81558 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

2All 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). 

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 morestringent 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: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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: 

Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov. 

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 NoNew-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 B1 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. 

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)) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81560 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

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 ∧¥C) Where A, B, and C are as follows: 

Description A B C 

Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as residential) that are designed and marketed to operate: ...................................................................................................................... 0.993 0.27 0.25 

4-foot medium bipin lamps. 

2-foot U-shaped lamps. 

8-foot slimline lamps. 

Programmed start ballasts (not classified as residential) that are designed and marketed to 

operate: .................................................................................................................................... 0.993 0.51 0.37 

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 ballasts) that are designed and 

marketed to operate 8-foot high output lamps ........................................................................ 0.993 0.38 0.25 

Programmed start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that are designed and marketed to 

operate 8-foot high output lamps ............................................................................................. 0.973 0.70 0.37 

Sign ballasts that are designed and marketed operate 8-foot high output lamps ...................... 0.993 0.47 0.25 

Instant start and rapid start residential ballasts that are designed and marketed operate: ....... 0.993 0.41 0.25 

4-foot medium bipin lamps. 

2-foot U-shaped lamps. 

8-foot slimline lamps. 

Programmed start residential ballasts that are designed and marketed to operate: .................. 0.973 0.71 0.37 

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

Organization(s) Reference in this 

final determination Organization type 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern 

California Edison (SCE).

CA IOUs ................ Utilities. 

Signify North America Corporation ........................................................................................................... Signify ................... Manufacturer. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association ......................................................................................... NEMA .................... Trade Association. 

Lutron Electronics Co., Inc ....................................................................................................................... Lutron .................... Manufacturer. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81561 

3The 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). 

TABLE II.2—OCTOBER 2019 NOPD WRITTEN COMMENTS—Continued 

Organization(s) Reference in this 

final determination Organization type 

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

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81562 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

4 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that 

considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year 

period. 

5The 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). 

(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 nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of 

energy consumption that reflects how 

the market for a product would likely 

evolve in the absence of amended 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81563 

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)) 

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=EERE2015-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)) 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81564 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

7See 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.’’) 

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. 

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 naturallyoccurring 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81565 

8Specifically, 4-foot MBP lamps, 2-foot U-shaped 

lamps, 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps, and 4-foot MiniBP 

HO lamps. 

9American 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. 

F34T12, two F96T12/ES, or two 

F96T12HO/ES lamps; (2) a lowfrequency ballast that is designed and 

marketed to operate T8 diameter lamps, 

is designed and marketed for use in 

electromagnetic interference-sensitiveenvironments 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 lowcurrent 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. 

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): 

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 performancerelated 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER16DE20.000</GPH>
81566 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

10US20110018666A1, Multiple coils fluorescent 

lamp ballast. April 1, 2008. Available at https://

patents.google.com/patent/US20110018666. 

11US20110018666A1, Multiple coils fluorescent 

lamp ballast. April 1, 2008. Available at https://

patents.google.com/patent/US20110018666. 

(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 

Electronic ballast Use an 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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-tosource 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 reverseengineering 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 nonrepresentative 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 lampand-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 highvolume 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81568 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

12Operating 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.2—REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES AND REPRESENTATIVE BALLAST TYPES—Continued 

Product class description * Representative ballast type(s) 

• 4-foot MBP. 

• 2-foot U-shaped. 

• 4-foot MiniBP SO. 

• 4-foot MiniBP HO. 

• 8-foot SP slimline lamps. 

PS Commercial 

PS Commercial ballasts that operate: 

• 4-foot MBP 

• 2-foot U-shaped 

• 4-foot T5 SO 

• 4-foot T5 HO lamps 

2L 4-foot MBP, 4L 4-foot MBP, 2L 4-foot MiniBP SO, 2L 4-foot MiniBP 

HO. 

IS/RS 8-foot HO 

IS/RS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps 2L 8-foot recessed double contact (RDC) HO. 

PS 8-foot HO 

PS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps ............................................... N/A. 

Sign 

Sign ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps ............................................. 4L 8-foot RDC HO. 

IS/RS Residential 

IS/RS Residential ballasts that operate: 2L 4-foot MBP. 

• 4-foot MBP. 

• 2-foot U-shaped. 

• 4-foot MiniBP SO. 

• 4-foot MiniBP HO. 

• 8-foot SP slimline lamps. 

PS Residential 

PS Residential ballasts that operate: N/A. 

• 4-foot MBP. 

• 4-foot MiniBP SO. 

• 4-foot MiniBP HO. 

• 2-foot U-shaped. 

Dimming 

Dimming ballasts that operate: 

• 4-foot MBP. 

• 4-foot MiniBP SO. 

• 4-foot MiniBP HO. 

• 2-foot U-shaped. 

2L 4-foot MBP 0–10V, 2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 0–10 V, 2L 4-foot MiniBP 

HO 0–10 V. 

* 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. 

