70548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EE–2007–BT–STD–0016] 

RIN 1904–AB50 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

EPCA also requires the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) to determine whether 

any new or amended standards would 

be technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

final rule, DOE adopts new and 

amended federal energy conservation 

standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

It has determined that the new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for these products would result in 

significant conservation of energy, and 

are technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

January 13, 2012. Compliance with the 

new and amended standards established 

for fluorescent lamp ballasts in today’s 

final rule is required as of November 14, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available for review at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

Federal Register notices, framework 

documents, public meeting attendee 

lists and transcripts, comments, and 

other supporting documents/materials. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

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

buildings/appliance_standards/

residential/fluorescent_lamp_

ballasts.html. The regulations.gov 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 Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dr. Tina Kaarsberg, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1393. Email: 

Tina.Kaarsberg@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7796. Email: 

Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Ballast Efficacy Factor Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

for Which DOE Is Adopting Standards 

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement That DOE 

Consider Standards for Additional 

Ballasts 

2. Identification of the Additional Ballasts 

for Which DOE Establishes Standards 

3. Summary of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

to Which DOE Extends Coverage 

B. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy 

Consumption Standards 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

1. Background 

2. Transfer Function 

3. Reference Lamp 

4. Total Lamp Arc Power 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

V. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Product Classes 

1. Residential Ballasts 

2. Sign Ballasts 

3. Starting Method 

4. 8-Foot HO 

5. Summary 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. NOPR Approach 

2. Available Test Data 

3. NEMA-Provided and DOE BLE Data 

Comparison 

4. Accounting for Variation and 

Compliance Certification Requirements 

5. Efficiency Levels 

6. Representative Units 

7. Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed 

8. Manufacturer Selling Prices 

9. Results 

C. Markups To Determine Product Price 

1. Distribution Channels 

2. Estimation of Markups 

3. Summary of Markups 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Use 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Energy Price Projections 

6. Replacement and Disposal Costs 

7. Product Lifetime 

8. Discount Rates 

9. Compliance Date of Standards 

10. Ballast Purchasing Events 

F. National Impact Analysis–National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. Shipments 

2. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

G. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis 

H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

2. Markup Scenarios 

3. Other Key GRIM Inputs 

4. Other Comments From Interested Parties 

5. Manufacturer Interviews 

6. Sub-Group Impact Analysis 

I. Employment Impact Analysis 

J. Utility Impact Analysis 

K. Environmental Assessment 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

VI. Other Issues for Discussion 

A. Proposed Standard Levels in April 2011 

NOPR 

B. Universal Versus Dedicated Input 

Voltage 

C. Implementation of Adopted Standard 

Levels 

VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

3. National Impact Analysis 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

C. Conclusions 

1. Trial Standard Level 3B 

2. Trial Standard Level 3A 

D. Backsliding 

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Statement of the Need for, and 

Objectives of, the Rule 

2. Summary of and Responses to the 

Significant Issues Raised by the Public 

Comments, and a Statement of Any 

Changes Made as a Result of Such 

Comments 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70549 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2A lamp description in the form ‘‘T8’’ refers to 

a lamp that (1) is tubular (linear) and (2) has a 

diameter of 8 eighths of an inch (1 inch). 

3. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Impacts on 

Small Entities and Reasons Why Other 

Significant Alternatives to Today’s Final 

Rule Were Rejected. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA, any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE prescribes for certain 

products, such as fluorescent lamp 

ballasts (ballasts), shall be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the 

new or amended standard must result in 

a significant conservation of energy. (42 

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

these and other statutory provisions 

discussed in this notice, DOE adopts 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards for ballasts. The new and 

amended standards, which are based on 

ballast luminous efficiency (BLE), the 

ratio of total lamp arc power to ballast 

input power as defined in Appendix Q1 

of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), part 430, are shown 

in Table I.1. These new and amended 

standards apply to all products listed in 

Table I.1 and manufactured in, or 

imported into, the United States on or 

after the compliance date specified in 

the DATES section. 

TABLE I.1—NEW AND AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

Fluorescent lamp ballasts * shall have a ballast luminous efficiency no less than A/(1 + B * total lamp arc power∧-C) where A, 

B, and C are as follow: 

Percent 

improvement 

over current 

standard or 

baseline ** Product Class A B C 

Instant start and rapid start ballasts (not classified as residential) that 

are designed to operate ....................................................................... 0.993 0.27 0.25 5.7 

4-foot medium bipin lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

Programmed start ballasts (not classified as residential) that are designed to operate ................................................................................. 0.993 0.51 0.37 10.8 

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 to operate 8-foot high output lamps ....................... 0.993 0.38 0.25 26.5 

Programmed start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that are designed to operate 8-foot high output lamps ......................................... 0.973 0.70 0.37 26.2 

Sign ballasts that operate 8-foot high output lamps ............................... 0.993 0.47 0.25 15.1 

Instant start and rapid start residential ballasts that operate .................. 0.993 0.41 0.25 7.2 

4-foot medium bipin lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

Programmed start residential ballasts that are designed to operate ...... 0.973 0.71 0.37 5.8 

4-foot medium bipin lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

* Fluorescent ballasts that are exempt from these standards are listed in section III.A.3. 

** Percent improvement is applicable to the average of ballasts directly analyzed. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of 

the economic impacts of today’s 

standards on consumers of ballasts for 

the product classes analyzed as 

representative (see section V.B.6), as 

measured by the average life-cycle cost 

(LCC) savings and the median payback 

period (PBP). The average LCC savings 

are positive for all product classes. For 

example, the estimated average LCC 

savings are $37¥$40 for 2-lamp instant 

start (IS) and rapid start (RS) ballasts 

that operate 4-foot T8 2 lamps in the 

commercial sector. When there was 

more than one baseline for a 

representative ballast type, DOE 

performed separate LCC analyses 

comparing replacement lamp-andballast systems to each baseline. 

Because T8 systems are generally more 

efficient and have lower overall LCCs 

than T12 systems, the LCC savings 

relative to the T8 baseline are lower 

than when comparing the same 

efficiency levels to a T12 baseline. At 

the adopted standard levels, however, 

LCC savings are positive for all 

replacement events and baselines 

analyzed. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

3For ballasts, DOE uses a real discount rate of 7.4 

percent. DOE’s discount rate estimate was derived 

from industry financials then modified according to 

feedback during manufacturer interviews. 4This estimate is based on the energy use of 

homes in 2008, which is the most recent data 

available. See Rosenfeld, Arthur H. and Satish 

Kumar. Tables to Convert Energy or CO2 (saved or 

used) to Familiar Equivalents—Cars, Homes, or 

Power Plants (US Average Data for 2005). May 

2008. http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/ 

rosenfeld_docs/EquivalenceMatrix2008.doc 

5 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to 

the most recent version of the Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) Reference case forecast. As noted in 

TSD chapter 16, this forecast accounts for 

regulatory emissions reductions through 2008, 

including the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 

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

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

Subsequent regulations, including the currently 

proposed CAIR replacement rule, the Clean Air 

Transport Rule (75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 2010)), do not 

appear in the forecast. 

6Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short 

tons. One short ton equals 2000 lbs. 

7 DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to 

determine the appropriate range of values used in 

evaluating the potential economic benefits of 

reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent valuation and 

reporting of Hg emissions before it once again 

monetizes Hg emissions reductions in its 

rulemakings. 

TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF TODAY’S STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF BALLASTS

Product Class * Average LCC savings 

(2010$) 

Median payback 

period 

(years) * 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

4-foot MBP lamps (T12 baseline) ............................................................................................ $37 to $40 ................. ¥1.2 to ¥1.3. 

4-foot MBP lamps (T8 baseline) .............................................................................................. $3 to $8 ..................... 2.7 to 4.4. 

8-foot slimline lamps (T12 baseline) ........................................................................................ $22 to $33 ................. 0.1. 

8-foot slimline lamps (T8 baseline) .......................................................................................... $5 to $7 ..................... 0.5 to 0.6. 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

4-foot MBP lamps ..................................................................................................................... $6 to $35 ................... 1.3 to 6.0. 

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ........................................................................................................... $10 to $19 ................. 2.4 to 3.8. 

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ........................................................................................................... $26 to $28 ................. 2.0 to 2.1. 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate: 

8-foot HO lamps (T12 baseline) ............................................................................................... $134 to $230 ............. ¥0.7 to ¥1.3. 

Sign ballasts that operate: 

8-foot HO lamps ....................................................................................................................... $251 to $403 ............. ¥0.2 to ¥0.3. 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate: 

4-foot MBP lamps ..................................................................................................................... $15 to $21 ................. ¥5.5 to ¥9.5. 

*IS = instant start; RS = rapid start; MBP = medium bipin; MiniBP = miniature bipin; PS = programmed start; 

SO = standard output; HO = high output. 

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

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

The industry net present value (INPV) 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(2014 to 2043). Using a real discount 

rate of 7.4 3 percent, DOE estimates that 

the INPV for manufacturers of ballasts 

in the base case ranges from $733 

million to $1.22 billion in 2010 dollars 

(2010$). Under today’s standards, DOE 

expects that ballast manufacturers may 

lose up to 36.7 percent of their INPV, 

which is approximately $268.6 million. 

Based on DOE’s interviews with the 

manufacturers of ballasts, however, DOE 

does not expect any plant closings or 

significant employment loss. See section 

VII.B.2.b and VIII.B.3.b for additional 

discussion on this topic. 

C. National Benefits 

DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s 

ballast standards would save a 

significant amount of energy over 30 

years (2014–2043)—an estimated 2.7– 

5.6 quadrillion British thermal units 

(quads) of cumulative energy. This 

amount is equivalent to the annual 

energy use of 14 million to 28 million 

U.S. homes.4

The cumulative national net present 

value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of today’s ballast standards in 

2010$ ranges from $6.7 billion (at a 

7-percent discount rate) to $21.6 billion 

(at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating-cost savings less the 

estimated increased product costs for 

products purchased in 2014–2043, 

discounted to 2011. 

In addition, today’s ballast standards 

would have significant environmental 

benefits. The energy savings would 

result in cumulative greenhouse gas 

emission reductions of 27–106 million 

metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

from 2014 through 2043. During this 

period, the standards would also result 

in emissions reductions 5 of 22–39 

thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and 0.40–1.47 tons of mercury (Hg).6

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by a recent interagency 

process. The derivation of the SCC 

values is discussed in section V.L. DOE 

estimates that the net present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions is 

between $0.26 and $3.94 billion, 

expressed in 2010$ and discounted to 

2011. DOE also estimates that the net 

present monetary value of the NOX

emissions reductions, expressed in 

2010$ and discounted to 2011, is $3.91 

to $40.2 million at a 7-percent discount 

rate, and $7.67 to $78.8 million at a 3- 

percent discount rate.7

Table I.3 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from today’s standards for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70551 

8 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2011, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

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

shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30- 

year period (2014 through 2043) that yields the 

same present value. This payment includes benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2043 from the 

ballasts purchased from 2014 to 2043. Costs 

incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be 

incurred prior to 2014 in preparation for the rule, 

are not directly included, but are indirectly 

included as part of incremental product costs. The 

fixed annual payment is the annualized value. 

Although DOE calculated annualized values, this 

does not imply that the time-series of cost and 

benefits from which the annualized values were 

determined is a steady stream of payments. 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS

Category Present value 

Billion 2010$ 

Discount rate 

(percent) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................................................................................................... 12.0 7 

24.1 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $4.9/t) * .................................................................................................. 0.26 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.3/t) * ................................................................................................ 1.29 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.5/t) * ................................................................................................ 2.16 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.6/t) * ................................................................................................ 3.94 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $450/ton) * ............................................................................................ 0.004 7 

0.01 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $4,623/ton) * ......................................................................................... 0.04 7 

0.08 3 

Total Benefits† ................................................................................................................................................. 13.3 7 

25.4 3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ............................................................................................................................. 3.68 7 

6.91 3 

Net Benefits 

Including CO2 and NOX† ................................................................................................................................. 9.62 7 

18.5 3 

* The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per 

metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, and the average of the low 

and high NOX values used in DOE’s analysis. 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

standards, for products sold in 2014– 

2043, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value, 

expressed in 2010$, of the benefits from 

operating the product (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from 

using less energy, minus increases in 

equipment purchase and installation 

costs, which is another way of 

representing consumer NPV, plus (2) the 

annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.8

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 emissions reductions is based on 

a global value. Second, the assessments 

of operating cost savings and CO2

savings are performed with different 

methods that use different time frames 

for analysis. The national operating cost 

savings are measured for the lifetime of 

ballasts shipped in 2014–2043. The SCC 

values, alternatively, reflect the present 

value of all future climate-related 

impacts resulting from the emission of 

one metric ton of CO2 in each year, with 

impacts continuing well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of today’s standards are shown in 

Table I.4. (The following monetary 

values are expressed in 2010$.) The 

results under the primary estimate are 

as follows. Using a 7-percent discount 

rate for benefits and costs other than 

CO2 reduction, for which DOE used a 3- 

percent discount rate along with the 

SCC series corresponding to a value of 

$22.3/ton in 2010, the cost of the 

standards in today’s rule is $363 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the benefits are $1.2 billion per 

year in reduced equipment operating 

costs, $92 million in CO2 reductions, 

and $2.2 million in reduced NOX

emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $920 million per year. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 

and costs and the SCC series 

corresponding to a value of $22.3/ton in 

2010, the cost of the standards in 

today’s rule is $385 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $1.3 billion per year in 

reduced operating costs, $92 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $2.4 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $1.1 billion per 

year. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

9For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code (U.S.C.), Part B was redesignated Part A. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF NEW AND AMENDED STANDARDS FOR BALLASTS SOLD IN 2014–2043* 

Discount rate 

Monetized 

million 2010$/year 

Primary estimate 

Low estimate 

(emerging technologies, roll-up 

scenario) 

High estimate 

(existing technologies, 

shift scenario) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................. 7% .............................. 1,189 .......................... 886 .............................. 1,492. 

