal.....        0.98        0.87       105.1       0.945
                                      **.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
** Grey shading indicates a modeled product.


                                                     Table IV.5--PS Commercial Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Input voltage/
      Product class          EL         Ballast type        Lamp type    Starting     operating voltage      Power      Ballast      Input        BLE
                                                                          method            (V *)           factor      factor     power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS Commercial...........  EL 1...  2L 4-foot MBP.........     32 W T8  PS            277, Universal.....        0.97        0.88        56.3       0.913
                                   4L 4-foot MBP.........     32 W T8  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        0.87       109.5       0.928
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP SO...     28 W T5  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        1.00        61.4       0.905
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP HO...     54 W T5  PS            277, Universal.....        0.97        1.00       115.9       0.928
                          EL 2...  2L 4-foot MBP.........     32 W T8  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        0.88        53.9       0.953
                                   4L 4-foot MBP.........     32 W T8  PS            277, Universal.....        0.99        0.87       107.6       0.944
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP SO...     28 W T5  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        1.00        59.8       0.929
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP HO...     54 W T5  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        1.00       113.6       0.947
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).


                                                    Table IV.6--IS/RS 8-foot HO Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Input voltage/
      Product class          EL         Ballast type        Lamp type    Starting     operating voltage      Power      Ballast      Input        BLE
                                                                          method            (V *)           factor      factor     power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS 8-foot HO.........  EL 1...  2L 8-foot RDC HO **...   110 W T12  RS            277, Dedicated.....        0.98        0.90       192.7       0.934
                          EL 2...  2L 8-foot RDC HO......   110 W T12  RS            277, Universal.....        0.98        0.90       188.0       0.957
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).


                                                          Table IV.7--Sign Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Input voltage/
      Product class          EL         Ballast type        Lamp type    Starting     operating voltage      Power      Ballast      Input        BLE
                                                                          method            (V *)           factor     factor **   power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign....................  EL 1...  4L 8-foot RDC HO......   110 W T12  IS            120, Dedicated.....        0.99        0.61       265.1       0.920
                          EL 2...  4L 8-foot RDC HO......   110 W T12  IS            120, Dedicated.....        0.90        0.61       258.4       0.944
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dedicated indicates it can only operate the voltage specified.
** DOE found limited information for ballast factor, and therefore used the most common ballast factor found in product class for representative units
  that did not specify ballast factor.


                                                   Table IV.8--IS/RS Residential Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Input voltage/
      Product class          EL         Ballast type        Lamp type    Starting     operating voltage      Power      Ballast      Input        BLE
                                                                          method            (V) *           factor      factor     power (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS Residential.......  EL 1...  2L 4-foot MBP.........     32 W T8  IS            120, Dedicated.....        0.56        0.85        56.2       0.884
                          EL 2     2L 4-foot MBP.........     32 W T8  IS            120, Dedicated.....        0.56        0.85        55.2       0.899
                          EL 3     2L 4-foot MBP.........     32 W T8  IS            120, Dedicated.....        0.55        0.83        53.1       0.913
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dedicated indicates it can only operate the voltage specified.


                                                        Table IV.9--Dimming Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Input voltage/
      Product class          EL         Ballast type        Lamp type    Starting     operating voltage      Power      Ballast      Input        BLE
                                                                          method            (V) *           factor      factor    power  (W)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimming.................  EL 1...  2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V...     32 W T8  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        0.87        57.0       0.891
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 0-     28 W T5  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        1.00        63.0       0.883
                                    10V.
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0-     54 W T5  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        1.00       118.0       0.912
                                    10 V.
                          EL 2...  2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V **  ..........  ............  ...................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 0-      28W T5  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        1.00        62.0       0.897
                                    10V.
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0-  ..........  ............  ...................  ..........  ..........  ..........  ..........
                                    10 V **.
                          EL 3...  2L 4-foot MBP 0-10V...     32 W T8  PS            277, Universal.....        0.99        0.88        56.0       0.918
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 0-     28 W T5  PS            277, Universal.....        0.99        1.00        61.0       0.911
                                    10V.
                                   2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0-     54 W T5  PS            277, Universal.....        0.98        1.00       115.9       0.928
                                    10V.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Universal indicates that the ballast can operate multiple voltages (i.e., 120 V or 277 V).
** Grey shading indicates levels at which products did not exist.


[[Page 81571]]

    Table IV.10 summarizes the efficiency requirements at each EL for 
the representative product classes.

                         Table IV.10--Summary of ELs for Representative Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    BLE = A / (1 + B * total lamp arc power-C)
                                                                         where A, B, and C are as follows:
    Representative product class           Efficiency  level     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         A               B               C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS/RS Commercial....................  EL 1......................           0.993            0.24            0.25
                                      EL 2......................  ..............            0.21  ..............
                                      EL 3......................  ..............            0.16  ..............
PS Commercial.......................  EL 1......................           0.993            0.43            0.37
                                      EL 2......................  ..............            0.31  ..............
IS/RS Residential...................  EL 1......................           0.993            0.33            0.25
                                      EL 2......................  ..............            0.28  ..............
                                      EL 3......................  ..............            0.24  ..............
IS/RS 8-foot HO.....................  EL 1......................           0.993            0.24            0.25
                                      EL 2......................  ..............            0.14  ..............
Sign................................  EL 1......................           0.993            0.32            0.25
                                      EL 2......................  ..............            0.24  ..............
Dimming.............................  EL 1......................           0.993            0.56            0.37
                                      EL 2......................  ..............            0.48  ..............
                                      EL 3......................  ..............            0.40  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Scaling to Other Product Classes
    DOE identified and selected certain product classes as 
representative and analyzed these product classes directly. DOE chose 
these representative product classes primarily due to their high market 
volumes. The ELs for product classes that were not directly analyzed 
(``non-representative product classes'') were then determined by 
scaling the ELs of the representative product classes. Specifically, 
DOE did not analyze PS 8-foot HO ballasts or PS residential ballasts 
directly. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE developed ELs for the PS 8-foot 
HO product class by scaling the ELs of the IS/RS 8-foot HO product 
class and developed ELs for PS residential product class by scaling the 
ELs of the IS/RS residential product class. 84 FR 56540, 56564. The 
primary difference between these sets of product classes is the 
starting method. From its analysis of pairs of ballasts between the 
product classes, DOE determined that the ballasts with a PS starting 
method are 2 percent less efficient than those with IS starting method. 
DOE then applied this reduction in BLE to develop the appropriate EL 
equation curves for the PS 8-foot HO and PS residential product class. 
See chapter 5 of the final determination TSD for more detail. Table 
IV.11 summarizes the efficiency requirements at each EL for the non-
representative product classes.
    DOE did not receive any comments on the scaling to non-
representative product classes presented in the October 2019 NOPD. In 
this final determination, DOE maintained the scaling factors and 
resulting efficiency levels from the October 2019 NOPD for the non-
representative product classes.