TABLE IV.3—BASELINE BALLASTS

Product class Ballast type Lamp type Starting 

method 

Input voltage/ 

operating 

voltage * 

(V) 

Power 

factor 

Ballast 

factor 

Input power 

(W) BLE 

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 slimline ......................... 59 W T8 ........ IS 277, Universal ... 0.98 0.88 109.2 0.920 

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 0–10V ............. 28 W T5 ........ PS 277, Universal ... 0.98 1.00 64.0 0.869 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81569 

TABLE IV.3—BASELINE BALLASTS—Continued 

Product class Ballast type Lamp type Starting 

method 

Input voltage/ 

operating 

voltage * 

(V) 

Power 

factor 

Ballast 

factor 

Input power 

(W) BLE 

2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0–10V ............. 54 W T5 ........ PS 277, Universal ... 0.98 1.00 118.0 0.912 

* 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: 

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

Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting 

method 

Input voltage/ 

operating 

voltage, 

(V)* 

Power 

factor 

Ballast 

factor 

Input 

power 

(W) 

BLE 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2ER16DE20.001</GPH>
81570 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.4—IS/RS COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVE UNITS—Continued 

Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting 

method 

Input voltage/ 

operating 

voltage, 

(V)* 

Power 

factor 

Ballast 

factor 

Input 

power 

(W) 

BLE 

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

Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting 

method 

Input voltage/ 

operating voltage 

(V *) 

Power 

factor 

Ballast 

factor 

Input 

power 

(W) 

BLE 

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

Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting 

method 

Input voltage/ 

operating voltage 

(V *) 

Power 

factor 

Ballast 

factor 

Input 

power 

(W) 

BLE 

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

Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting 

method 

Input voltage/ 

operating voltage 

(V *) 

Power 

factor 

Ballast 

factor ** 

Input 

power 

(W) 

BLE 

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

Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting 

method 

Input voltage/ 

operating voltage 

(V) * 

Power 

factor 

Ballast 

factor 

Input 

power 

(W) 

BLE 

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

Product class EL Ballast type Lamp type Starting 

method 

Input voltage/ 

operating voltage 

(V) * 

Power 

factor 

Ballast 

factor 

Input 

power 

(W) 

BLE 

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 0–10V .......... 28 W T5 PS 277, Universal ... 0.98 1.00 63.0 0.883 

2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0–10 V ......... 54 W T5 PS 277, Universal ... 0.98 1.00 118.0 0.912 

EL 2 2L 4-foot MBP 0–10V ** ................. .................. ........................... .................. .................. .................. ..................

2L 4-foot MiniBP SO 0–10V .......... 28W T5 PS 277, Universal ... 0.98 1.00 62.0 0.897 

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 0–10V .......... 28 W T5 PS 277, Universal ... 0.99 1.00 61.0 0.911 

2L 4-foot MiniBP HO 0–10V .......... 54 W T5 PS 277, Universal ... 0.98 1.00 115.9 0.928 

* 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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

Representative product class Efficiency 

level 

BLE = A / (1 + B * total lamp arc power¥C) 

where A, B, and C are as follows: 

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 nonrepresentative 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 nonrepresentative product classes. 

TABLE IV.11—SUMMARY OF ELS FOR NON-REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES

Non-representative product class Efficiency level 

BLE = A / (1 + B * total lamp arc power¥C) 

where A, B, and C are as follows: 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81572 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

13U.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-marketcharacterization. 

14Williams, 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-controlscommercial. 

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-andballast 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. 

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. 

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: 

• 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. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81573 

15Crystal BallTM 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). 

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 BallTM

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. 

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 † and the Federal Reserve Board. ‡ 

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/. 

† See the data page on Damodaran Online, http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar. 

‡ 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 refrigeratorfreezers 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81574 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

16Available at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/ 

data/state/. 

17U.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/. 

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-andballast 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$. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the average statelevel 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. 

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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81575 

18The 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. 

19Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. Survey of Consumer Finances. Available at 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/PUBS/oss/oss2/ 

scfindex.html. 

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

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. 

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 longtime 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. 

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 BallTM

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. 

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 nondimming ballasts, the main source of 

information is the DOE compliance 

certification database.20 For nondimming ballasts, DOE relied on 

product offerings in manufacturer 

catalogs. 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81576 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

22The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and U.S. territories. 

23The spreadsheet is in the docket and can be 

found at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006-0017. 

24For 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 

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. 

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. 

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-toPrimary and 

FFC Conversion.

A time-series conversion factor 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81577 

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. 

25For 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. 

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. 

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 standardsinduced 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 fixedoutput 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. 

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-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81578 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

26United 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. 

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. 

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. 

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-newstandards case and each standards case. 

The difference in INPV between the nonew-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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 conversionrelated 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81580 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

28U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4/. 

29Section 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. 

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

Efficiency 

level * 

LCC savings 

2019$ 

Simple payback 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-newstandards 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81581 

30U.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.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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81582 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Units 

No-newstandards 

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

Units 

No-newstandards 

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 costeffective. (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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81584 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 81585 

31The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0. 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
81586 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 242 / Wednesday, December 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2