3% .............................. 1,344 .......................... 934 .............................. 1,754. 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** .............................. 5% .............................. 20 ............................... 9 .................................. 30. 

CO2 Reduction at $22.3/t** ............................ 3% .............................. 92 ............................... 41 ................................ 143. 

CO2 Reduction at $36.5/t** ............................ 2.5% ........................... 151 ............................. 66 ................................ 237. 

CO2 Reduction at $67.6/t** ............................ 3% .............................. 280 ............................. 124 .............................. 435. 

NOX Reduction at $2,537/t** ......................... 7% .............................. 2.2 .............................. 1.3 ............................... 3.0. 

3% .............................. 2.4 .............................. 1.6 ............................... 3.2. 

Total (Operating Cost Savings, CO2 Reduction and NOX Reduction)†.7% plus CO2 range ... 1,211 to 1,471 ........... 896 to 1,011 ................ 1,525 to 1,930. 

7% .............................. 1,283 .......................... 928 .............................. 1,637. 

3% .............................. 1,438 .......................... 976 .............................. 1,900. 

3% plus CO2 range ... 1,366 to 1,626 ........... 945 to 1,059 ................ 1,788 to 2,193. 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ............................ 7% .............................. 363 ............................. 227 .............................. 498. 

3% .............................. 385 ............................. 218 .............................. 553. 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Total (Operating Cost Savings, CO2 Reduction and NOX Reduction, Minus Incremental Product Costs)†.7% plus CO2 range ... 848 to 1,108 .............. 669 to 784 ................... 1,027 to 1,432. 

7% .............................. 920 ............................. 700 .............................. 1,139. 

3% .............................. 1,053 .......................... 758 .............................. 1,347. 

3% plus CO2 range ... 981 to 1,241 .............. 727 to 842 ................... 1,235 to 1,640. 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with fluorescent lamp ballasts shipped between 2014 and 2043. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2043 from the ballasts purchased from 2014 to 2043. Costs incurred by manufacturers, 

some of which may be incurred prior to 2014 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental product costs. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the 

AEO2010 Reference case, with the Low and High Estimates based on forecasted ballast shipments in the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up and

Existing Technologies, Shift scenarios, respectively. In addition, all estimates use incremental product costs that reflect constant prices (no learning rate) for product prices. The different techniques used to evaluate projected price trends for each estimate are discussed in section V.E.1. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per metric ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. 

The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

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

$22.3/t in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

D. Conclusion 

Based on the analyses culminating in 

this final rule, DOE found the benefits 

to the nation of the standards (energy 

savings, consumer LCC savings, positive 

NPV of consumer benefit, and emission 

reductions) outweigh the costs (loss of 

INPV). DOE has concluded that the 

standards in today’s final rule represent 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant conservation 

of energy. DOE further notes that in all 

product classes, ballasts achieving the 

standard levels are already 

commercially available. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s final rule, as well as 

some of the historical background 

related to the establishment of standards 

for ballasts. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975, Public 

Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as 

codified) established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles,9 a 

program covering most major household 

appliances (collectively referred to as 

‘‘covered products’’), which includes 

the types of ballasts that are the subject 

of this final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(13)) 

EPCA prescribed energy conservation 

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

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

DOE to conduct two cycles of 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(7)) 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

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

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards; and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is primarily 

responsible for labeling, and DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70553 

implements the remainder of the 

program. 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. 6293) Manufacturers 

of covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 

6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the products comply with standards 

adopted pursuant to EPCA. Id. The DOE 

test procedures for ballasts currently 

appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices Q and Q1. Compliance with 

the ballast efficacy factor energy 

conservation standards, required until 

the compliance date specified in the 

DATES section, is determined according 

to appendix Q. Compliance with the 

BLE standards adopted in this rule must 

be determined according to appendix 

Q1. The procedures in appendix Q1 

were established by the ballast active 

mode test procedure final rule. 76 FR 

25211 (May 4, 2011). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products. As 

indicated in the beginning of section I, 

any new or amended standard for a 

covered product must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE 

may not adopt any standard that would 

not result in the significant conservation 

of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard: (1) For certain products, 

including ballasts, if no test procedure 

has been established for the product, or 

(2) if DOE determines by rule that the 

new or amended standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

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

In deciding whether a new or amended 

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 

factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy, or as applicable, water, savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (the Secretary) considers 

relevant. 

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

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any new or amended 

standard that either increases the 

maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary 

may not prescribe a new or amended 

standard if interested parties have 

established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the standard is likely to 

result in the unavailability in the United 

States in any covered product type (or 

class) of performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

savings during the first year that the 

consumer will receive as a result of the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 

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

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

specifies requirements when 

promulgating a standard for a type or 

class of covered product that has two or 

more subcategories. DOE must specify a 

different standard level than that which 

applies generally to such type or class 

of products for any group of covered 

products which have the same function 

or intended use if products within such 

group—(A) consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. Id. In 

determining whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard for a group of products, DOE 

must consider such factors as the utility 

to the consumer of such a feature and 

other factors DOE deems appropriate. 

Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard 

must include an explanation of the basis 

on which such higher or lower level was 

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

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

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

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions set 

forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d). 

Pursuant to the amendments 

contained in section 310(3) of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA 2007), 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 the 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 has determined 

that ballasts do not operate in an ‘‘off 

mode’’ as defined by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

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

ballasts that consume power in a 

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

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

incorporate an electronic circuit 

enabling the ballast to communicate 

with and be part of a lighting control 

system. DOE’s test procedures for 

ballasts address such standby mode 

energy use. 74 FR 54455 (October 22, 

2009) and 76 FR 25211 (May 4, 2011); 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Q, 

section 3.2 and appendix Q1, section 3. 

DOE did not adopt standards for 

standby mode energy use, however, 

because DOE did not find any covered 

ballasts capable of operating in this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

10A notation in the form ‘‘F40T12’’ identifies a 

lamp type. This particular notation refers to a lamp 

that: (1) Is fluorescent; (2) has a nominal wattage of 

40 W; (3) is linear (tubular); and (4) has a diameter 

of 12 eighths of an inch. 

mode in its search of the marketplace. 

Therefore, this final rule does not 

include energy conservation standards 

for standby mode energy use. See 

section III.B for more detail. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

‘‘to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible.’’ In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include ‘‘identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE concludes 

that today’s final rule is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

Consistent with EO 13563, and the 

range of impacts analyzed in this final 

rule, the energy efficiency standards 

adopted herein by DOE achieve 

maximum net benefits. 

B. Background 

1. Ballast Efficacy Factor Standards 

The Federal energy conservation 

standards for ballasts expressed in terms 

of ballast efficacy factor are set forth in 

Table II.1 and Table II.2. The standards 

in Table II.1 were adopted in a final rule 

published on September 19, 2000, 

which completed the first of the two 

rulemakings required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(g)(7) to consider amending the 

standards for ballasts (hereafter referred 

to as the 2000 Ballast Rule). 65 FR 

56739. The standards in Table II.2 were 

established by amendments to EPCA in 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 

2005), Pub. L. 109–58. 

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

Application for operation of * Ballast input 

voltage 

Total nominal 

lamp watts 

Ballast efficacy 

factor 

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

277 40 2.29 

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

277 80 1.17 

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

277 150 0.63 

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

277 220 0.39 

* F40T12, F96T12, and F96T12HO are defined in Appendix Q to Subpart B of Part 430. 

10 CFR 430.32(m)(3). 

TABLE II.2—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FROM EPACT 2005 

Application for operation of * Ballast input 

voltage 

Total nominal 

lamp watts 

Ballast efficacy 

factor 

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

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

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

Two F96T12HO/ES lamps ............................................................................................... 120/277 190 0.42 

* F34T12, F96T12/ES, and F96T12HO/ES are defined in Appendix Q to Subpart B of Part 430. 

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

430.32(m)(5)) 

In summary, as reflected in the 

previous two tables, the ballasts 

currently regulated under EPCA consist 

of ballasts that are designed to operate: 

• One and two nominally 40-watt (W) 

and 34W 4-foot T12 medium bipin 

(MBP) lamps (F40T12 10 and F34T12); 

• Two nominally 75W and 60W 8- 

foot T12 single-pin (SP) slimline lamps 

(F96T12 and F96T12/ES); and 

• Two nominally 110W and 95W 8- 

foot T12 recessed double contact high 

output lamps (F96T12HO and 

F96T12HO/ES) at nominal input 

voltages of 120 or 277 volts (V) with an 

input current frequency of 60 hertz (Hz). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70555 

11The Web site address for all the spreadsheets 

developed for this rulemaking proceeding are 

available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_

ballasts_nopr_analytical_tools.html. 

In addition, several ballasts are 

exempt from standards. These 

exemptions consist of ballasts designed 

to operate those lamps listed in Table 

II.1 that: 

• Are designed for dimming to 50 

percent or less of its maximum output; 

• Are designed for use with two 

F96T12 high output (HO) lamps at 

ambient temperatures of ¥20 degrees 

Fahrenheit (F) or less and for use in an 

outdoor sign; or 

• Have a power factor of less than 

0.90 and are designed and labeled for 

use only in residential building 

applications. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

EPCA establishes energy conservation 

standards for certain ballasts and 

requires that DOE conduct two cycles of 

rulemaking to determine whether to 

amend the standards for these ballasts, 

including whether to adopt standards 

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

6295(g)(5)–(8)) As indicated in section 

II.B.1, DOE completed the first of these 

rulemaking cycles by publishing the 

2000 Ballast Rule. 65 FR 56740 (Sept. 

19, 2000). In this rulemaking, the 

second rulemaking cycle required by 42 

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

existing standards for ballasts and 

adopting standards for additional 

ballasts. 

DOE initiated this rulemaking on 

January 14, 2008 by publishing in the 

Federal Register a notice announcing 

the availability of the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Framework Document for Fluorescent 

Lamp Ballasts.’’ (A PDF of the 

framework document is available at 

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

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/

ballast_framework_011408.pdf.) In that 

notice, DOE also announced a public 

meeting on the framework document 

and requested public comment on the 

matters raised in the document. 73 FR 

3653 (Jan. 22, 2008). The framework 

document described the procedural and 

analytical approaches that DOE 

anticipated using to evaluate energy 

conservation standards for the ballasts, 

and identified various issues to be 

resolved in conducting this rulemaking. 

DOE held the public meeting on 

February 6, 2008, where it: Presented 

the contents of the framework 

document; described the analyses it 

planned to conduct during the 

rulemaking; sought comments from 

interested parties on these subjects; and 

in general, sought to inform interested 

parties about, and facilitate their 

involvement in, the rulemaking. 

Interested parties at the public meeting 

discussed the active mode test 

procedure and several major analyses 

related to this rulemaking. At the 

meeting and during the period for 

commenting on the framework 

document, DOE received feedback that 

helped identify and resolve issues 

involved in this rulemaking. 

DOE then gathered additional 

information and performed preliminary 

analyses to help develop potential 

energy conservation standards for 

ballasts. DOE published in the Federal 

Register an announcement of the 

availability of the preliminary technical 

support document (TSD) and of another 

public meeting to discuss and receive 

comments on the following matters: 

Product classes; the analytical 

framework, models, and tools that DOE 

was using to evaluate standards; the 

results of the preliminary analyses 

performed by DOE; and potential 

standard levels that DOE could 

consider. 75 FR 14319 (March 24, 2010) 

(hereafter referred to as the March 2010 

notice). DOE also invited written 

comments on these subjects. Id. The 

preliminary TSD is available at http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/residential/

fluorescent_lamp_ballasts_

ecs_prelim_tsd.html. In the notice, DOE 

also requested comment on other 

relevant issues that would affect energy 

conservation standards for fluorescent 

lamp ballasts or that DOE should 

address in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR). Id. at 14322. 