                       Table IV.11--Summary of ELs for Non-Representative Product Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    BLE = A / (1 + B * total lamp arc power-C)
                                                                         where A, B, and C are as follows:
  Non-representative product class         Efficiency level      -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         A               B               C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS 8-foot HO........................  EL 1......................           0.973            0.45            0.37
                                      EL 2......................  ..............            0.26  ..............
PS Residential......................  EL 1......................           0.973            0.54            0.37
                                      EL 2......................  ..............            0.46  ..............
                                      EL 3......................  ..............            0.39  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Product Price Determination

    Typically, DOE develops manufacturer selling prices (``MSPs'') for 
covered products in the engineering analysis and applies markups to 
create end-user prices to use as inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. 
Because fluorescent lamp ballasts are difficult to reverse-engineer 
(i.e., not easily disassembled due to potting), DOE directly derives 
end-user prices for the ballasts covered in this final determination.
    In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE developed end-user consumer prices 
for the representative units sold in each of the main distribution 
channels identified for fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE then calculated 
an average weighted consumer price using estimated shipments that go 
through each distribution channel. 84 FR 56540, 56565-56566.
    DOE did not receive any comments on the pricing methodology or 
results. For this final determination DOE maintained the methodology 
and final average weighted end-user prices for representative units 
from the October 2019 NOPD. See chapter 6 of the final determination 
TSD for further details and pricing results.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of fluorescent lamp ballasts at different BLE in 
representative U.S. commercial and industrial buildings, outdoor

[[Page 81572]]

installations, and single-family homes and multi-family residences, and 
to assess the energy savings potential of increased BLE for fluorescent 
lamp ballasts. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy 
use of fluorescent lamp ballasts in the field (i.e., as they are 
actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis provides the basis 
for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the 
energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could 
result from adoption of amended standards.
    The energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamps are not 
within the scope of this analysis; however, the input power of the 
complete lamp-and-ballast system is considered for the energy use 
analysis because ballasts are not intended to operate without lamps. 
The energy use characterization provides estimates of annual energy use 
for representative lamp-and-ballast systems that DOE evaluates in the 
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA. To develop annual energy use 
estimates, DOE multiplied annual usage (in hours per year) by the 
system input power (in watts). In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE developed 
an energy use analysis. 84 FR 56540, 56566-56568.
    DOE analyzed the typical operating hours of the different sectors. 
DOE then weighted the ballast operation by sector to develop average 
operating hours. DOE selected the most common fluorescent lamps used 
with each analyzed ballast to develop representative lamp-and-ballast 
systems. DOE developed the system input power estimates in the 
engineering analysis. To characterize the country's average use of 
fluorescent lamp ballasts for a typical year, DOE developed annual 
operating hours by sector, using the most recent data available from 
the 2015 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization (``LMC''), which was 
published in 2017.\13\ 84 FR 56540, 56566.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. 
November 2017. https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fluorescent lamp ballasts can operate a variety of lamp types. The 
October 2019 NOPD included a mixture of lamp types operated by the 
fluorescent lamp ballast including full wattage fluorescent lamp (e.g., 
32 W 4-foot T8), reduced wattage fluorescent lamp (e.g., 30 W 4-foot 
T8, 28 W 4-foot T8, and 25 W 4-foot T8), and tubular light-emitting 
diode (``TLED'') lamps (e.g., UL Type A 13 W 4-foot T8). The mixture of 
specific lamps operated by the fluorescent lamp directly relates to the 
input power of the fluorescent ballast. DOE included a mixture of full 
wattage fluorescent lamps, reduced wattage fluorescent lamps, and TLED 
lamps in the energy use analysis. 84 FR 56540, 56566-56568.
    Lighting controls can reduce the energy use of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE assumed reduced energy from 
lighting controls for programmed-start ballasts. Id. These ballasts are 
intended for use with occupancy sensors.
    In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE requested comment to improve DOE's 
energy-use analysis, as well as any data supporting alternate operating 
hour estimates or assumptions regarding dimming of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts, operating hours, and operating hour reductions from lighting 
controls in commercial, industrial, and residential sectors. 84 FR 
56540, 56568. NEMA stated that DOE's methodology and estimating 
assumptions were sufficient. (NEMA, No. 24 a pp. 3-4) Signify provided 
some suggested papers regarding use of lighting controls that could be 
found within the Illuminating Engineering Society (``IES'') technical 
library. Signify also stated that the papers specifically cited in 
their comments were illustrative. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 2)
    DOE's analysis did utilize research papers within the IES technical 
library. DOE included data from Lighting Controls in Commercial 
Buildings, which was published in an IES journal, in the energy use 
analysis (see chapter 7 of the final determination TSD).\14\ DOE 
received no comments related to changing the mixture of lamp operated 
by the fluorescent ballasts, operating hours of the fluorescent lamp 
ballasts, nor the application of lighting controls. For the final 
determination, DOE maintained the mixture of lamps operated by the 
fluorescent ballasts, operating hours of the fluorescent lamp ballasts, 
and the application of lighting controls as in the analysis for the 
2019 October NOPD. Chapter 7 of the final determination TSD provides 
details on DOE's energy use analysis for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Williams, AA, BA Atkinson, K Garbesi, E Page, FM 
Rubinstein. Lighting Controls in Commercial Buildings. Leukos: The 
Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society. 2012. 8(3): pp. 
161-180. https://eaei.lbl.gov/publications/lighting-controls-commercial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts in the October 2019 NOPD. 84 FR 56540, 56568. 
The effect of amended energy conservation standards on individual 
consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an 
increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to 
measure consumer impacts:
    <bullet> The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (MSP, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and installation 
costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and 
repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating 
costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the 
product.
    <bullet> The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that amended standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case. DOE refers to the 
change as ``LCC savings.'' LCC savings reflect the estimated efficiency 
distribution of fluorescent lamp ballasts in the absence of amended 
energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given 
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
    For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
potential customers. Fluorescent lamp ballasts are used widely in 
commercial, industrial, and residential settings. For each product 
class, DOE identified the types of customers likely to use the 
ballasts, the number of hours per year each customer type would likely 
use the ballasts, and a probability of selection for each customer type 
in the Monte Carlo analysis.
    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the product--which includes MPCs, all manufacturer, retailer and 
distributor 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, and discount rates. DOE created 
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and

[[Page 81573]]

sales taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for 
their uncertainty and variability.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP 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 FLB user samples. For 
this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel 
together with the Crystal Ball<SUP>TM</SUP> add-on.\15\ The model 
calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each efficiency level for 
10,000 FLB installations per simulation run. The analytical results 
include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC 
savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no-new-standards 
case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte 
Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen 
based on its probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater 
than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under 
consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is 
not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who 
already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the 
potential benefits from increasing product efficiency. DOE calculated 
the LCC and PBP for all consumers of fluorescent lamp ballasts as if 
each were to purchase a new product in the first year of required 
compliance with new or amended standards. Amended standards apply to 
fluorescent lamp ballasts manufactured 3 years after the date on which 
any new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)) 
Therefore, DOE used 2023 as the first year of compliance with any 
amended standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Crystal Ball<SUP>TM</SUP> is a commercially available 
software tool to facilitate the creation of these types of models by 
generating probability distributions and summarizing results within 
Excel, available at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/crystalball/overview/index.html (last accessed June 18, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV.12 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of 
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 
and its appendices of the final determination TSD.

 Table IV.12--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
                                    *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inputs                            Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost......................  Derived by multiplying product costs
                                     from the engineering analysis by
                                     (one plus) sales tax rates.
Installation Costs................  Baseline installation cost
                                     determined with data from RS Means.
                                     Assumed no change with efficiency
                                     level.
Annual Energy Use.................  The total annual energy use
                                     multiplied by the hours per year.
                                     Average number of hours based 2015
                                     LMC.
Energy Prices.....................  Based on the Energy Information
                                     Administration's (EIA's) Form 861
                                     data for 2018.\**\ Average energy
                                     prices determined for 50 states
                                     plus the District of Columbia.
Energy Price Trends...............  Based on Annual Energy Outlook 2020
                                     (AEO2020) price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs......  Assumed no change with efficiency
                                     level.
Product Lifetime..................  Average: 12.5 years for commercial
                                     installations (approximately 38,000
                                     hours), 12.5 years for outdoor
                                     installations (approximately 41,000
                                     hours), 11.4 years for industrial
                                     installations (50,000 hours), and
                                     15 years for residential
                                     installations (approximately 10,800
                                     hours).
Discount Rates....................  For the residential product class,
                                     the calculations involve
                                     identifying all possible debt or
                                     asset classes that might be used to
                                     purchase fluorescent lamp ballasts
                                     or might be affected indirectly.
                                     The primary data source was the
                                     Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
                                     Consumer Finances. For other
                                     product classes, the calculations
                                     involve estimating weighted average
                                     cost of capital for large numbers
                                     of companies and using the results
                                     to develop discount rate
                                     distributions. The primary data
                                     were from the Damodaran Online web
                                     site [dagger] and the Federal
                                     Reserve Board. [Dagger]
Rebound Effect....................  Rebound is not assumed to be present
                                     among FLB consumers. Most consumers
                                     are commercial and industrial
                                     consumers, and the FLB/light user
                                     tends to not see the bills so there
                                     would be no perceived change in the
                                     cost of using the light.
Compliance Date...................  2023.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
  in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the final
  determination TSD.
** DOE used Average Price by State by Provider (EIA-826), sorted for
  Total Electric Industry, obtained from the EIA webpage https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
[dagger] See the data page on Damodaran Online, http://
  pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar.
[Dagger] In addition to the previously referenced Survey of Consumer
  Finances, DOE used interest rate data obtained from the Federal
  Reserve Bank of St. Louis' FRED Economic Data tool found at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/.

1. Product Cost
    As noted in section IV.E, DOE rulemaking engineering analyses 
typically calculate MSPs. Typically, the MSPs are used to develop 
consumer prices by applying wholesale and retail delivery chain markups 
developed in a separate markup analysis, and by adding sales taxes. For 
fluorescent lamp ballasts, the engineering analysis determined end-user 
prices directly; therefore, for the LCC analysis, the only adjustment 
was to add sales taxes.
    In prior energy conservation standards rulemakings, DOE estimated 
the total installed costs per unit for equipment and then assumed that 
costs remain constant throughout the analysis period. For example, 
prices were held constant throughout the analysis period for the 2009 
final rule for commercial ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial 
refrigerators, commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerator-
freezers without doors; and remote condensing commercial refrigerators, 
commercial freezers, and commercial refrigerators-freezers. 74 FR 1092 
(Jan. 9, 2009) This assumption is conservative because equipment costs 
tend to decrease over time. In 2011, DOE published a notice of data 
availability (``NODA'') titled Equipment Price Forecasting in Energy 
Conservation Standards Analysis. 76 FR 9696 (Feb. 22, 2011). In the 
NODA, DOE proposed a methodology for determining whether equipment 
prices have trended downward in real terms. The methodology examines 
so-called price or experiential learning, wherein, with ever-increasing 
experience with the production of a product, manufacturers are able to 
reduce their production costs

[[Page 81574]]

through innovations in technology and process.
    Consistent with the February 2011 NODA, DOE examined historical 
price data specific to electronic ballasts for the October 2019 NOPD 
and the analysis yielded learning coefficients indicating a 14.8 
percent decrease in ballast prices for every doubling in cumulative 
ballast shipments. However, the October 2019 NOPD analyses excluded the 
price trends from the LCC consumer prices, noting that with shipments 
falling from historical values, cumulative shipments do not double 
relative to 2015 (the last year of historical ballast price data 
compiled for evaluating price trends) in any shipments scenario. The 
price trends assumptions were presented in the October 2019 NOPD along 
with the request for comments on any aspect of the NOPD. 84 FR 56540, 
56579-56580. DOE received no comments on the learning trends analysis. 
Consistent with the October 2019 NOPD, for this final determination DOE 
excluded price trends from the consumer costs of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts used in the LCC and PBP analysis as well as downstream 
analyses.
    Lamp manufacturing is also subject to the learning process. The 
focus of this final determination is the fluorescent lamp ballast. 
However, fluorescent lamp ballasts are designed to operate fluorescent 
lamps and therefore, the cost analysis accounts for the lamp-and-
ballast system. The analysis assumes a differing mixture of general 
service fluorescent lamps (``GSFL'') and TLEDs operated by the 
ballasts. TLED prices are expected to be affected by price learning and 
are expected to decline significantly over the next 3 years. Therefore, 
to better represent the total installed cost of the ballast and lamp 
systems, price learning was applied to the lamps operated by the 
fluorescent lamp ballasts.
    Because this final determination is not analyzing lamps, lamp 
shipments and price information were not collected for this rulemaking. 
Rather, price trend information for lamps was developed from the final 
rule for the GSFL standards rulemaking published in January 2015. 80 FR 
4041 (Jan. 26, 2015). As discussed in chapter 8 and Appendix 8C of this 
FLB final determination TSD, the GSFL price trends were incorporated 
into the LCC analysis to account for learning in the lamp manufacturing 
process. The distribution of lamps selected for use by consumers is not 
expected to differ for ballasts at different efficiency levels.
    The calculations of product cost are consistent with the October 
2019 NOPD calculations. The October 2019 NOPD requested input on all 
aspects of the analysis, and no comments were received on the 
calculation of product cost. DOE updated the analysis to 2019 dollars 
(2019$), updated the state sales tax rates, and otherwise retained the 
product costs calculations used in the October 2019 NOPD for use in the 
final determination.
2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost includes labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous 
materials and parts needed to install the product. DOE used data from 
RSMeans to estimate the baseline installation cost for fluorescent lamp 
ballasts. For the October 2019 NOPD, DOE used the same installation 
costs for ballasts at each efficiency level. 84 FR 56540, 56569-56570. 
The October 2019 NOPD requested input on all aspects of the analysis, 
and no comments were received on the calculation of installation cost 
used in the NOPD. Given a lack of comment or other new evidence, DOE 
updated input data to use 2020 RSMeans values adjusted to 2019$ and 
continued using the same installation costs for ballasts at each 
efficiency level for the final determination.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    DOE determined the energy consumption for fluorescent lamp ballasts 
at different efficiency levels using the approach described previously 
in section IV.F of this document.
4. Energy Prices
    DOE derived average annual electricity prices for 50 states plus 
the District of Columbia using data from the EIA's Form EIA-861 annual 
survey.\16\ EIA calculated average electric prices by dividing total 
electric revenues by total kWh energy sales, using data aggregated by 
customer class and by state. The final determination analysis used the 
data for 2018, with prices adjusted to 2019$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Available at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 
average state-level electricity prices by a projection of annual change 
in regional electricity prices in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 
(``AEO2020''), which has an end year of 2050.\17\ AEO2020 includes 
price projections by Census regions, which were used for the analyses 
presented herein. To estimate future electricity prices, DOE uses the 
price index for the Census region corresponding to each state. To 
estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of 
change in prices from 2040 through 2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2020 with Projections to 2050. 
2020. Washington, DC. (#AEO2020). Available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE did not receive any comments on the energy prices used in the 
October 2019 NOPD. The final determination methodology for developing 
energy prices is the same as the October 2019 NOPD methodology. DOE 
used the most current data available for the final determination 
analyses. DOE updated base year electricity prices from 2017 to 2018, 
future price trends from EIA AEO2019 to AEO2020 projections, and the 
dollar year from 2018$ to 2019$.
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    Repair costs are associated with repairing or replacing product 
components that have failed in an appliance; maintenance costs are 
associated with maintaining the operation of the product. Typically, 
small incremental increases in product efficiency produce no, or only 
minor, changes in repair and maintenance costs compared to baseline 
efficiency products. In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE modeled ballasts as 
not being repaired, and maintenance costs as lamp replacement costs 
only. 84 FR 56540, 56570. DOE received no comments on maintenance and 
repair costs. In this final determination, DOE treated ballasts as not 
repaired and maintenance as limited to lamp replacement.
6. Product Lifetime
    For the October 2019 NOPD, DOE used a 12.5-year average lifetime 
for the commercial sector installations, 11.4-year average lifetime for 
industrial sector installations, a 12.5-year average lifetime for 
outdoor lighting, and a 15-year life for the residential sector. In the 
October 2019 NOPD, DOE explained that combining DOE's estimate of 
50,000 hours from the FLB Framework Document and the average operating 
hours developed for the NOPD yielded average ballast lifetimes of 16.6 
years and 11.4 years, for commercial and industrial installations, 
respectively. However, 16.6 years is significantly longer than the 
lifetime of commercial ballasts used in the 2011 Ballast Rule. 84 FR 
56540, 56569-56570. For the 2011 Ballast Rule, DOE used 12.5 years. 
While preparing the October 2019 NOPD, DOE found no literature 
confirming a 16.6-year product lifetime and focused instead on 
searching for evidence contradicting the lifetime of 12.5 years. No 
such evidence was identified. For the October 2019 NOPD,