The public meeting announced in the 

March 2010 notice took place on April 

26, 2010. At that meeting, DOE 

presented the methodologies and results 

of the analyses set forth in the 

preliminary TSD. Interested parties 

discussed the following major issues at 

the public meeting: The efficiency 

metric; how test procedure variation 

might affect efficiency measurements; 

requirements for ballasts in 

environments that are sensitive to 

electromagnetic interference (EMI); 

product classes; manufacturer selling 

prices (MSPs) and overall pricing 

methodology; markups; the maximum 

technologically feasible ballast 

efficiency; cumulative regulatory 

burden; and shipments. DOE considered 

the comments received since 

publication of the March 2010 notice, 

including those received at the April 

2010 public meeting, in the 

development of the NOPR. 

In April 2011, DOE proposed new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for fluorescent lamp ballasts. In 

conjunction with the NOPR, DOE also 

published on its Web site the complete 

TSD for the proposed rule, which 

incorporated the analyses DOE 

conducted and technical documentation 

for each analysis. The TSD included the 

engineering analysis spreadsheets, the 

LCC spreadsheet, the national impact 

analysis spreadsheet, and the 

manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) 

spreadsheet—all of which are available 

on DOE’s Web site.11 The proposed 

standards were as shown in Table II.3. 

76 FR 20090, 20091 (April 11, 2011). 

TABLE II.3—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE APRIL 2011 NOPR 

Product class Proposed BLE standard 

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

4-foot MBP lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

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

4-foot MBP lamps 

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps 

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps 

IS and RS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps ................................... 1.49 * ln(total lamp arc power) + 84.32. 

PS ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps ............................................... 1.46 * ln(total lamp arc power) + 82.63.

Ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps designed for cold temperature 

outdoor signs.

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

12When DOE refers to a magnetic ballast 

throughout this document, it is referring to a low 

frequency ballast as defined by as defined in ANSI 

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

electronic ballast, it is referring to a high frequency 

ballast as defined by the same ANSI standard. 

13The August 2011 NODA and accompanying 

data are available here: http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/

notice_of_data_availability.html. 

14 Documents for the 2009 Lamps Rule are 

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

appliance_standards/residential/ 

incandescent_lamps.html. 

In the NOPR, DOE invited comment 

in particular on the following issues: (1) 

The exemption for T8 magnetic 12

ballasts in EMI-sensitive environments; 

(2) the appropriateness of establishing 

efficiency standards using an equation 

dependent on lamp-arc power; (3) the 

inclusion of several different ballast 

types in the same product class; (4) the 

methodology used to calculate 

manufacturer selling prices; (5) the 

efficiency levels considered; (6) the 

maximum technologically feasible level; 

(7) markups; (8) the inclusion T12 

ballasts in the baseline analysis for life 

cycle costs; (9) the magnitude and 

timing of forecasted shipments; (10) the 

methodology and inputs DOE used for 

the manufacturer impact analysis— 

specifically, DOE’s assumptions 

regarding markups, capital costs, and 

conversion costs; (12) the potential 

impacts of amended standards on small 

fluorescent lamp ballast manufacturers; 

(13) the trial standard levels (TSLs) 

considered; (14) the proposed standard 

level; and (15) potential approaches to 

maximize energy savings while 

mitigating impacts to certain fluorescent 

ballast consumer subgroups. 76 FR 

20090, 20177 (April 11, 2011). 

DOE held a public meeting on May 

10, 2011, to hear oral comments on and 

solicit information relevant to the 

proposed rule (hereafter the May 2011 

public meeting). At this meeting, the 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) presented test data 

that they found inconsistent with the 

data collected by DOE and that could 

affect the standards established in the 

final rule. In general, NEMA’s ballast 

luminous efficiency values appeared to 

be lower than those obtained by DOE. 

NEMA and other stakeholders agreed 

that there were discrepancies between 

the two data sets and emphasized the 

importance of identifying the source of 

the differences. In addition, DOE 

received comments on the methodology 

used to account for compliance 

certification requirements, design 

variation, and lab-to-lab variation and 

on the appropriate shape of DOE’s 

proposed efficiency level curves. 

In light of these discrepancies, DOE 

published a notice of data availability 

(NODA) on August 24, 2011 to: (1) 

Announce the availability of additional 

test data collected by DOE and the data 

submitted by NEMA; (2) address the 

differences between test data obtained 

by DOE and test data submitted by 

NEMA; (3) describe the methodological 

changes DOE was considering for the 

final rule based on the additional data; 

(4) present efficiency levels developed 

using the revised methodology and all 

available test data; and (5) request 

public comment on these analyses.13

DOE considered the comments 

received in response to both the April 

2011 NOPR and the August 2011 NODA 

when developing this final rule, and 

responds to these comments in the 

following sections. 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional Fluorescent Lamp 

Ballasts for Which DOE is Adopting 

Standards 

1. Scope of EPCA Requirement That 

DOE Consider Standards for Additional 

Ballasts 

As discussed in section II.A, 

amendments to EPCA established 

energy conservation standards for 

certain fluorescent lamp ballasts and 

directed DOE to conduct two 

rulemakings to consider amending the 

standards. The first amendment was 

completed with the publication of the 

2000 Ballast Rule. This rulemaking 

fulfills the statutory requirement to 

determine whether to amend standards 

a second time. EPCA specifically directs 

DOE, in this second amendment, to 

determine whether to amend the 

standards in effect for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts and whether such standards 

should be amended so that they would 

be applicable to additional fluorescent 

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

The April 2011 NOPR notes that a 

wide variety of fluorescent lamp ballasts 

are not currently covered by energy 

conservation standards, and thus are 

potential candidates for coverage under 

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

similar circumstances in a recent 

rulemaking that amended standards for 

general service fluorescent and 

incandescent reflector lamps (hereafter 

referred to as the 2009 Lamps Rule).14

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

In that rule, DOE was directed by EPCA 

to consider expanding its scope of 

coverage to include additional general 

service fluorescent lamps (GSFL). EPCA 

defines GSFLs as fluorescent lamps that 

can satisfy the majority of fluorescent 

lamp applications and that are not 

designed and marketed for certain 

specified, non-general lighting 

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

such, the term ‘‘general service 

fluorescent lamp’’ is defined by 

reference to the term ‘‘fluorescent 

lamp,’’ which EPCA defines as ‘‘a low 

pressure mercury electric-discharge 

source in which a fluorescing coating 

transforms some of the ultraviolet 

energy generated by the mercury 

discharge into light,’’ and as including 

the four enumerated types of fluorescent 

lamps for which EPCA already 

prescribes standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) To 

construe ‘‘general service fluorescent 

lamp’’ in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5) as limited 

to those types of fluorescent lamps 

would mean there are no GSFLs that are 

not already subject to standards, and 

hence, there would be no ‘‘additional’’ 

GSFLs for which DOE could consider 

standards. Such an interpretation would 

conflict with the directive in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(i)(5) that DOE consider standards 

for ‘‘additional’’ GSFLs, thereby 

nullifying that provision. 

Therefore, DOE concluded that the 

term ‘‘additional general service 

fluorescent lamps’’ in 42 U.S.C. 

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

for GSFLs other than the four 

enumerated lamp types specified in the 

EPCA definition of ‘‘fluorescent lamp.’’ 

As a result, the 2009 Lamps Rule 

defined ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ to include: 

(1) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to as 4-foot medium 

bipin lamps) with medium bipin bases, 

a nominal overall length of 48 inches, 

and rated wattage of 25 or more; 

(2) Any U-shaped lamp (commonly 

referred to as 2-foot U-shaped lamps) 

with medium bipin bases, a nominal 

overall length between 22 and 25 

inches, and rated wattage of 25 or more; 

(3) Any rapid start lamp (commonly 

referred to as 8-foot high output lamps) 

with recessed double contact bases and 

a nominal overall length of 96 inches; 

(4) Any instant start lamp (commonly 

referred to as 8-foot slimline lamps) 

with single pin bases, a nominal overall 

length of 96 inches, and rated wattage 

of 52 or more; 

(5) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to as 4-foot 

miniature bipin standard output lamps) 

with miniature bipin bases, a nominal 

overall length between 45 and 48 

inches, and rated wattage of 26 or more; 

and 

(6) Any straight-shaped lamp 

(commonly referred to 4-foot miniature 

bipin high output lamps) with miniature 

bipin bases, a nominal overall length 

between 45 and 48 inches, and rated 

wattage of 49 or more. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70557 

15A notation in the form ‘‘NEEA and NPCC, No. 

44 at p. 2’’ identifies a written comment that DOE 

has received and has included in the docket of this 

rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a 

comment: (1) Submitted by NEEA and NPCC; (2) in 

document number 44 of the docket; and (3) on page 

2 of that document. 

16This list is not all inclusive. 

10 CFR 430.2 

In this rulemaking, DOE is directed to 

consider whether any amended 

standard should be applicable to 

additional fluorescent lamp ballasts. (42 

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

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

which is used to start and operate 

fluorescent lamps by providing a 

starting voltage and current and limiting 

the current during normal operation.’’ 

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

DOE referenced the definition of 

fluorescent lamp adopted by the 2009 

Lamps Rule. This definition allows DOE 

to consider expanding coverage to 

include additional fluorescent lamp 

ballasts while not eliminating coverage 

of any ballasts for which standards 

already exist. 

2. Identification of the Additional 

Ballasts for Which DOE Establishes 

Standards 

In considering whether to amend the 

standards in effect for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts so that they apply to 

‘‘additional’’ fluorescent lamp ballasts 

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

EPCA, DOE considered all fluorescent 

lamp ballasts (for which standards are 

not already prescribed) that operate 

fluorescent lamps, as defined in 10 CFR 

430.2. For each additional fluorescent 

lamp ballast, DOE considered potential 

energy savings, technological feasibility 

and economic justification when 

determining whether to include them in 

the scope of coverage. In its analyses, 

DOE assessed the potential energy 

savings from market share estimates, 

potential ballast designs that improve 

efficiency, and other relevant factors. 

For market share estimates, DOE used 

both quantitative shipment data and 

information obtained during 

manufacturer interviews. DOE also 

assessed the potential to achieve energy 

savings in certain ballasts by 

considering whether those ballasts 

could serve as potential substitutes for 

other regulated ballasts. 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

proposed extending coverage to several 

additional ballast types including those 

that operate: Additional numbers and 

diameters of 4-foot MBP lamps, 8-foot 

HO lamps, and 8-foot slimline lamps; 4- 

foot miniature bipin (MiniBP) standard 

output (SO) lamps; 4-foot MiniBP HO 

lamps; and 8-foot HO cold temperature 

lamps commonly used in outdoor signs. 

DOE did not propose to extend coverage 

to additional dimming ballasts or T8 

magnetic ballasts that operate in EMIsensitive environments, provided that 

these magnetic ballasts were designed 

and labeled for use in EMI-sensitive 

environments only and shipped by the 

manufacturer in packages of 10 or fewer 

ballasts. 

The Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (NEEA) and the Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council 

(NPCC), the Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships (NEEP), the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 

and in a joint comment, ASAP, the 

Alliance to Save Energy, the American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, the National Consumer Law 

Center, and the National Resources 

Defense Council (hereafter the ‘‘Joint 

Comment’’) supported the proposed 

scope of coverage. ASAP and the Joint 

Comment stated that the expanded 

scope contributes significantly to the 

forecasted energy savings for this 

rulemaking. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 44 at 

p. 2 15; NEEP, No. 49 at p. 2; ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

80–2; Joint Comment, No. 46 at p. 2) 

DOE also received several comments 

regarding the proposed exemption for 

T8 magnetic ballasts that operate in 

EMI-sensitive environments, coverage of 

residential ballasts, and additional 

comments recommending further 

exemptions. These comments are 

discussed in further detail in the 

following sections. 

a. Ballasts That Operate in 

Environments Sensitive to 

Electromagnetic Interference 

DOE received comments at the April 

2010 public meeting that standards 

could eliminate magnetic ballasts that 

are currently used in certain EMIsensitive environments. DOE conducted 

research and interviews with 

fluorescent lamp ballast and fixture 

manufacturers to identify the following 

applications as potentially sensitive to 

EMI: Medical operating room telemetry 

or life support systems; airport control 

systems; electronic test equipment; 

radio communication devices; radio 

recording studios; correctional facilities; 

clean rooms; facilities with low signalto-noise ratios; and aircraft hangars or 

other buildings with predominantly 

metal construction.16 DOE learned from 

manufacturer interviews that magnetic 

ballasts are typically recommended for 

situations in which EMI has been or is 

expected to be a concern. 