[[Page 81575]]

DOE assumed commercial ballasts would have a 12.5-year average lifetime 
which, when multiplied by the average commercial sector operating hours 
per year, yields a lifetime of approximately 38,000 hours. 84 FR 56540, 
56570. DOE received no comments on product lifetime. In this final 
determination, DOE has retained the product lifetimes expressed in 
years from the October 2019 NOPD.
7. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to commercial, industrial, and residential consumers to estimate the 
present value of future operating costs. DOE estimated a distribution 
of discount rates for fluorescent lamp ballasts based on the cost of 
capital of publicly traded firms in the sectors that purchase 
fluorescent lamp ballasts.
    As part of its analysis, DOE also applies weighted average discount 
rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than 
marginal or implicit discount rates.\18\ DOE notes that the LCC does 
not analyze the product purchase decision, so the implicit discount 
rate is not relevant in this model. The LCC estimates net present value 
over the lifetime of the product, so the appropriate discount rate will 
reflect the general opportunity cost of household or business funds, 
taking this time scale into account. Given the long-time frame modeled 
in the LCC, the application of a marginal interest rate associated with 
an initial source of funds is inaccurate. Regardless of the method of 
purchase, consumers are expected to continue to rebalance their debt 
and asset holdings over the LCC analysis period, based on the 
restrictions consumers face in their debt payment requirements and the 
relative size of the interest rates available on debts and assets. DOE 
estimates the aggregate effect of this rebalancing using the historical 
distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: Transaction costs, risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty, time preferences, and interest rates at 
which a consumer is able to borrow or lend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \19\ 
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2016. Using 
the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates for 
each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates that 
may apply in the year in which amended standards would take effect. In 
the Crystal Ball\TM\ analyses, for each of the 10,000 simulations, the 
model selects an income group and then selects a discount rate from the 
distribution for that group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of 
Consumer Finances. Available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/scfindex.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For commercial and industrial consumers, DOE used the cost of 
capital to estimate the present value of cash flows to be derived from 
a typical company project or investment. Most companies use both debt 
and equity capital to fund investments, so the cost of capital is the 
weighted-average cost to the firm of equity and debt financing. This 
corporate finance approach is referred to as the weighted-average cost 
of capital. DOE used currently available economic data in developing 
discount rates. See chapter 8 of the final determination TSD for 
details on the development of consumer discount rates.
    DOE described the discount rate calculations in the October 2019 
NOPD and the accompanying TSD chapter 8 and appendix 8D. 84 FR 56540, 
56570-56571. DOE received no comments on the discount rate 
calculations. For the final determination, DOE used the same 
methodologies as used for the October 2019 NOPD. The residential 
discount rate and commercial discount rate calculations were updated to 
include more current input data from the Federal Reserve and Damodaran 
Online. The commercial discount rate update includes use of Damodaran 
Online data disaggregated by industry sector, and current as of the end 
of 2019.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected 
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended energy conservation 
standards) in the compliance year.
    To estimate the energy efficiency distribution of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts for 2023, DOE analyzed the distribution of ballasts in the 
databases used in the engineering analysis. For the non-dimming 
ballasts, the main source of information is the DOE compliance 
certification database.\20\ For non-dimming ballasts, DOE relied on 
product offerings in manufacturer catalogs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE described the energy efficiency distribution in the October 
2019 NOPD TSD chapter 8. 84 FR 56540, 56571. DOE received no comments 
on the NOPD energy efficiency distribution. DOE used the same 
distribution in the final determination. See chapter 8 of the final 
determination TSD for the estimated efficiency distributions.
9. Payback Period Analysis
    The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the 
additional installed cost of more-efficient products, compared to 
baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback periods are 
expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of the product 
mean that the increased total installed cost is not recovered in 
reduced operating expenses.
    The inputs to the simple PBP calculation for each efficiency level 
are the change in total installed cost of the product and the change in 
the first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. 
The PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 
that discount rates are not needed.

H. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on 
energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\21\ The shipments 
model takes an accounting approach in tracking market shares of each 
product class and the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting 
uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of 
in-service product stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-
service product stocks is a key input to calculations of both the NES 
and NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age 
distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE modeled four declining shipment 
scenarios. 84 FR 56540, 56572-56573. DOE received written comments 
supporting the projection of declining

[[Page 81576]]

shipments. CA IOUs, Lutron, and NEMA all stated that there is an 
ongoing and continual decline in shipments of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2; Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2; NEMA, No. 
24 at p. 2)
    Both Signify and NEMA also provided data in comments related to the 
shipment volume. Signify stated that the current (2019) fluorescent 
lamp ballast market may be only 15 percent of the total shipments in 
2011. (Signify, No. 27 at p. 2) NEMA provided a figure indexed to 2015 
indicating the 2019 volume was roughly 30 percent the volume of 2015 
shipments. (NEMA, No. 24 at pp. 4, Fluorescent Driver Index graph)
    In this final determination, DOE continued to rely on projections 
of declining shipments but calibrated the volume of shipments by 
reducing the volume of shipments per comments received. In the October 
2019 NOPD, DOE modeled four shipment scenarios and DOE retained those 
scenarios for this final.
    (1) Scenario #1--declining shipments that all terminate in 2024.
    (2) Scenario #2--declining shipments that all terminate in 2040.
    (3) Scenario #3--declining shipments that approach zero near the 
end of the analysis period (2052). This scenario is close to a year-
over-year linear reduction of shipments by 20 percent.
    (4) Scenario #4--declining shipments that terminate near the end of 
the analysis period. This scenario is based on a slower decline rate in 
the initial part of the analysis period and is similar to a projected 
decline in fluorescent lamps. See 84 FR 56540, 56572.
    DOE presented in the October 2019 NOPD results under each of the 
four scenarios but relied on scenario #3 as the reference case. 84 FR 
56540, 56572. DOE requested comment in the October 2019 NOPD about 
whether the shipment scenarios were reasonable and likely to occur. Id. 
at 84 FR 56574. DOE also requested comment on which of the four 
scenarios best characterize future shipments of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts. Id.
    NEMA stated that any shipment scenario that includes a near-20 
percent rate of decline is useful for estimations/modeling. (NEMA, No. 
24 at p. 5)
    Dimming ballasts were included in the shipment scenarios. DOE 
requested comment regarding the rate of decline for dimming ballast 
shipments as compared to non-dimming ballasts. 84 FR 56540, 56574. NEMA 
provided general information about the cost of dimming ballasts stating 
they involve more complex circuitry and tend to sell at a higher price 
than fixed output ballasts. NEMA stated that logically the higher price 
would equate to a higher rate of decline based on competition with LED 
technology. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 4) NEMA stated that that the demand for 
dimming ballasts is declining faster than the decline for fluorescent 
lamps. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 2) NEMA stated that the dimming ballast 
shipment scenario appears accurate. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 5) Therefore, 
DOE utilized a similar declining shipment scenario for dimming ballasts 
in the 2019 NOPD and this final determination.

I. National Impact Analysis

    DOE conducted a NIA in the October 2019 NOPD. 84 FR 56540, 56574-
56576. The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective 
of total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result 
from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\22\ 
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the product being 
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard 
levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments, 
along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data 
from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE 
projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs, 
and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts sold from 2023 through 2052.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the effects of amended standards by comparing a case 
without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-new-
standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
product class in the absence of amended energy conservation standards. 
For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in efficiency and 
various forces that are likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over 
time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections 
characterizing the market for each product class if DOE adopted amended 
standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the ELs or 
standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE considers 
how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of products 
with efficiencies greater than the standard.
    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and 
the national consumer costs and savings from each EL. Interested 
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities 
within the spreadsheet.\23\ The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical 
values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The spreadsheet is in the docket and can be found at 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV.13 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the final determination. Discussion of these inputs and 
methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the final determination 
TSD for further details.