Although there are several methods to 

reduce electromagnetic interference, 

available data do not indicate that EMIrelated issues with electronic ballasts 

can be eliminated such that there are no 

longer safety concerns. For this reason, 

in the April 2011 NOPR DOE proposed 

an exemption for T8 magnetic ballasts 

designed and labeled for use in EMIsensitive environments only and 

shipped by the manufacturer in 

packages containing 10 or fewer 

ballasts. DOE believed the exemption 

was necessary because in some 

environments, EMI could pose a serious 

safety concern that is best mitigated 

with magnetic ballast technology. DOE 

did not believe magnetic ballasts would 

likely be used as substitutes in current 

electronic ballast applications due to 

their higher cost and weight. 76 FR 

20090, 20100–1 (April 11, 2011). 

NEEA and NPCC, NEMA, and ASAP 

supported the exemption for magnetic 

ballasts in EMI-sensitive locations. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 44 at p. 2; 

NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at p. 70; NEMA, No. 47 at pp. 2–3; 

ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at pp. 80–2) ASAP and NEEA and 

NPCC suggested requiring the 

description ‘‘designed, labeled, and 

marketed for use in EMI-sensitive 

applications’’ to limit the possibility of 

exempted ballasts being sold in other 

applications. Philips commented that 

they are unsure how manufacturers 

would be able to control the marketing 

through distributors to the proper 

market. ASAP and NEEA and NPCC 

acknowledged that although 

manufacturers cannot control 

distribution, they can control how they 

market their products. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 80–82; 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at p. 82; NEEA and NPCC, No. 44 at 

p. 2) 

DOE did not receive any adverse 

comment regarding the exemption for 

T8 magnetic ballasts in EMI-sensitive 

applications and therefore, for the 

reasons discussed above, maintains this 

exemption in the final rule. DOE agrees 

with ASAP and NEEA and NPCC that 

this exemption should be designed such 

that, to the greatest extent possible, it 

does not become a pathway to 

circumvent compliance with standards 

adopted by this rulemaking. Therefore, 

DOE has modified the description of the 

exemption to cover ballasts ‘‘designed, 

labeled, and marketed for use in EMIsensitive applications.’’ See appendix 

5E of the TSD for more details on EMIsensitive applications. 

b. Ballasts That Operate in the 

Residential Sector 

Radionic disagreed with DOE’s 

decision to cover residential ballasts 

and stated that new residential models 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70558 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

17American National Standard for Electric 

Lamps—Double-Capped Fluorescent Lamps— 

Dimensional and Electrical Characteristics, 

Approved January 14, 2010. 

18As defined by ANSI C82.13–2002, the power 

factor is calculated by determining the ratio of the 

input power to the apparent power. The input 

power is measured with a wattmeter, and the 

apparent power is the ballast input voltage 

multiplied by the ballast input current. For more 

information, see chapter 3 of the TSD. 

developed to meet standards are likely 

to have a high initial cost. Because 

residential consumers are sensitive to 

first cost, Radionic stated that 

consumers will choose less expensive 

and less efficient technologies, thereby 

potentially decreasing energy savings. 

(Radionic, No. 36 at p. 1) 

As discussed in the April 2011 NOPR, 

DOE believes that residential ballasts 

represent a sizeable portion of the 

overall ballast market and represent 

significant potential energy savings. 

DOE agrees with comments received in 

response to the preliminary TSD, stating 

that demand for residential fluorescent 

ballasts will likely grow substantially as 

residential building codes become more 

stringent. For example, California, 

Oregon, and Washington have codes 

that require fluorescent or higherefficacy systems in homes. Similarly, 

the 2009 International Energy 

Conservation Code requires that 50 

percent of all permanently installed 

lighting in residences have a minimum 

efficacy of 45 lumens per watt. 76 FR 

20090, 20099 (April 11, 2011). DOE 

projects that increased lighting efficacy 

requirements will drive consumers to 

continue to purchase fluorescent 

systems despite incremental increases 

in first cost. Furthermore, DOE notes 

that consumers are already purchasing 

higher efficiency fluorescent ballasts 

despite their higher initial first cost 

relative to other lighting technologies. 

As discussed in section V.A.1 and 

section V.B.5.g, standards for residential 

ballasts save significant amounts of 

energy, and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified. Therefore, 

DOE includes residential ballasts in the 

scope of coverage for this final rule. 

c. Ballasts That Operate Below 

Minimum ANSI Current Levels 

At the May 2011 public meeting, the 

General Electric Company (GE) 

commented that DOE’s efficiency levels 

for programmed start (PS) ballasts 

assumed high efficiency filament cutout at all arc powers. GE stated, 

however, that some low ballast factor 

(BF) PS ballasts operate at currents 

below minimum American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) levels for T8 

and T12 lamps and thus require 

filament heating to maintain lamp life. 

GE and NEMA noted that these ballasts 

would be unable to meet BLE 

requirements proposed in the April 

2011 NOPR due to cathode heating, but 

would offer energy savings due to their 

relatively low power levels and use in 

conjunction with occupancy sensors. 

Thus, GE requested that these low BF 

ballasts be exempt from standards. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

236, 238; NEMA, No. 47 at p. 6) 

NEEA and NPCC recognized the 

operating limitations presented by these 

ballasts, but expressed concern over the 

lack of information about their fraction 

of shipments, the markets where they 

are most commonly sold, and their cost 

relative to other, more common ballast 

types designed to operate the same type 

and number of lamps. Specifically, 

NEEA and NPCC commented that these 

ballasts might be the kind of currently 

exempted product provided to the 

residential market, and that their 

continuing exemption could result in an 

increase in sales and accompanying loss 

in energy savings. (NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 44 at p. 4) The Joint Comment also 

highlighted the possibility of an 

increase in the use of these low BF 

ballasts in all applications if they were 

exempt from standards. They stated that 

the current small market share did not 

mean that shipments would not increase 

substantially in response to an 

exemption, thereby decreasing the 

potential energy savings due to the 

standards adopted by the rulemaking. 

(Joint Comment, No. 46 at pp. 2, 3) 

DOE reviewed ANSI C78.81–2010 17

and determined that ballasts designed to 

operate 4-foot MBP T8 lamps are 

required to use some level of cathode 

heating when operating lamps at 

currents less than 155 milliamperes 

(mA). Through testing, DOE learned the 

BF of these ballasts was similar to or 

less than 0.7. This low BF (which affects 

light output) is a unique utility that 

might be removed from the market if 

these ballasts were held to the 

established standard level. DOE 

analyzed test data for 4-foot MBP T8 

programmed start ballasts with average 

currents less than 155 mA to determine 

if there was a trend between low current 

and low efficiency. DOE determined 

that as current decreased, the BLE also 

decreased. DOE concluded that none of 

the PS ballasts tested with an average 

current of less than 140 mA were able 

to meet the max tech efficiency levels 

analyzed in the PS product class. 

Therefore, DOE is exempting these PS 

low-current ballasts from the standards 

adopted in this final rule. 

DOE does not believe that an 

exemption for these ballasts will lead to 

an increase in their use because when 

current is reduced, light output is also 

reduced. Consumers have light output 

requirements and would not consider a 

ballast that does not meet such a 

requirement to be an adequate 

substitute. Reduced light output could 

also require additional lighting fixtures 

to be purchased in order to meet 

expected lighting levels. It is unlikely, 

however, that consumers would 

purchase additional fixtures due to high 

first cost. As a result, DOE establishes 

an exemption for these PS, low-current 

ballasts. DOE has determined that the 

threshold for the exemption will be set 

at the current levels indicated in its 

testing, 140 mA for 4-foot MBP ballasts. 

d. Other Exemptions 

Radionic commented that DOE should 

consider exempting outdoor ballasts, 

cold weather ballasts, ‘‘all ballasts for 

less than 30 watts’’, ballasts that have a 

normal power factor 18 (a power factor 

equal to or greater than 0.6 and less than 

0.9), and ballasts that are produced in 

small quantities for special applications. 

(Radionic, No. 36 at p. 1) 

DOE notes that several of the ballasts 

mentioned by Radionic are already 

subject to standards. For example, 

because outdoor and cold weather 

ballasts, apart from sign ballasts, are 

already covered by current standards, 

DOE cannot exempt them from 

standards in this rulemaking due to 

anti-backsliding statutory provisions 

(discussed in section II.A). Similarly, 

DOE interpreted ‘‘all ballasts for less 

than 30 watts’’ as ballasts that operate 

total lamp arc powers less than 30 W. 

Some of these ballasts (such as ballasts 

that operate F34T12 lamps) are covered 

by current standards and cannot be 

exempted in this rulemaking. In general, 

DOE specifies efficiency levels using a 

power law equation that assigns BLE 

values as a function of total lamp arc 

power. In other words, the equation 

takes lower lamp arc power into account 

when assigning appropriate standard 

levels. Even though they operate lower 

wattage lamps, these ballasts still 

demonstrate significant potential energy 

savings and DOE test data shows they 

are capable of meeting the standard 

levels adopted by this final rule. 

Therefore, DOE will not exempt ballasts 

that operate total lamp arc powers less 

than 30 W in this final rule. 

Ballasts with a normal power factor 

are classified as residential ballasts. 

DOE continues to cover residential 

ballasts as discussed in section III.A.2.b. 

For residential ballasts, as well as all 

other types listed above, Radionic did 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70559 

19The 2009 Lamps Rule adopted a new definition 

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

20 In the April 2011 NOPR, these ballasts were 

described as ‘‘ballasts that operate 8-foot high 

output lamps with an input voltage at or between 

120V and 277V, and operate at ambient 

temperatures of ¥20 degrees F or less and are used 

in outdoor signs.’’ For the reasons stated in section 

0, DOE uses this revised description for the final 

rule. 

21Under the consolidated Consent Decree in New 

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

Sept. 7, 2005) and Natural Resources Defense 

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

Sept. 7, 2005), as amended, the U.S. Department of 

Energy is required to publish, as that term is 

defined in the consent decree, a final rule amending 

energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts no later than October 28, 2011. 

not provide DOE with any specific 

information regarding ballasts produced 

in small quantities for special 

applications, or specific data indicating 

that these ballasts would be unable to 

meet any standards. DOE has looked at 

the market and has not identified any 

applications, other than those already 

defined, in which ballasts are unable to 

meet standards and would require an 

exemption. For all of the ballast types 

Radionic listed, DOE has determined 

that the adopted standard levels are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

3. Summary of Fluorescent Lamp 

Ballasts To Which DOE Extends 

Coverage 

With the exception of the comments 

discussed previously in this section, 

DOE received no other input related to 

coverage of fluorescent lamp ballasts. In 

addition, DOE’s revised analyses 

indicate that energy conservation 

standards for the ballasts for which DOE 

proposed coverage in the April 2011 

NOPR are still technologically feasible, 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. Therefore, 

in summary, this final rule extends 

coverage to the following fluorescent 

lamp ballasts: 

(1) Ballasts that operate 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps with a rated 

wattage 19 of 25W or more, and an input 

voltage at or between 120V and 277V; 

(2) Ballasts that operate 2-foot 

medium bipin U-shaped lamps with a 

rated wattage of 25W or more, and an 

input voltage at or between 120V and 

277V; 

(3) Ballasts that operate 8-foot high 

output lamps with an input voltage at or 

between 120V and 277V; 

(4) Ballasts that operate 8-foot 

slimline lamps with a rated wattage of 

52W or more, and an input voltage at or 

between 120V and 277V; 

(5) Ballasts that operate 4-foot 

miniature bipin standard output lamps 

with a rated wattage of 26W or more, 

and an input voltage at or between 120V 

and 277V; 

(6) Ballasts that operate 4-foot 

miniature bipin high output lamps with 

a rated wattage of 49W or more, and an 

input voltage at or between 120V and 

277V; 

(7) Ballasts that operate 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps with a rated 

wattage of 25W or more, an input 

voltage at or between 120V and 277V, a 

power factor of less than 0.90, and are 

designed and labeled for use in 

residential applications; and 

(8) Ballasts that operate 8-foot high 

output lamps with an input voltage at or 

between 120V and 277V, have an 

enclosure with an Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) Type 2 rating, and are 

designed, labeled, and marketed for use 

in outdoor signs.20

The following ballasts are exempt from 

coverage: 

(1) Additional dimming ballasts; 

(2) Low frequency T8 ballasts that are 

designed, labeled, and marketed for use 

in EMI-sensitive environments and sold 

in packages of 10 or fewer; 

(3) PS ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP 

T8 lamps and deliver on average less 

than 140mA to each lamp. 

B. Off Mode and Standby Mode Energy 

Consumption Standards 

EPCA requires energy conservation 

standards adopted for a covered product 

after July 1, 2010 to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Because DOE is 

required by consent decree to publish a 

final rule establishing any amended 

standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts 

by October 28, 2011,21 this rulemaking 

is required to consider standby mode 

and off mode energy use. DOE 

determined that it is not possible for the 

ballasts at issue in this final rule to meet 

the off-mode criteria because there is no 

condition in which a ballast is 

connected to the main power source and 

is not already in a mode accounted for 

in either active or standby mode. In the 

test procedure addressing standby mode 

energy consumption, DOE determined 

that the only ballasts that consume 

energy in standby mode are those that 

incorporate an electronic circuit that 

enables the ballast to communicate with 

and be part of a lighting control 

interface (e.g., digitally addressable 

lighting interface (DALI) enabled 

ballasts). 74 FR 54445, 54447–8 

(October 22, 2009). DOE believes that 

the only commercially available ballasts 

that incorporate an electronic circuit to 

communicate with a lighting control 

interface are dimming ballasts. 

As discussed in the April 2011 NOPR, 

DOE did not expand the scope of 

coverage to include additional dimming 

ballasts. Therefore, the only covered 

dimming ballasts are the four products 

specified in 10 CFR 430.32(m)(5) that 

operate reduced-wattage lamps. DOE 

research has not identified any dimming 

ballasts currently on the market that 

operate these lamps because the fill gas 

composition of reduced-wattage lamps 

makes them undesirable for use in 

dimming applications. Because DOE is 

not aware of any other dimming 

products that are covered by existing 

standards, DOE was unable to 

characterize standby mode energy 

consumption. Therefore, DOE does not 

adopt provisions to address ballast 

operation in standby mode as part of the 

energy conservation standards that are 

the subject of this rulemaking. 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

1. Background 

As noted previously, manufacturers 

must use the test procedures for ballasts 

at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

Q to determine compliance with the 

currently applicable ballast efficacy 

factor standards. On March 24, 2010, 

DOE issued a NOPR in which it 

proposed revisions to these test 

procedures. 75 FR 14288. The principal 

change DOE proposed to the existing 

test methods was, in an effort to reduce 

measurement variation, to eliminate 

photometric measurements used to 

determine ballast efficacy factor (BEF). 

Instead, DOE proposed to use electrical 

measurements to determine ballast 

efficiency (BE), which could then be 

converted to BEF using empirically 

derived transfer equations. The 

proposed changes specified that the 

ballast operate a resistive load rather 

than a lamp load during performance 

testing. For consistency with previous 

methods, no changes were proposed for 

the measurement of BF (which required 

photometric measurements). The 

preliminary TSD for this rulemaking 

considered standards in terms of BEF, as 

determined by the methods proposed in 

the active mode test procedure NOPR. 

After reviewing comments submitted 

in response to the active mode test 

procedure NOPR (75 FR 14287, March 

24, 2010) and conducting additional 

research, DOE issued a supplemental 

NOPR (SNOPR) proposing a lamp-based 

ballast efficiency metric instead of the 

resistor-based metric proposed in the 

NOPR. 75 FR 71570 (November 24, 

2010). The new metric, BLE, was equal 

to the total lamp arc power divided by 

ballast input power. DOE believed this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70560 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

22The test procedure defines a low frequency 

ballast as a fluorescent lamp ballast that operates at 

a supply frequency of 50 to 60 Hz and operates the 

lamp at the same frequency as the supply. The test 

procedure incorporates the ANSI C82.13 definition 

of high frequency ballast as a device which operates 

at a supply frequency of 50 or 60 Hz and operates 

the lamp at frequencies greater than 10 kHz. 

23 Details on certification and enforcement 

procedures can be found at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

lamp-based metric more accurately 

assessed the real-life performance of a 

ballast and also reduced measurement 

variation relative to the existing test 

procedure for BEF. DOE also proposed 

a method for calculating the BF of a 

ballast by dividing the measured lamp 

arc power on the test ballast by the 

measured lamp arc power on a reference 

ballast. In cases where reference ballast 

operating conditions were unavailable, 

the SNOPR provided a reference lamp 

power (specific to the ballast type) from 

an ANSI standard or from empirical 

results. The April 2011 NOPR for the 

standards rulemaking used the BLE 

procedures specified in the test 

procedure SNOPR to propose energy 

conservation standards. 

The final rule for the active mode test 

procedure, which was published in the 

Federal Register on May 4, 2011, 

adopted the BLE metric proposed in the 

SNOPR with a few modifications. 76 FR 

25211. To account for the increase in 

lamp efficacy associated with highfrequency lamp operation versus lowfrequency, DOE had proposed an 

adjustment to the BLE of low-frequency 

systems. DOE had proposed that lowfrequency BLE be multiplied by 0.9 to 

account for the approximately 10 

percent increase in lighting efficacy 

associated with high-frequency lamp 

operation. For the final rule, DOE 

assigned specific lamp operating 

frequency adjustment factors for each 

ballast type considered. The adjustment 

factors more accurately approximated 

the increase in lighting efficacy 

associated with high-frequency lamp 

operation. In addition, in the final rule, 

DOE did not adopt a BF measurement 

procedure because BF was no longer 

used to define product classes for 

energy conservation standards. 

This final rule for energy conservation 

standards evaluates standards for 

ballasts in terms of the BLE metric 

adopted in the active mode test 

procedure. Appendix Q1 of 10 CFR part 

430 Subpart B will be used to evaluate 

compliance with the standards adopted 

in this final rule. 76 FR 25211, 25213 

(May 4, 2011) 

DOE received comments in response 

to the April 2011 NOPR regarding the 

new fluorescent ballast testing 

procedure and BLE metric. Several 

stakeholders expressed support for the 

BLE metric. The Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company, Southern California Edison, 

the Southern California Gas Company, 

and San Diego Gas and Electric 

(hereafter the ‘‘CA Utilities’’) 

commented that the new BLE metric is 

an improvement over the existing BEF 

metric because it allows for efficiency 

comparison across a wider range of 

ballasts. (CA Utilities, No. 45 at p. 1) 

NEEP and CA Utilities stated that the 

new BLE metric successfully simplifies 

testing requirements and enables the 

vast consolidation of product classes, 

which will make the compliance and 

enforcement processes easier. (NEEP, 

No. 92 at p. 3; CA Utilities, No. 45 at 

pp. 1–2) CA Utilities also approved of 

the new test procedure, commenting 

that they support the use of lamps to 

measure lamp arc power instead of sets 

of resistor banks designed to simulate 

lamps. CA Utilities stated that actual 

lamps, which have varying impedance 

based on power, more accurately 

represent real world loads on ballasts. 

They added that maintaining different 

sets of resistor banks at every ballast 

factor would have increased the testing 

burden for manufacturers. (CA Utilities, 

No. 45 at p. 2) 

DOE also received several comments 

requesting clarification on the new test 

procedure. These comments are 

discussed in the following sections. 

2. Transfer Function 

GE asked if DOE would be creating 

transfer functions, similar to those 

proposed in the active mode test 

procedure NOPR, to convert BLE to BEF 

for marketing purposes. GE noted that as 

BEF will continue to be more relevant 

for consumers using lumens and system 

watts, manufacturers will continue to 

publish those numbers even though 

they will not test the ballasts with that 

metric. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 43 at p. 237) As discussed in section 

VII.D, to verify that no backsliding had 

occurred, DOE developed a method to 

convert BEF to BLE in order to compare 

current and newly adopted standards. 

However, DOE requires manufacturers 

to certify compliance in terms of the 

BLE metric only and therefore does not 

provide a transfer function for 

converting BLE to BEF for marketing 

purposes. 

3. Reference Lamp 

GE noted that it is not always clear 

what lamp should be used when testing 

a ballast and requested clarification on 

this matter. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 236–7) DOE 

notes that Table A in the ballast test 

procedure, Appendix Q1 of 10 CFR part 

430 Subpart B, provides the appropriate 

lamp wattage, diameter and base to use 

in testing for each covered ballast type. 

For example, the first row of Table A 

shows that ballasts ‘‘that operate 

straight-shaped lamps (commonly 

referred to as 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps) with medium bipin bases and a 

nominal overall length of 48 inches’’ 

should be tested with 32W T8 MBP 

lamps. 

4. Total Lamp Arc Power 

The People’s Republic of China (P.R. 

China) noted that in the April 2011 

NOPR, the term ‘‘total lamp arc power’’ 

was not well-defined. They noted that 

ANSI C78.81–2010 specifies ‘‘arc 

wattage’’ for various fluorescent tube 

lamps but does not define ‘‘total lamp 

arc power.’’ Furthermore, while the test 

procedure SNOPR included a definition 

for ‘‘total lamp arc power,’’ it also 

included a table that listed a low and/ 

or high frequency ‘‘reference lamp arc 

power’’ for each covered ballast type. 75 

FR 71570, 71592 (November 24, 2010). 

P.R. China indicated that these terms 

caused confusion regarding the 

appropriate value to be used when 

calculating the efficiency standard. 

Therefore, they suggested DOE clarify 

the specific value of ‘‘total lamp arc 

power’’ and use consistent terminology 

to avoid confusion. (P.R. China, No. 51 

at p. 3–4) 

CA Utilities and NEEA and NPCC 

agreed that it was unclear which arc 

power should be used to calculate the 

applicable BLE standard. CA Utilities 

recommended that DOE require 

manufacturers to use the average lamp 

arc power of the tested sample to 

determine the BLE for a given model. 

(CA Utilities, No. 58 at p. 4; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 59 at p. 3) 

DOE notes that reference lamp arc 

power refers to the arc wattage listed in 

ANSI C78.81–2010 and, as shown in 

that standard, can vary depending on 

whether the reference ballast operates at 

low or high frequency settings.22 These 

values were provided in the test 

procedure SNOPR for the purposes of 

calculating ballast factor. However, 

because the test procedure final rule did 

not adopt a procedure for calculating 

ballast factor, reference lamp arc powers 

are no longer relevant. Total lamp arc 

power is a measured, not listed, value 

and is evaluated according to the 

recently adopted test procedure. 

DOE also notes that 10 CFR 429.26 

does not currently reflect the new 

ballast luminous efficiency metric. DOE 

plans to consider certification 

procedures in upcoming rulemakings 

related to compliance certification and 

enforcement.23 For this final rule, DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70561 

buildings/appliance_standards/certification_

enforcement.html. 

computed the reported ballast luminous 

efficiency and total lamp arc power 

assuming the ballast basic models 

would be certified in the following 

manner. To certify compliance, 

manufacturers would calculate the total 

lamp arc power and BLE for each 

sample tested according to 10 CFR 430, 

Subpart B, Appendix Q1. They would 

then average the total lamp arc power of 

each sample and input that average into 

the appropriate energy conservation 

standard efficiency level. The output of 

that equation dictates the minimum BLE 

that the reported BLE for each basic 

model must meet or exceed. To 

calculate the reported BLE for each 

basic model, manufacturers would 

follow the provisions laid out in 10 CFR 

429.26(a)(2)(ii). 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each standards rulemaking, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information it has gathered on all 

current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products that are 

the subject of the rulemaking. As the 

first step in such analysis, DOE 

develops a list of technology options for 

consideration in consultation with 

manufacturers, design engineers, and 

other interested parties. DOE then 

determines which of these means for 

improving efficiency are technologically 

feasible. DOE considers technologies 

incorporated in commercially available 

products or in working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i). 

Once DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each of them in light of the 

following additional screening criteria: 

(1) Practicability to manufacture, install, 

or service; (2) adverse impacts on 

product utility or availability; and (3) 

adverse impacts on health or safety. For 

further details on the screening analysis 

for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the 

final rule TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE considers an amended 

standard for a type or class of covered 

product, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

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

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, DOE 

determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max tech’’) 

ballast efficiency in the engineering 

analysis, using the design options 

identified in the screening analysis (see 

chapter 5 of the final rule TSD). 

As a first step to identifying the max 

tech efficiency level, DOE conducted 

testing of commercially available 

ballasts. DOE was unable to identify 

working prototypes that had a higher 

efficiency than the tested products. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that 

TSL 3B, which is based on the most 

efficient commercially available ballasts 

tested, represents the highest efficiency 

level that is technologically feasible for 

a sufficient diversity of commercially 

available products (spanning several 

ballast factors, number of lamps per 

ballast, and types of lamps operated) 

within each product class. The max tech 

efficiency levels require the use of 

electronic ballasts with improved 

components (such as high efficiency 

transformers, diodes, capacitors, and 

transistors). The max tech levels also 

require IS instead of RS ballasts, or 

some form of cathode cut-out 

technology for PS ballasts. Table IV.1 

presents the max tech levels for each 

product class. 