   Table IV.13--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments..............................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                          model.
Compliance Date of Standard............  2023.
Efficiency Trends......................  No-new-standards case, Standard
                                          cases.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit.....  Annual weighted-average values
                                          are a function of energy use
                                          at each EL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit..........  Annual weighted-average values
                                          are a function of cost at each
                                          EL. Incorporates projection of
                                          future product prices based on
                                          historical data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit............  Annual weighted-average values
                                          as a function of the annual
                                          energy consumption per unit
                                          and energy prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit...  Annual values do not change
                                          with efficiency level.
Energy Price Trends....................  AEO2020 projections (to 2050)
                                          and extrapolation thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC           A time-series conversion factor
 Conversion.                              based on AEO2020.
Discount Rate..........................  Three and seven percent.
Present Year...........................  2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA stated that in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule the difference in 
energy savings between the two TSLs with the highest efficiency levels 
was negligible, the increase in net benefit to the country was trivial, 
and the capital conversion costs for manufacturers were significant 
indicating fluorescent lamp ballasts are already very efficient and 
additional energy savings not needed.\24\ (NEMA,

[[Page 81577]]

No. 24 at p. 2) Similarly Lutron stated energy savings are small and 
supported DOE's net present value conclusion. (Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2) 
No stakeholder input was received related to different methods or 
additional data sets. The final determination NIA methodology was 
consistent with the October 2019 NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For context, in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule, DOE evaluated 
trial standard levels (``TSLs'') 3A and 3B. TSL 3A represented 
energy conservation standards at the maximum technologically 
feasible level for all product classes except for residential and 8-
foot HO IS/RS product classes; and TSL 3B represented the maximum 
technologically feasible level for all product classes. 76 FR 70547, 
70596. The difference in NPV between 3Aand 3B rounded to 1 percent 
at a 7 percent discount rate and rounded to 0 percent at a 3 percent 
discount rate. The impact on industrial net present value was a 
decrease of $33 million between 3A and 3B, or a decrease of 4.4 
percent relative to the no-new-standards base. 76 FR 70547, 70620.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards 
cases. Section IV.G.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an 
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which 
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the 
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with 
an amended or new standard.
    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective (2023). In this scenario, the market 
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the 
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the amended 
standard level, and the market share of products above the standard 
would remain unchanged.
    DOE has included within the NIA model a standards-induced shift 
scenario in which if EL 1 is selected, 25 percent of the consumers 
would migrate to a new LED technology. If EL 2 is selected, 50 percent 
of the consumers would migrate to a new LED technology, and if EL 3 is 
selected, 75 percent of the consumers would migrate to a new LED 
technology. Within the NIA model, the percentage of customers migrating 
away is not fixed and can be changed by the user.
    Within DOE's standard-induced shift away from a FLB scenario, DOE 
modeled the shift to occur at different increments at each EL and not 
at a specific PBP or specific increase in FLB price. The PBPs vary for 
all of the product classes and ballasts. The potential cost 
differential between the baseline ballast and a more efficient EL 
ballast varies across the products classes as well.
    In the October 2019 NOPD, DOE requested comment about the 
following: (1) The percentage of customers that might migrate away from 
FLB technology, (2) the specific incremental cost that could trigger a 
standards-induced shift away from fluorescent lamp ballasts, (3) the 
approach for input power and price for LED devices considered in a 
standards-induced shift, (4) any potential impediments that would 
prevent users of fluorescent lamp ballasts from switching to LED 
lighting to garner additional energy savings, and (5) the expected 
effect of potential standards on the rate at which FLB consumers 
transition to non-FLB technology. 84 FR 56540, 56575. NEMA cited a lack 
of firsthand knowledge on the subjects. NEMA postulated the shift could 
be driven from amortization of current investments, LED conversion 
initial cost, and the role of TLEDs in the industry. Specifically, NEMA 
stated that TLEDs are compatible with most fixed-output fluorescent 
ballasts, though less so with dimming ballasts. NEMA also stated that 
low operating hours of an installation may decrease the incentive to 
switch to LED lighting. NEMA was not knowledgeable about the percentage 
of installations shifting to LED but noted the shift was occurring with 
any light source. (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 6) With no comments providing any 
additional data or suggestions for the modeling approach, for the final 
determination, DOE calculated product efficiency trends consistently 
with the October 2019 NOPD.
    Chapter 10 of the final determination TSD provides details on DOE's 
NIA for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
2. National Energy Savings
    The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy 
consumption of the considered products between each potential standards 
case (i.e., an EL) and the case with no amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by 
multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product (by vintage or 
age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated 
annual NES based on the difference in national energy consumption for 
the no-new-standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. 
DOE estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and 
converted the electricity consumption and savings to source energy 
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site 
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO2020. 
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the 
timeframe of the analysis.
    Use of higher-efficiency products is occasionally associated with a 
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of 
the product due to the increase in efficiency. As discussed in Table 
IV.12, DOE did not find rebound present in the FLB market and therefore 
was not included in the NIA.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and 
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and 
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a 
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination 
that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most 
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for 
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, 
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \25\ 
that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors 
incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural 
gas (including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to 
produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The 
approach used generally for deriving FFC measures of energy use and 
emissions is described in chapter 10 of the final determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009. 
Available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/nems/overview/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The calculations of energy savings are consistent with the October 
2019 NOPD calculations with updates to energy prices, costs, and 
shipments described in IV.G and IV.H of this document.
3. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), 
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between 
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total 
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. 
DOE calculates operating cost

[[Page 81578]]

savings over the lifetime of each product shipped during the projection 
period.
    As discussed in section IV.G of this document, DOE developed FLB 
price trends based on electronic ballasts. By 2052, which is the end 
date of the projection period, the average FLB price is projected to 
drop 4.5 percent relative to 2016. DOE's projection of product prices 
is described in appendix 8C of the final determination TSD. Consistent 
with the October 2019 NOPD, for this final determination, DOE excluded 
price trends from the consumer costs of fluorescent lamp ballasts used 
in the NIA.
    The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are 
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the 
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy 
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy 
prices by the projection of annual national-average energy price 
changes in the Reference case from AEO2020, which has an end year of 
2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual 
rate of change in prices from 2040 through 2050.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
final determination, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using 
both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these 
discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development 
of regulatory analysis.\26\ The discount rates for the determination of 
NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, 
which are designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent 
real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to 
private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value 
represents the ``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at 
which society discounts future consumption flows to their present 
value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No stakeholder input was received that suggested either a different 
methodology or additional data sets. In the final determination NIA 
methodology was consistent with the October 2019 NOPD.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of potential 
amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of fluorescent 
lamp ballasts. DOE relied on the GRIM, an industry cash flow model with 
inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on 
the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments, 
manufacturer markups, and investments in research and development 
(``R&D'') and manufacturing capital required to produce compliant 
products. The key GRIM outputs are the industry net present value 
(``INPV''), which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the 
analysis period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of 
capital, and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The GRIM 
calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles and compares 
changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each standards 
case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards case and a 
standards case represents the financial impact of the amended energy 
conservation standard on manufacturers.
    To capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing 
strategies following amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of 
possible impacts under different markup scenarios.
    DOE created initial estimates for the industry financial inputs 
used in the GRIM (e.g., tax rate; working capital rate; net property 
plant and equipment expenses; selling, general, and administrative 
(``SG&A'') expenses; R&D expenses; depreciation expenses; capital 
expenditures; and industry discount rate) based on publicly available 
sources, such as company filings of form 10-K from the SEC or corporate 
annual reports.\27\ DOE then further calibrated these initial estimates 
during manufacturer interviews to arrive at the final estimates used in 
the GRIM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 10-Ks are collected from the SEC's EDGAR database: https://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml or from annual financial reports collected 
from individual company websites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GRIM uses several factors to determine a series of annual cash 
flows starting with the announcement of potential standards and 
extending over a 30-year period following the compliance date of 
potential standards. These factors include annual expected revenues, 
costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. 
In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash 
flow in three distinct ways: (1) Creating a need for increased 
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering 
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.
    The GRIM spreadsheet uses inputs to arrive at a series of annual 
cash flows, beginning in 2020 (the reference year of the analysis) and 
continuing to 2052. DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of 
annual discounted cash flows during this period. DOE used a real 
discount rate of 9.6 percent for FLB manufacturers. This initial 
discount rate estimate was derived using the capital asset pricing 
model in conjunction with publicly available information (e.g., 10-year 
treasury rates of return and company specific betas). DOE then 
confirmed this initial estimate during manufacturer interviews. 
Additional details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other 
financial parameters can be found in chapter 11 of the final 
determination TSD.
2. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficient fluorescent lamp ballasts is typically 
more expensive because of the use of more complex components, which are 
typically more costly than baseline components. The changes in the MPCs 
of covered products can affect the revenues, gross margins, and cash 
flow of the industry. Typically, DOE develops MPCs for the covered 
products using reverse-engineering. These costs are used as an input to 
the LCC analysis and NIA. However, because ballasts are difficult to 
reverse-engineer, DOE directly derived end-user prices in the 
engineering analysis and then used the end-user prices in conjunction 
with markups to calculate the MPCs of fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE 
used the same end-user prices in this final determination that were 
used in the proposed determination, however, DOE updated the prices to 
2019$. See IV.E for a further explanation of product price 
determination.
    To determine MPCs of fluorescent lamp ballasts from the wholesale 
prices calculated in the engineering analysis, DOE divided the 
wholesale prices by the wholesaler markup to calculate the MSP. DOE 
then divided the MSP by the manufacturer markup to get the MPCs. DOE 
determined the wholesaler markup to be 1.23 and the manufacturer markup 
to be 1.40 for all fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE used the same markups 
in this final determination that were used in the proposed 
determination. Markups are further described in section IV.J.5 of this 
document.