TABLE IV.1—MAX TECH LEVELS

BLE = A/(1 + B * total lamp arc power ∧-C) where A, B, and C are as follows 

Product class A B C 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ............................................. 0.993 0.27 0.25 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ......................................................... 0.993 0.51 0.37 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps 

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate 8-foot HO lamps .............. 0.993 0.28 0.25 

PS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate 8-foot HO lamps .......................... 0.973 0.52 0.37 

Sign ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps .......................................................................... 0.993 0.47 0.25 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate ........................................................................... 0.993 0.29 0.25 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

PS residential ballasts that operate: ...................................................................................... 0.973 0.50 0.37 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(NIA) spreadsheet to estimate energy 

savings from new or amended standards 

for the ballasts that are the subject of 

this final rule. (The NIA spreadsheet 

model is described in section V.F of this 

final rule and in chapter 11 of the final 

rule TSD.) DOE forecasted energy 

savings for each TSL, beginning in 2014, 

the year that compliance with the new 

and amended standards is required, and 

ending in 2043. DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

between the standards case and the base 

case. The base case represents the 

forecast of energy consumption in the 

absence of new and amended 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70562 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

mandatory efficiency standards, and 

considers market demand for higherefficiency products. For example, DOE 

models a shift in the base case from 

covered fluorescent lamp ballasts 

toward emerging technologies such as 

light emitting diodes (LEDs). 

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates 

the electricity savings in ‘‘site energy’’ 

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site 

energy is the energy directly consumed 

by ballasts at the locations where they 

are used. DOE reports national energy 

savings on an annual basis in terms of 

the aggregated source (primary) energy 

savings, which is the savings in energy 

used to generate and transmit the site 

energy. (See final rule TSD chapter 11.) 

To convert site energy to source (also 

known as primary) energy, DOE derived 

time-dependent conversion factors from 

the model used to prepare the Energy 

Information Administration’s (EIA’s) 

Annual Energy Outlook 2010 

(AEO2010). 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted in section I, under 42 U.S.C. 

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

adopting a standard for a covered 

product if such standard would not 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

While the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 

1373 (DC Cir. 1985), indicated that 

Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy 

savings in this context to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy 

savings for all of the TSLs considered in 

this final rule are nontrivial, and 

therefore DOE considers them 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 

section 325 of EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted in section II.A, EPCA 

provides seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

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

following sections discuss how DOE 

addresses each of those seven factors in 

this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a new 

or amended standard on manufacturers, 

DOE first determines the quantitative 

impacts using an annual cash-flow 

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

capital requirements during the period 

between the announcement of a 

regulation and when the regulation 

requires compliance—and a long-term 

assessment over the 30-year analysis 

period. The impacts analyzed include 

INPV (which values the industry based 

on expected future cash flows), cash 

flows by year, changes in revenue and 

income, and other measures of impact, 

as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes 

and reports the impacts on different 

types of manufacturers, including an 

analysis of impacts on small 

manufacturers. Third, DOE considers 

the impact of standards on domestic 

manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

DOE also takes into account cumulative 

impacts of different related DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and the payback period 

associated with new or amended 

standards. The LCC, which is separately 

specified as one of the seven factors to 

consider when determining the 

economic justification for a new or 

amended standard, (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)), is discussed in the 

following section. For consumers in the 

aggregate, DOE calculates the NPV from 

a national perspective of the economic 

impacts on consumers over the forecast 

period used in a particular rulemaking. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

savings for the considered efficiency 

levels are calculated relative to a base 

case that reflects likely trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

The LCC analysis requires a variety of 

inputs, such as product prices, product 

energy consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and consumer discount rates. 

DOE assumes in its analysis that 

consumers purchase the product in 

2014. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in specific inputs, such as 

product lifetime and discount rate, DOE 

uses a distribution of values with 

probabilities attached to each value. A 

distinct advantage of this approach is 

that DOE can identify the percentage of 

consumers estimated to achieve LCC 

savings or experiencing an LCC 

increase, in addition to the average LCC 

savings associated with a particular 

standard level. In addition to identifying 

ranges of impacts, DOE evaluates the 

LCC impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable sub-groups of consumers 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard. 

c. Energy Savings 

While significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

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

DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet results in 

its consideration of total projected 

savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing classes of products, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE seeks to develop standards that 

would not lessen the utility or 

performance of the products under 

consideration. The efficiency levels 

considered in this final rule will not 

affect any features valued by consumers, 

such as starting method, ballast factor, 

or cold temperature operation. 

Therefore, none of the TSLs presented 

in section VII.A would reduce the utility 

or performance of the ballasts that are 

the subject of this final rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from standards. It directs the Attorney 

General to determine the impact, if any, 

of any lessening of competition likely to 

result from standards and to transmit 

this determination to the Secretary, not 

later than 60 days after the publication 

of a proposed rule, together with an 

analysis of the nature and extent of this 

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

and (B)(ii)) To assist the Attorney 

General in making this determination, 

DOE transmitted a copy of the April 

2011 NOPR and TSD to the Attorney 

General for review. The Attorney 

General’s response is discussed in 

section VII.B.5, and is reprinted at the 

end of this rule. 

f. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

The non-monetary benefits of the 

standards in this final rule are likely to 

be reflected in improvements to the 

security and reliability of the nation’s 

energy system. Reduced demand for 

electricity may also result in reduced 

costs for maintaining the reliability of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70563 

24The EIA approves the use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ 

to describe only an AEO version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

the present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS-BT’’ refers to the 

model as used here. (BT stands for DOE’s Building 

Technologies Program.) For more information on 

NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling 

System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) 

(Feb.1998), available at: tonto.eia.doe.gov/ 

FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf. 

the nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. 

Energy savings from the standards in 

this final rule are also likely to result in 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with 

energy production. DOE reports the 

environmental effects from the new and 

amended standards—and from each TSL 

it considered for ballasts—in the 

environmental assessment contained in 

chapter 16 of the final rule TSD. DOE 

also reports estimates of the economic 

value of reduced emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

The Act allows the Secretary of 

Energy to consider any other factors he 

or she deems relevant in determining 

whether a standard is economically 

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

Under this provision, DOE considers 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

adversely affected by the standards 

established in this rule. DOE 

specifically assesses the impact of 

standards on low-income consumers, 

institutions of religious worship, and 

institutions that serve low-income 

populations. In considering these 

subgroups, DOE analyzes variations on 

electricity prices, operating hours, 

discount rates, and baseline ballasts. See 

section V.G for further detail. 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

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

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy (and, as 

applicable, water) savings resulting from 

the standard, as calculated under the 

applicable DOE test procedure. DOE’s 

LCC and PBP analyses generate values 

that calculate the payback period for 

consumers of potential new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable presumption test. However, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to the consumer, manufacturer, 

nation, and environment, as required 

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

results of this analysis serve as the basis 

for DOE to evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section VII.B.1.c. 

V. Methodology and Discussion 

DOE used three spreadsheets to 

estimate the impact of the adopted 

standards. The first spreadsheet 

calculates LCCs and payback periods of 

potential new energy conservation 

standards. The second provides 

shipments forecasts and then calculates 

national energy savings and NPV 

impacts of new energy conservation 

standards. Through the third, the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM), DOE assesses manufacturer 

impacts. 

Additionally, DOE uses a version of 

EIA’s National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) to estimate the impacts of 

energy efficiency standards on electric 

utilities and the environment. The 

NEMS model simulates the energy 

sector of the U.S. economy. The version 

of NEMS used for appliance standards 

analysis is called NEMS-BT, and is 

based on the AEO2010 version of NEMS 

with minor modifications. The NEMSBT accounts for the interactions 

between the various energy supply and 

demand sectors and the economy as a 

whole.24

As a basis for this final rule, DOE has 

continued to use the spreadsheets and 

approaches explained in the April 2011 

NOPR. DOE used the same general 

methodology as applied in the NOPR, 

but revised some of the assumptions 

and inputs for the final rule in response 

to public comments. The following 

sections discuss these revisions. 

A. Product Classes 

In evaluating and establishing energy 

conservation standards, DOE divides 

covered products into classes by the 

type of energy used, or by capacity or 

other performance-related feature that 

justifies a different standard for 

products having such feature. (See 42 

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

feature justifies a different standard, 

DOE must consider factors such as the 

utility of the feature to users. Id. DOE 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for different product classes 

based on the criteria set forth in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). 

For the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

undertook extensive testing of 

fluorescent lamp ballasts to evaluate the 

impact of numerous ballast 

characteristics on BLE. Using this test 

data, DOE empirically found a 

relationship between the BLE metric 

and lamp arc power. In general, as lamp 

arc power increases, BLE increases as 

well. DOE believes this association is 

due to the fixed losses of a ballast 

becoming proportionally less significant 

at higher lamp arc powers. This 

relationship allowed DOE to set 

efficiency levels as a function of total 

lamp arc power across a wide range of 

power levels, which simplified the 

product class structure and the amount 

of scaling required among product 

classes. In addition, setting efficiency 

levels with an equation allows for easier 

adaption of standards to future 

innovations. For example, an equation 

could account for the introduction of 

new ballast factors. It would also not 

necessarily have to be revised if the test 

procedure were modified to require 

testing with reduced-wattage lamps, 

toward which manufacturers have 

commented the market is moving. 

NEMA agreed that an efficiency 

standard using pure electrical 

measurements on a ballast operating a 

lamp load is appropriate provided the 

equation accounts for different 

operating characteristics of the various 

ballast types that are grouped into each 

product class. (NEMA, No. 47 at p. 3) 

NEMA’s specific comments regarding 

the appropriate grouping of various 

ballast types are discussed later in this 

section. 

After considering several potential 

class-setting factors, DOE proposed in 

the April 2011 NOPR to separate 

product classes based on starting 

method (instant start and rapid start 

versus programmed start), ballasts that 

operate 8-foot HO lamps, and ballasts 

that operate 8-foot HO lamps in coldtemperature outdoor signs. DOE noted 

that for each of those three ballast types, 

a difference in utility was accompanied 

by a difference in the BLE predicted by 

the power-efficiency relationship. These 

three distinctions resulted in five 

product classes for: IS/RS ballasts that 

operate 4-foot MBP and 8-foot slimline 

lamps; PS ballasts that operate 4-foot 

MBP, T5 SO, and T5 HO lamps, IS/RS 

ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps, 

PS ballast that operate 8-foot HO lamps, 

and ballasts that operate 8-foot HO 

lamps in cold temperature outdoor 

signs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70564 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

25ANSI C82.77–2002 requires residential ballasts 

to have a minimum power factor of 0.5 and 

commercial ballasts to have a minimum power 

factor of 0.9. 

ASAP and CA Utilities commented 

that the reduction from the 70 product 

classes considered in the preliminary 

analysis to the five product classes 

proposed in the NOPR provides a 

simpler standard and thus facilitates 

compliance and enforcement. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 

80; CA Utilities, No. 45 at pp. 1–2) In 

addition, DOE received several 

comments related to the inclusion of 

residential and commercial ballasts in a 

single product class, the definition of 

the sign ballast product class, the 

grouping of ballasts with different 

starting methods, and the potential for 

additional subclasses within the 8-foot 

HO product class. These comments are 

discussed in the following sections. 

1. Residential Ballasts 

Separate minimum power factor and 

electromagnetic interference 

requirements exist for residential and 

commercial ballasts. Specifically, 

residential ballasts have more stringent 

(or lower maximum allowable) EMI 

requirements than commercial ballasts; 

they also have less stringent (or lower 

minimum allowable) power factor 

requirements.25 Based on these differing 

requirements, in the April 2011 NOPR, 

DOE concluded that residential ballasts 

offer a unique utility in that they serve 

distinct market sectors and applications. 

However, because the April 2011 NOPR 

test data indicated residential ballasts 

could achieve similar levels of 

efficiency as commercial ballasts at the 

highest standard levels analyzed, DOE 

did not propose a separate product class 

for residential ballasts. In response to 

the April 2011 NOPR, DOE received 

several comments regarding this 

conclusion. 

CA Utilities agreed with DOE’s 

proposal that a separate product class is 

not necessary for residential ballasts 

because no specific characteristic affects 

efficiency. They stated that residential 

ballasts are not subject to more stringent 

FCC standards for EMI because these 

standards only apply to devices 

operating at frequencies greater than 30 

megahertz (MHz). Thus, CA Utilities 

emphasized that starting method is 

more relevant to the efficiency of the 

ballast than the distinction of residential 

or commercial. (CA Utilities, No. 58 at 

p. 4; CA Utilities, No. 45 at p. 7) NEMA 

disagreed, commenting that not only are 

residential ballasts subject to more 

stringent standards for EMI, but that this 

requirement decreases ballast efficiency. 

NEMA and Universal added that while 

they support the inclusion of residential 

ballasts in this rulemaking, they oppose 

the inclusion of residential ballasts in 

the same product class as commercial 

ballasts, given their different efficiencies 

and application requirements. (NEMA, 

No. 47 at p. 4; Universal, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 76–7) 

Current regulatory requirements 

subject residential ballasts to more 

stringent conducted EMI requirements 

than commercial ballasts. In particular, 

DOE notes that separate FCC standards 

exist for both radiated and conducted 

EMI emissions. The 30 MHz standards 

cited by CA Utilities correspond to 

radiated EMI emissions frequencies, not 

to ballast operating frequencies. Devices 

that operate at frequencies less than 

1.705 MHz, such as fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, are not required to measure 

radiated emissions that exist at 

frequencies above 30 MHz; therefore, 

radiated EMI standards do not apply to 

fluorescent lamp ballasts. Ballasts with 

conducted EMI emissions in the 

frequency range of 0.45 to 30 MHz, 

however, must comply with FCC 

standards for conducted EMI. The 

conducted EMI requirements are 

applicable to all fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, but are more stringent for 

residential ballasts, necessitating added 

interference filtration in order to 

comply. 

CA Utilities also commented that 

although residential ballasts are subject 

to a lower minimum power factor 

requirement, they do not necessarily 

have low power factors; in fact, ballasts 

with either high or low power factors 

can be installed in the residential sector. 

CA Utilities concluded that therefore, 

many high-efficiency commercial 

ballasts available on the market today 

can be used in the residential sector 

without issue. (CA Utilities, No. 45 at 

pp. 6–7) Philips agreed that ballasts 

with high power factors can be installed 

in the residential sector, noting that the 

ENERGY STAR program for residential 

fixtures may soon require some level of 

power factor correction. Philips 

commented that increased power factor 

correction actually reduces the 

efficiency of residential ballasts because 

the losses associated with meeting FCC 

Class B requirements become more 

significant when including power factor 

correction. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 77–9) 

Acuity Brands added that a 

residential ballast that achieves the 

same efficiency as the most efficient 

commercial product would be 50 

percent more expensive because of the 

FCC EMI requirements. (Acuity Brands, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 

79) NEMA pointed out that that a higher 

price could influence consumers to 

migrate from fluorescent luminaires to 

lower efficiency incandescent or 

halogen fixtures. (NEMA, No. 47 at p. 4) 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) also 

expressed concern regarding the prices 

of residential ballasts, stating that a 

separate product class for residential 

ballasts is needed to improve economics 

for residential and low-income 

consumers. (EEI, No. 48 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees that high power factor 

ballasts, similar to the power factors 

possessed by commercial products, can 

be installed in the residential sector. 

However, the addition of a power factor 

correction stage to a ballast circuit 

substantially increases the amount of 

electromagnetic interference due to the 

presence of high speed switches. 

Therefore, to meet the FCC requirements 

for residential products, commercial 

ballasts would require a more 

significant EMI filter and thus incur 

additional power losses. 

As stated previously, DOE determined 

in the April 2011 NOPR that despite the 

differences in power factor and EMI 

requirements between residential and 

commercial 2-lamp 4-foot MBP IS/RS 

ballasts, both ballast types could reach 

achieve similar levels of efficiency at 

the highest levels analyzed. Based on 

the similarity in efficiency, DOE 

included both ballast types in the same 

product class. Since publication of the 

April 2011 NOPR, however, DOE has 

obtained additional test data for 

residential ballasts that indicate a 

separate product class for residential 

ballasts is warranted. Specifically, DOE 

tested 4-lamp residential ballasts and 

was unable to confirm that it was 

technologically feasible for 4-lamp 

residential ballasts to meet the 

commercial ballast efficiency levels. 

Thus, in the August 2011 NODA, DOE 

considered establishing a separate 

product class for residential ballasts. 

Because DOE proposed extending 

coverage to residential ballasts with 

both IS/RS and PS starting methods, 

DOE considered two new product 

classes: (1) IS/RS ballasts that operate 4- 

foot MBP lamps in the residential sector 

and (2) PS ballasts that operate 4-foot 

MBP lamps in the residential sector. A 

separate product class for residential 

ballasts would allow DOE to adopt 

separate standard levels for these 

products based on their associated 

consumer economics. 

In response to the August 2011 

NODA, the CA Utilities, NEEA and 

NPCC, and ASAP, the American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, and the Natural Resources 

Defense Council, in a second Joint 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70565 

26PS ballasts are not used in combination with 

8-foot slimline lamps because the base of these 

lamps only has a single pin rather than the two 

required for electrode heating. 

Comment, disagreed with the 

establishment of a separate product 

class for residential ballasts because 

residential ballasts can meet the same 

efficiency levels as commercial ballasts. 

The second Joint Comment added that 

although the data indicates that 4-lamp 

residential ballasts cannot achieve the 

same efficiency as their commercial 

counterparts, DOE should not establish 

a separate product class for this reason. 

They argued that 2-lamp ballasts are far 

more common in the residential sector 

than 4-lamp ballasts, which are often 

installed in commercial buildings. (CA 

Utilities, No. 58 at p. 4; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 59 at p. 3; Second Joint 

Comment, No. 57 at p. 1–2) 

In addition, the second Joint 

Comment, CA Utilities, and NEEA and 

NPCC stated that even if there were a 

difference in efficiency, DOE has not 

demonstrated that residential ballasts 

provide a unique consumer utility. 

(Second Joint Comment, No. 57 at pp. 

1–2; CA Utilities, No. 58 at p. 4; NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 59 at p. 3) These 

interested parties stated that residential 

ballasts are not subject to more stringent 

FCC requirements for electromagnetic 

interference. CA Utilities added that 

even if they were, EMI filters are 

available and they do not believe these 

components affect efficiency. These 

interested parties also reiterated 

previous comments that, while 

residential ballasts have lower 

minimum power factor requirements, 

this did not prevent high power factor 

ballasts from being installed in this 

market sector. The second Joint 

Comment, CA Utilities, and NEEA and 

NPCC concluded that commercial 

ballasts could be used in the residential 

sector without issue. 

DOE notes that both 2-lamp ballasts 

and 4-lamp ballasts are used in the 

residential sector. In addition, while 2- 

lamp ballasts may be more popular in 

the residential sector, ballasts that 

operate different numbers of lamps, 

such as the 4-lamp ballasts described by 

the second Joint Comment above, 

provide a unique utility, as explained in 

the following paragraph. EPCA requires 

DOE to consider any lessening of the 

utility or the performance of the covered 

products likely to result from the 

imposition of a standard. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV). EPCA also prohibits 

DOE from establishing standards that 

are likely to result in the unavailability 

of performance characteristics, features, 

sizes, capacities and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States when the 

standard is established. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4). EPCA further requires DOE 

to prescribe a lower energy efficiency 

level for product classes in which the 

products have a performance-related 

feature, considering the utility of that 

feature to consumers and other factors, 

that justifies a lower efficiency level. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(q). Available data indicates 

that these products cannot achieve the 

same efficiencies as their commercial 

counterparts and that, therefore, a 

separate product class and efficiency 

standard is warranted. 

DOE disagrees with the assertion that 

commercial ballasts can be used as 

substitutes for residential products. 

Although both ballasts can have high 

power factors, residential ballasts are 

subject to more stringent FCC standards 

for conducted EMI emissions. DOE 

agrees that EMI can be mitigated by the 

addition of a filter, but disputes the CA 

Utilities’ claim that the filter does not 

affect efficiency. If a residential ballast 

were designed to have a high power 

factor, the addition of a power factor 

correction stage would increase the 

amount of conducted emissions. Thus, 

the residential ballast must possess a 

stronger EMI filter to comply with FCC 

requirements. DOE notes that only one 

T8 residential ballast in the data set had 

a power factor greater than 0.9, and this 

model did not meet the most efficient 

EL considered for the residential 

product class. For these reasons, DOE 

concludes that residential ballasts are 

less efficient than commercial ballasts 

and also offer unique consumer utility. 

Therefore, as stated above, DOE has 

established a separate product class for 

these products in this final rule. 

DOE also received comments 

regarding the types of ballasts that 

should be included in the residential 

product class. NEMA suggested that the 

residential ballast product class include 

ballasts that operate 8-foot slimline 

lamps in addition to ballasts that 

operate 4-foot MBP lamps. (NEMA, No. 

47 at p. 6) In its search of the market, 

DOE discovered a small number of 8- 

foot slimline ballasts in product catalogs 

that are intended for use in the 

residential sector. DOE also noted that 

residential ballasts that are designed to 

operate 4-foot MBP lamps can also 

operate 2-foot U-shaped lamps. As 

described above, DOE finds that 

residential ballasts cannot achieve the 

same efficiency levels as commercial 

ballasts and that they offer the consumer 

unique utility. Therefore, DOE has 

modified the description of the 

residential product class to include: (1) 

IS/RS ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP, 

2-foot U-shaped, and 8-foot slimline 

lamps in the residential sector and (2) 

PS ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP and 

2-foot U-shaped lamps in the residential 

sector.26

2. Sign Ballasts 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

proposed establishing a separate 

product class for ballasts that operate 8- 

foot HO lamps in cold temperature 

outdoor signs. This proposal was based 

on their unique utility and associated 

decrease in efficiency relative to 

standard 8-foot HO ballasts. Sign 

ballasts operate outdoors in wet and 

cold temperature environments and 

have highly flexible lamp pairing 

possibilities, both in terms of varied 

individual lamp lengths and different 

total lamp length (sum of the length of 

all lamps operated by the ballast). In 

response to the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

received comments that the proposed 

sign ballast product class description 

was not sufficient. 

ASAP encouraged DOE to ensure that 

the definition of the sign ballast product 

class is sufficiently narrow. (ASAP, No. 

46 at p. 2) CA Utilities commented that 

DOE should reevaluate the defining 

characteristics of sign ballasts because it 

does not seem to accurately capture the 

products for which it was intended. In 

particular, CA Utilities and ASAP cited 

the description ‘‘ballasts that operate 8- 

foot HO lamps’’ as problematic because 

it could leave out sign ballasts that are 

designed for other lamp lengths. (CA 

Utilities, No. 45 at p. 7; ASAP, No. 46 

at p. 2) 

DOE agrees that sign ballasts capable 

of operating other lamp lengths, in 

addition to 8-foot lamps, should be 

included in the sign ballast product 

class. However, DOE does not agree that 

ballasts designed to operate solely these 

alternate lamps, other than 8-foot HO 

lamps, should be considered in the sign 

ballast product class or scope of 

coverage. In determining the scope of 

fluorescent ballasts covered by this 

rulemaking, DOE’s research indicated 

that the vast majority of sign ballasts are 

capable of operating 8-foot HO lamps, in 

addition to other lamp lengths. Because 

sign ballasts that cannot operate 8-foot 

HO lamps were so rare, there was 

insufficient available data to analyze the 

efficiency potential of these ballasts. 

DOE does not include those ballasts that 

cannot operate 8-foot HO lamps in the 

sign ballast product class. DOE defined 

the added scope of sign ballasts based 

on their operation of 8-foot HO lamps 

and assessed the BLE of sign ballasts 

based on their performance when 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70566 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

27For these same reasons, the test procedure in 

Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430 Appendix Q1 

specifies that a sign ballast must be tested with the 

maximum number of 8-foot HO (either T8 or T12) 

lamps it is designed to operate. 

28Universal Lighting Technologies Inc. The Sign 

Ballast Today. 2010. www.signasign.com/news/ 

signindustry.html. 

operating 8-foot HO lamps. Therefore, if 

the sign ballast cannot operate an 8-foot 

HO lamp, DOE did not include it in the 

scope of coverage of this rulemaking.27

CA Utilities also commented that it is 

not clear in the NOPR whether the usage 

of the phrase ‘‘cold temperature’’ in the 

product class description is a key factor 

in the definition of sign ballasts. They 

pointed out that some standard 

commercial ballasts and NEMA 

Premium products are rated for negative 

20 degree F temperatures. (CA Utilities, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

83–5) ASAP and the CA Utilities 

encouraged DOE to define the sign 

ballast product class in a way that does 

not reference cold temperature 

operation because it is not unique to 

these products. If the definition does not 

include better identifying 

characteristics, the CA Utilities 

expressed concern that sign ballasts that 

are not designed for cold temperature 

environments might be exempt from 

standards (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 87; CA Utilities, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

89–90) CA Utilities concluded that DOE 

must ensure that products not intended 

to provide the specific utility of outdoor 

sign ballasts cannot be construed as 

outdoor sign ballasts, and that products 

which are intended to provide this 

utility are covered by the standards. (CA 

Utilities, No. 45 at p. 7) Universal 

explained that cold temperature does 

have an effect on efficiency and is one 

of several characteristics that would 

separate a sign ballast application from 

another application. GE also noted that 

more energy is required to strike at a 

cold temperature with a longer lamp 

and it becomes more difficult for a 

system to start as lamp length increases 

and as temperature decreases. 