[[Page 81579]]

3. Shipments Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by EL. 
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 projections from shipments scenario #3 (reference 
case, see section IV.H) starting in 2020 (the reference year) and 
ending in 2052 (the end year of the analysis period). DOE updated the 
shipment analysis for the final determination (see section IV.H). The 
GRIM uses these updated shipments as part of the final determination 
MIA. See chapter 9 of the final determination TSD for additional 
shipment details.
4. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    Potential amended energy conservation standards could cause 
manufacturers to incur conversion costs to bring their production 
facilities and equipment designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the 
level of conversion-related expenditures that would be needed to comply 
with each considered EL in each product class. 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 amended energy conservation standards. Capital conversion costs 
are investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or 
change existing production facilities such that new compliant product 
designs can be fabricated and assembled.
    To evaluate the level of capital conversion costs manufacturers 
would likely incur to comply with the analyzed energy conservation 
standards, DOE used data from the 2011 FL Ballast Rule to estimate 
costs to update manufacturer production lines by product class. DOE 
then estimated the number of production lines currently in existence 
and the number of production lines that would be required to be updated 
at each analyzed EL using DOE's compliance certification database. DOE 
then multiplied these numbers together (i.e., capital conversion costs 
per production line and number of production lines that would need to 
be updated) to get the final estimated capital conversion costs for 
each product class at each analyzed EL. To evaluate the level of 
product conversion costs manufacturers would likely incur to comply 
with the analyzed energy conservation standards, DOE used data from the 
2011 FL Ballast Rule to estimate per model R&D and testing and 
certification costs for each product class and EL. DOE then estimated 
the number of models that would need to be redesigned for each product 
class at each analyzed EL. DOE then multiplied these numbers together 
to get the final estimated product conversion costs for each product 
class at each analyzed EL. DOE used the same conversion cost estimates 
in this final determination that were used in the proposed 
determination; however, DOE updated the conversion cost estimates to 
2019$.
    In general, DOE assumes all conversion-related investments occur 
between the announcement of a potential energy conservation standard 
(i.e., the publication of the final rule) and the year by which 
manufacturers must comply with the potential amended standards. The 
conversion cost figures used in the GRIM can be found in Table V.6 and 
Table V.7 of this document. For additional information on the estimated 
capital and product conversion costs, see chapter 11 of the final 
determination TSD.
    DOE received comments related to manufacturers' willingness to make 
investments related to fluorescent lamp ballasts. Lutron stated it is 
not making investments to create new fluorescent lamp ballast products 
or improving existing ones. (Lutron, No. 23 at p. 2) Similarly, NEMA 
stated no NEMA manufacturer is investing in fluorescent lamp ballast 
technology and changes to standards will lead discontinuation of 
products rather than new investment to meet potential energy 
conservation standards. NEMA added that product R&D in this area has 
shifted to LED technology (i.e., LED drivers). (NEMA, No. 24 at p. 2)
    DOE understands that fluorescent lamp ballasts are a declining 
lighting technology and that most manufacturers are focused on products 
that utilize LED technology. However, DOE estimated the conversion 
costs necessary for manufacturers to produce the quantity of 
fluorescent lamp ballasts projected in the shipment analysis. As stated 
previously these industry conversion cost estimates are displayed in 
Table V.6 and Table V.7 of this document.
5. Markup Scenarios
    To calculate the MPCs used in the GRIM, DOE divided the wholesaler 
prices calculated in the engineering analysis by the wholesaler markup 
and the manufacturer markup. The wholesaler markup was calculated in 
the 2011 FL Ballast Rule by reviewing SEC 10-K reports of electrical 
wholesalers. DOE also coordinated with the National Association of 
Electrical Distributors by contacting two representative electrical 
wholesalers, who confirmed that DOE's calculated markups were 
consistent with their actual ballast markups. DOE continued to use a 
wholesaler markup of 1.23 in this final determination.
    The manufacturer markup accounts for the non-production costs 
(i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest) along with profit. Modifying the 
manufacturer markup in the standards case yields different sets of 
impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled two standards-case 
markup scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding the potential 
impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers following the 
implementation of analyzed energy conservation standards: (1) A 
preservation of gross margin percentage markup scenario and (2) a 
preservation of operating profit markup scenario. These scenarios lead 
to different manufacturer markup values that, when applied to the MPCs, 
result in varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
    Under the preservation of gross margin percentage scenario, DOE 
applied a single uniform ``gross margin percentage'' markup across all 
ELs, which assumes that manufacturers would be able to maintain the 
same amount of profit as a percentage of revenues at all ELs within a 
product class. To calculate the preservation of gross margin markup, 
DOE took the manufacturer markup used in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule and 
compared it to the manufacturer markups calculated by examining the SEC 
10-Ks of all publicly traded FLB manufacturers and confirmed this with 
manufacturers during interviews. DOE determined that the manufacturer 
markup used in the 2011 FL Ballast Rule was consistent with the current 
SEC 10-Ks of the publicly traded FLB manufacturers and most 
manufacturers agreed during manufacturer interviews. Therefore, DOE 
used 1.40 as the manufacturer markup in the preservation of gross 
margin markup scenario. DOE assumes that this markup scenario 
represents the upper bound to industry profitability under analyzed 
energy conservation standards.
    Under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario, DOE 
modeled a situation in which manufacturers are not able to increase 
operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production 
costs. Under this scenario, as the cost of production increases, 
manufacturers are generally required to

[[Page 81580]]

reduce the manufacturer markups to maintain cost competitive offerings 
in the market. Therefore, gross margin (as a percentage) shrinks in the 
standards cases in this markup scenario. This markup scenario 
represents the lower bound to industry profitability under amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE used the same manufacturer markups 
in this final determination that were used in the proposed 
determination.
    DOE did not receive comment on the markup scenarios and continued 
with the approach as presented in the October 2019 NOPD. A comparison 
of industry financial impacts under the two manufacturer markup 
scenarios is presented in section V.A.3.a of this document.
6. Manufacturer Interviews
    Prior to the publication of the October 2019 NOPD, DOE interviewed 
manufacturers of fluorescent lamp ballasts and asked them to describe 
their major concerns regarding a potential rulemaking to amend the 
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. Major areas of concerns 
identified in manufacturer interviews were discussed in the October 
2019 NOPD. 84 FR 56540, 56578. DOE considered the information received 
during these interviews in the development of the NOPD and this final 
determination as discussed in the October 2019 NOPD. See id.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts. It addresses the ELs examined by DOE, and 
the projected impacts of each of these levels. Additional details 
regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the final determination TSD 
supporting this document.

A. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on FLB consumers by looking at 
the effects that potential amended standards at each EL would have on 
the LCC and PBP. DOE usually evaluates the LCC impacts of potential 
standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 
disproportionately by a national standard. However, given the negative 
NPV at each EL and the conclusion discussed in section V.B.2, DOE did 
not conduct a consumer subgroup analysis for this final determination.
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs) and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Table V.1 shows the LCC and 
PBP results for the ELs considered for fluorescent lamp ballasts.

  Table V.1--Average LCC and PBP Results for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            LCC savings   Simple payback
           Efficiency  level *                 2019$       period years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................               0              12
EL 2....................................               1              10
EL 3....................................               1              10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all
  consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured
  relative to the baseline product.

2. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the NES and the NPV of 
consumer impacts that would result from each of the ELs considered as 
potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts, DOE compared their energy 
consumption under the no-new-standards case to their anticipated energy 
consumption under each EL. The savings are measured over the entire 
lifetime of products purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
year of anticipated compliance with amended standards (2023-2052). 
Table V.2 presents DOE's projections of the NES for each EL considered 
for fluorescent lamp ballasts for reference shipment scenario 3 (see 
IV.H). Results of all shipment scenarios are provided in chapter 10 of 
the final determination TSD. The savings were calculated using the 
approach described in section IV.I.2 of this document.

   Table V.2--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Fluorescent Lamp
               Ballasts; 30 Years of Shipments (2023-2052)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Efficiency level
                                                 -----------------------
                                                           Quads
                                                 -----------------------
                                                     1       2       3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site energy.....................................   0.009   0.026   0.032
Source energy...................................   0.023   0.069   0.086
FFC energy......................................   0.024   0.072   0.090
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \28\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 
years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\29\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to fluorescent lamp ballasts. Thus, 
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not 
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES 
sensitivity analysis results based on a 9-year analytical period are 
presented in Table V.3 for reference shipment scenario 3 (see section 
IV.H). The impacts are counted over the lifetime of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts urchased in 2023-2031.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
    \29\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards 
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before 
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards 
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous 
standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews 
at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance 
date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may 
not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing 
of standards reviews and the fact that for some products, the 
compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

[[Page 81581]]



   Table V.3--Cumulative National Energy Savings for Fluorescent Lamp
               Ballasts; 9 Years of Shipments (2023-2031)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Efficiency level
                                  --------------------------------------
                                                   Quads
                                  --------------------------------------
                                        1            2            3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site energy......................        0.006        0.017        0.022
Source energy....................        0.015        0.045        0.058
FFC energy.......................        0.016        0.047        0.061
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the ELs considered for fluorescent 
lamp ballasts. In accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory 
analysis,\30\ DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent 
real discount rate. Table V.4 shows the consumer NPV results with 
impacts counted over the lifetime of products purchased in 2023-2052 
for reference shipment scenario 3 (see section IV.H). Results of all 
shipment scenarios are provided in chapter 10 of the final 
determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.

     Table V.4--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts; 30 Years of
                                              Shipments (2023-2052)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Efficiency level
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              billion 2019$
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 1                  2                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent..............................................            (0.077)            (0.053)            (0.098)
7 percent..............................................             (0.71)            (0.084)            (0.127)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period and reference shipment scenario (see section IV.H) are presented 
in Table V.5. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of products 
purchased in 2023-2031. As mentioned previously, such results are 
presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any 
change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision criteria.

Table V.5--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   (2023-2031)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Efficiency level
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              billion 2019$
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 1                  2                  3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent..............................................            (0.050)            (0.023)            (0.043)
7 percent..............................................            (0.053)            (0.059)            (0.087)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    In addition to the analysis conducted as required under 42 U.S.C. 
6395(m)(1)(A), DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of analyzed 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts. The following sections describe the expected impacts on 
fluorescent lamp manufacturers at each EL. Chapter 11 of the final 
determination TSD explains the analysis in further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    In this section, DOE provides the results from the MIA, which 
examines changes in the industry that would result from the analyzed 
standards. The following tables illustrate the estimated financial 
impacts (represented by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of fluorescent lamp ballasts, 
as well as the conversion costs that DOE estimates manufacturers of 
fluorescent lamp ballasts would incur at each EL.
    To evaluate the range of cash-flow impacts on the FLB industry, DOE 
modeled two markup scenarios that correspond to the range of 
anticipated market responses to potential standards. Each scenario 
results in a unique set of cash flows and corresponding industry values 
at each EL. In the following discussion, the INPV results refer to the 
difference in industry value between the no-new-standards case and the 
standards cases that result from the sum of discounted cash flows from 
the reference year (2020) through the end of the analysis period 
(2052).
    To assess the upper (less severe) end of the range of potential 
impacts on FLB manufacturers, DOE modeled a preservation of gross 
margin markup scenario. This scenario assumes that in the standards 
case, manufacturers would be able to pass along all the higher 
production costs required for more efficient products to their 
consumers. To assess the lower (more severe) end of the range of 
potential impacts, DOE modeled a preservation of

[[Page 81582]]

operating profit markup scenario. The preservation of operating profit 
markup scenario assumes that in the standards cases, manufacturers 
would be able to earn the same operating margin in absolute dollars as 
they would in the no-new-standards case.
    Table V.6 and Table V.7 present the results of the industry cash 
flow analysis for FLB manufacturers under the preservation of gross 
margin and preservation of operating profit markup scenarios, 
respectively. See chapter 11 of the final determination TSD for results 
of the complete industry cash flow analysis by product class.

  Table V.6--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for All Fluorescent Lamp Ballast--Preservation of Gross Margin Markup
                                                    Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No-new-
                                      Units       standards case       EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................  2019$ millions..           210.0           147.4            83.4            70.6
Change in INPV................  2019$ millions..  ..............          (62.6)         (126.6)         (139.5)
                                %...............  ..............          (29.8)          (60.3)          (66.4)
Product Conversion Costs......  2019$ millions..  ..............            69.2           132.9           147.7
Capital Conversion Costs......  2019$ millions..  ..............            17.5            33.2            35.9
Total Conversion Costs........  2019$ millions..  ..............            86.7           166.2           183.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table V.7--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for All Fluorescent Lamp Ballast--Preservation of Operating Profit
                                                 Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No-new-
                                      Units       standards case       EL 1            EL 2            EL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV..........................  2019$ millions..           210.0           144.3            76.4            61.0
Change in INPV................  2019$ millions..  ..............          (65.7)         (133.7)         (149.0)
                                %...............  ..............          (31.3)          (63.6)          (70.9)
Product Conversion Costs......  2019$ millions..  ..............            69.2           132.9           147.7
Capital Conversion Costs......  2019$ millions..  ..............            17.5            33.2            35.9
Total Conversion Costs........  2019$ millions..  ..............            86.7           166.2           183.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    DOE typically presents quantitative estimates of the potential 
changes in production employment that could result from the analyzed 
energy conservation standard levels. However, for this final 
determination, DOE determined that no manufacturers have domestic FLB 
production. Therefore, this determination would not have a significant 
impact on domestic employment in the FLB industry.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    DOE does not anticipate any significant capacity constraints at any 
of the analyzed energy conservation standards. The more efficient 
components are currently being used in existing FLB models and 
worldwide supply would most likely be able to meet the increase in 
demand given the 3-year compliance period for any potential energy 
conservation standards.
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    Using average cost assumptions to develop an industry cash-flow 
estimate may not be adequate for assessing differential impacts among 
manufacturer subgroups. Small manufacturers, niche equipment 
manufacturers, and manufacturers exhibiting cost structures 
substantially different from the industry average could be affected 
disproportionately. DOE only identified one manufacturer subgroup for 
fluorescent lamp ballasts, small manufacturers. Given that DOE is 
issuing this final determination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1) and 
given the conclusion discussed in section V.B, DOE did not conduct a 
manufacturer subgroup analysis on small business manufacturers for this 
final determination.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product. While any one regulation may not 
impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of 
several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences 
for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. 
Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this 
cumulative regulatory burden. 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 typically conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings proposing new 
or amended energy conservation standards. However, given the conclusion 
discussed in section V.A.3, DOE did not conduct a cumulative regulatory 
burden analysis.

B. Final Determination

    As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzes whether 
amended standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts would result in 
significant conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and be 
cost-effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Any 
new or amended standards issued by the Secretary would be required to 
comply with the economic justification and other requirements of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o). In addition to these criteria, DOE also estimated the 
impact on manufacturers. The criteria considered under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(1)(A) and the additional analysis are discussed below. Because 
an analysis of cost effectiveness and

[[Page 81583]]

energy savings first require an evaluation of the relevant technology, 
DOE first discusses the technological feasibility of amended standards. 
DOE then addresses the cost effectiveness and energy savings associated 
with potential amended standards.
1. Technological Feasibility
    EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation 
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts would be technologically 
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has 
determined that there are technology options that would improve the 
efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts. These technology options are 
being used in commercially available fluorescent lamp ballasts and 
therefore are technologically feasible. (See section IV.C.2 for further 
information.) Hence, DOE has determined that new and amended energy 
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts are 
technologically feasible.
2. Cost Effectiveness
    EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards 
for fluorescent lamp ballasts would be cost effective through an 
evaluation of the savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered product compared to any increase in the 
price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, 
the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of 
the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducted an LCC analysis to estimate 
the net costs/benefits to users from increased efficiency in the 
considered fluorescent lamp ballasts. (See results in Table V.1).
    DOE then aggregated the results from the LCC analysis to estimate 
the NPV of the total costs and benefits experienced by the Nation. (See 
results in Table V.4.) As noted, the inputs for determining the NPV are 
(1) total annual installed cost, (2) total annual operating costs 
(energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), and (3) a discount 
factor to calculate the present value of costs and savings. DOE first 
considered the most efficient level, EL 3 (max-tech), which would 
result in negative NPV at a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. On 
the basis of negative NPV, DOE determined that EL 3 is not cost 
effective.
    DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 2, which 
would result in negative NPV at a 3-percent and 7-percent discount 
rate. On the basis of negative NPV, DOE determined that EL 2 is not 
cost effective.
    DOE then considered the next most efficient level, EL 1, which 
would result in negative NPV at a 3-percent and 7-percent discount 
rate. On the basis of negative NPV, DOE determined that EL 1 is not 
cost effective.
3. Significant Conservation of Energy
    EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy 
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts would result in 
significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(A)) As discussed, to determine whether energy savings 
is significant, DOE conducts a two-step approach that considers both an 
absolute site energy savings threshold and a threshold that is the 
percent reduction in the covered energy use. (See Section 6(b) of the 
Process Rule.) DOE first evaluates the projected energy savings from a 
potential max-tech standard over a 30-year period against a 0.3 quads 
of site energy threshold. (See Section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule.) If 
the 0.3 quad-threshold is not met, DOE then compares the max-tech 
savings to the total energy usage of fluorescent lamp ballast to 
calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage. (See Section 6(b)(3) 
of the Process Rule.) If this comparison does not yield a reduction in 
site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year period, the 
energy savings are deemed to not be significant. (See Section 6(b)(4) 
of the Process Rule.)
    DOE estimates that amended standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts 
would result in site energy savings of 0.009 quads at EL 1, 0.026 quads 
at EL 2, and 0.032 quads at EL 3 over a 30-year analysis period (2023-
2052). (See results in Table V.2.) Therefore, the projected energy 
savings from potential standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts do not 
meet the 0.3 quad of site energy threshold.
    DOE then determined that over the 30-year analysis period the 
percentage of reduction in energy use at the potential max-tech 
standard level compared to the total energy usage of fluorescent lamp 
ballasts was one percent. This does not yield a reduction in site 
energy use of at least 10 percent over a 30-year period.
    Because neither criterion for determining significant energy 
savings specified in Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule are met by the 
potential max-tech standard for fluorescent lamp ballasts, no 
significant energy savings will result from setting new or amended 
standards.
4. Other Analysis
    In this analysis, DOE also conducted an MIA to estimate the impact 
of potential energy conservation standards on manufacturers of 
fluorescent lamp ballasts. (See results in Table V.6 and Table V.7.) 
Each EL for all applicable product classes is estimated to result in 
FLB manufacturers experiencing a loss in INPV.
5. Summary
    In this final determination, based on the consideration of cost 
effectiveness and significant energy savings, DOE is not amending 
energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    This final determination has been determined to be not significant 
for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning 
and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993) and E.O. 13563, a supplement 
to E.O. 12866, 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). As a result, OMB did not 
review this final determination.

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 
2017). E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be 
prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from 
both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to 
manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private 
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
    Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' 82 FR 12285 (Mar. 1, 
2017). E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency designate an agency 
official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (``RRO''). Each RRO oversees 
the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to 
ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, 
consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the 
establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory 
task force is required to make recommendations to the agency head 
regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing 
regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each 
regulatory reform task

[[Page 81584]]

force must attempt to identify regulations that:
    (1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
    (2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
    (3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
    (4) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
    (5) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality 
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those 
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or 
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently 
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
    (6) Derive from or implement Executive orders or other Presidential 
directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially 
modified.
    DOE concludes that this final determination is consistent with the 
directives set forth in these Executive orders.
    As discussed in this document, DOE is not amending the energy 
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. Therefore, this 
final determination is an E.O. 13771 other action.

C. 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'') 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and 
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of 
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the 
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website 
(http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this final determination under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on 
February 19, 2003. This final determination is not amending energy 
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. Therefore, DOE 
certifies that this final determination has no significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has 
not prepared a FRFA for this final determination. DOE will transmit 
this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for 
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of fluorescent lamp ballasts must certify to DOE that 
their products comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their 
products according to the DOE test procedures for fluorescent lamp 
ballasts, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. 
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping 
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial 
equipment, including fluorescent lamp ballasts. 76 FR 12422 (Mar. 7, 
2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to 
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). 
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated 
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    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.

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this final determination in accordance 
with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). 
DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion 
A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regards to an existing 
regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a 
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has 
determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the 
meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an 
environmental impact statement.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to 
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) 
clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies 
any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 
legal standard for affected conduct while promoting

[[Page 81585]]

simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light 
of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine 
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. 
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the 
extent permitted by law, this final determination meets the relevant 
standards of E.O. 12988.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at 
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    This final determination does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures 
of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. As a 
result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

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

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

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this final determination would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to 
review most disseminations of information to the public under 
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to 
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final determination under 
the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with 
applicable policies in those guidelines.

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a Statement of 
Energy Effects for any 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 
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.
    Because this final determination does not amend energy conservation 
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts, it is not a significant energy 
action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 
on this final determination.

M. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\31\ 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. 
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues 
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process 
for developing its determination in the case of the present rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at the following website: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this final determination prior to its

[[Page 81586]]

effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that 
the final determination is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

Signing Authority

    This document of the U.S. Department of Energy was signed on 
December 3, 2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from 
the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and 
date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the U.S. Department of Energy. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on December 4, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-27045 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>