(Universal, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 43 at pp. 84–5; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 86–7, 89) 

Available data support the CA 

Utilities assertion that cold temperature 

is not a key factor in the description of 

sign ballasts. Although sign ballasts are 

rated to operate in cold temperature 

environments, often down to ¥20 

degrees Fahrenheit, DOE surveyed the 

market and found that all ballast types 

covered by this rulemaking have 

product offerings that include cold 

temperature ratings, including 8-foot 

HO ballasts designed and marketed for 

traditional non-outdoor sign 

applications. While a cold-temperature 

rating may affect efficiency, DOE found 

that these cold temperature rated nonsign ballasts were among the most 

efficient ballasts of their respective 

types. Therefore, DOE agrees that the 

cold-temperature rating is not a 

descriptor specific to ballasts intended 

to be used in outdoor signs. 

Several manufacturers described 

alternative characteristics for defining 

the sign ballast product class. Universal 

and Osram Sylvania (OSI) commented 

that a sign ballast has a much longer 

striking distance, which requires a 

much higher open circuit voltage. GE 

added that striking distance and open 

circuit voltage add to efficiency losses. 

(Universal, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 43 at pp. 84–5; OSI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 87; GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 86–7, 

89) However, Philips pointed out that IS 

ballasts are not as affected by wiring 

distances. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 88–9) Philips 

also stated that outdoor sign ballasts 

have a different weather rating than 

traditional ballasts. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 88–9) 

GE added that many manufacturers 

design to higher transient ratings for 

protection of the ballast in its outdoor 

application. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 86–7, 89) 

In DOE’s assessment of the market, 

electronic sign ballasts use the IS 

starting method and therefore may not 

be as affected by wiring distances and 

increased open circuit voltage as RS 

ballasts. DOE also examined the 

available product literature to see if the 

increased wiring distances led to a 

significant difference in open circuit 

voltage. Higher open circuit voltages can 

require different components capable of 

withstanding those high voltages. These 

components may have decreased losses 

due to their more rugged build. If open 

circuit voltage were significantly 

different for sign ballasts, DOE could 

use that voltage to define the sign ballast 

product class. However, because open 

circuit voltage information is not readily 

available in product specification 

sheets, DOE could not further specify 

the sign ballast product class using open 

circuit voltage. DOE agrees with GE that 

higher transient ratings might lead to 

increased ballast losses, but was unable 

to determine a typical transient rating 

specific to sign ballasts from product 

literature. 

Through a review of product 

datasheets, DOE did find that sign 

ballasts have a UL Type 2 rating for the 

enclosure whereas regular 8-foot HO 

ballasts are rated for UL Type 1. Type 

2 enclosures are moisture resistant and 

have a rust resistant coating so that the 

ballast can be used in plastic sign 

applications without a separate metal 

enclosure.28 Because the UL Type 2 

enclosure rating distinguishes currently 

commercially available sign ballasts 

from regular ballasts that operate 8-foot 

HO lamps, DOE will use this enclosure 

rating as a distinction in defining the 

sign ballast product class. 

ASAP suggested that the phrase 

‘‘designed and marketed’’ should be 

added to the product class description 

for sign ballasts. ASAP also commented 

that sign ballasts should be labeled with 

the designation ‘‘for use only in outdoor 

signs.’’ (ASAP, No. 46 at pp. 2–3) DOE 

agrees with ASAP that these types of 

descriptors should be added to 

strengthen the product class 

description. Therefore, DOE has 

modified the description of these 

products to include ‘‘designed, labeled, 

and marketed for use in outdoor signs.’’ 

In summary, in this final rule, DOE 

adopted the description ‘‘ballasts with a 

UL Type 2 rating designed, labeled, and 

marketed for use in outdoor signs that 

operate 8-foot HO lamps’’ to define the 

sign ballast product class. DOE finds 

that this description is the most specific 

definition that can be accurately applied 

to all sign ballasts. While redesign of 

traditional 8-foot HO ballasts to meet 

the definition of the sign ballast product 

class is possible, DOE believes this to be 

an unlikely scenario due to the added 

cost of manufacturing the UL Type 2 

enclosure and resulting increased price 

to the end-user. Customers currently 

purchasing traditional 8-foot HO 

systems would likely not tolerate a price 

increase resulting from added features 

that are not necessary for traditional 

applications. 

3. Starting Method 

In the April 2011 NOPR, based on 

DOE’s determination that IS and RS 

ballasts provide the same utility to the 

consumer, DOE proposed to include 

both of these starting methods in one 

product class. DOE proposed a separate 

product class for PS ballasts because 

these ballasts were less efficient yet 

increased lamp lifetime in frequent on/ 

off cycling applications. NEMA 

commented that lower performance RS 

ballasts should be grouped with PS 

ballasts instead of IS, citing their 

similarity in applications and operating 

characteristics. (NEMA, No. 47 at 

p. 3, 6) 

DOE acknowledges that ballasts have 

different operating characteristics based 

on starting method. For example, IS 

ballasts are more efficient than RS and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70567 

29 DOE defines low ballast factor as being less 

than or equal to 0.78, normal ballast factor as being 

greater than 0.78 but less than 1.10, and high ballast 

factor as being greater than or equal to 1.10. 

PS ballasts because the latter contain 

extra components and use extra power 

to provide filament heating to the lamp, 

thereby increasing the lamp’s lifetime. 

In the BLE metric, such cathode heating 

is counted as a loss because it does not 

directly contribute to the creation of 

light. Therefore, RS and PS ballasts will 

have lower BLEs than comparable IS 

ballasts. DOE confirmed that RS and IS 

ballasts were commonly used as 

substitutes for each other, indicating 

consumers find no added benefit or 

utility associated with RS relative to IS. 

Both RS and PS ballasts use cathode 

heating; however, only PS ballasts limit 

the voltage across the lamp tube to 

prevent glow discharge during the 

initial cathode heating. This prevention 

of glow discharge also increases lamp 

lifetime in frequent on/off cycling 

applications. DOE found PS ballasts 

were commonly used in conjunction 

with occupancy sensors (a frequent on/ 

off cycling application). DOE 

determined that because of their ability 

to limit voltage, PS ballasts offer the 

user a distinct utility. As a result of this 

unique utility and the difference in 

efficiency associated with these ballasts, 

DOE decided to establish separate 

product classes for programmed start 

ballasts. 

4. 8-Foot HO 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

included ballasts that operate all types 

of 8-foot HO lamps in one product class. 

NEMA commented that separate 

product classes should be established 

for ballasts that operate 8-foot HO T8 

lamps and those that operate 8-foot HO 

T12 lamps. NEMA indicated that 8-foot 

T8 HO ballasts are typically electronic. 

(NEMA, No. 47 at p. 5) Though T8 

electronic ballasts are more efficient 

than T12 magnetic and electronic 

ballasts, DOE found the two ballast 

types were commonly used as 

replacements and identified no added 

utility associated with 8-foot T8 

electronic or 8-foot T12 ballasts. 

Therefore, neither lamp diameter nor 

electronic versus magnetic ballast type 

justifies the creation of different product 

classes for 8-foot HO ballasts. 

5. Summary 

After evaluating potential class-setting 

factors, DOE has established separate 

product classes for programmed start 

ballasts, residential ballasts, ballasts that 

operate 8-foot HO lamps, and sign 

ballasts. Table V.1 summarizes the 

seven product classes. 

TABLE V.1—FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST PRODUCT CLASSES

Description Product class No. 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: .................................................................................................... 1 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: ................................................................................................................ 2 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps 

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate 8-foot HO lamps ...................................................................... 3 

PS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate 8-foot HO lamps .................................................................................. 4 

Sign ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps .................................................................................................................................. 5 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate ................................................................................................................................... 6 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

PS residential ballasts that operate:.

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 7 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. NOPR Approach 

The engineering analysis develops 

cost-efficiency relationships to show the 

manufacturing costs of achieving 

increased efficiency. In the April 2011 

NOPR, DOE used the following 

methodology to conduct its engineering 

analysis. 

Determine Representative Product 

Classes and Representative Ballast 

Types. When multiple product classes 

exist, DOE selects certain classes as 

‘‘representative’’ to concentrate 

analytical effort. The representative 

product classes represent the most 

commonly sold ballasts and the majority 

of the ballast shipment volume. In the 

April 2011 NOPR, DOE analyzed four of 

the then five total product classes as 

representative. These included, 1) IS/RS 

ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP and 8- 

foot slimline lamps; 2) PS ballasts that 

operate 4-foot MBP lamps, 4-foot 

MiniBP SO lamps, and 4-foot MiniBP 

HO lamps; 3) IS/RS ballasts that operate 

8-foot HO lamps; 4) and ballasts that 

operate 8-foot HO lamps in cold 

temperature outdoor signs. DOE did not 

directly analyze PS ballasts that operate 

8-foot HO lamps due to their relatively 

low market share. 

Within each representative product 

class, DOE selected at least one 

representative ballast type for each lamp 

type. For the IS/RS product class, DOE 

analyzed ballasts that operate: Two 4- 

foot MBP lamps; (2) four 4-foot MBP 

lamps; two 8-foot slimline lamps; and 

two 4-foot MBP lamps in the residential 

sector. For the PS product class, DOE 

analyzed ballasts that operate: (1) Two 

4-foot T5 SO lamps; two 4-foot T5 HO; 

two 4-foot MBP lamps; and four 4-foot 

MBP lamps. For the 8-foot HO IS/RS 

product class, DOE analyzed 2-lamp 

ballasts as the representative ballast 

type, whereas for the sign ballast 

product class DOE analyzed 4-lamp 

ballasts as representative. DOE limited 

its representative ballast types to 

include only those ballasts that exhibit 

a normal ballast factor 29, as this BF is 

most common. 

Collecting and Analyzing Test Data. 

DOE then tested a range of ballasts from 

multiple manufacturers including 

extensive testing of the representative 

ballast types. DOE attempted to test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70568 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

30Because certain models were placed on 

backorder due to limited supply/production, only 

about 60 percent of representative ballast types in 

the April 2011 NOPR were tested with five or more 

samples. 

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

T12 to T8 ballasts), light output exceeds these 

limits. 

five 30 samples for ballasts included in 

the representative ballast type categories 

(purchased over two years) and three 

samples for non-representative ballast 

types. DOE conducted testing at two 

laboratories or ‘‘labs,’’ one primary lab 

where the majority of testing occurred 

and another lab to analyze possible labto-lab variation. DOE conducted this 

testing in accordance with the lampbased ballast luminous efficiency 

procedure in Appendix Q1 of 10 CFR 

430. 

Determine Efficiency Levels. Next, 

using the test data, DOE empirically 

found a relationship between BLE and 

the natural logarithm or ‘‘log’’ of total 

lamp arc power. In general, as total 

lamp arc power increased, BLE 

increased as well. DOE’s hypothesis was 

that this behavior was due to the fixed 

losses of a ballast becoming 

proportionally less significant at higher 

arc powers. DOE established efficiency 

levels as a natural logarithmic function 

of total lamp arc power based on this 

power-efficiency relationship. 

After compiling the test data, DOE 

plotted BLE versus total lamp arc power 

for both standard and high efficiency 

product lines from multiple 

manufacturers. Based on analysis of test 

data for representative ballast types, 

DOE identified certain natural divisions 

in BLE. DOE then adjusted the 

coefficient and constant of the 

logarithmic power-efficiency equation 

to create efficiency levels that 

corresponded to these divisions. DOE 

found that the more efficient ballast 

product lines generally had a reduced 

(flatter) slope than the standardefficiency products. To reflect this 

observation, DOE decreased the 

coefficient of the more efficient EL 

equations and increased the coefficient 

of the less efficient EL equations. In the 

April 2011 NOPR, DOE established 

three efficiency levels for each product 

class except for sign ballasts, for which 

it developed one efficiency level above 

the baseline level. 

In developing the max tech level, DOE 

found that no working prototypes 

existed that had a distinguishably 

higher BLE than currently available 

ballasts. Therefore, DOE established 

TSL3 as the highest level at which a 

sufficient diversity of products 

(spanning several ballast factors, 

number of lamps per ballast, and types 

of lamps operated) was commercially 

available. 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE noted 

that compliance certification 

requirements could affect the reported 

efficiency. The active mode test 

procedure requires manufacturers to 

report the lower of either the sample 

average or the value calculated by an 

equation intended to account for small 

sample sizes. DOE’s analysis of its own 

test data showed that it was more likely 

that manufacturers would be reporting 

the compliance equation result, as it 

would be the lower of the two values. 

Thus, DOE calculated the average 

difference between the output of the 

compliance equation and the sample 

mean to be 0.2 percent and reduced the 

efficiency levels, based on average BLEs, 

by this value. 

DOE also considered lab-to-lab 

variation when determining efficiency 

levels in the April 2011 NOPR. While 

DOE tested a large number of ballasts at 

one primary lab, DOE also tested a 

subset of those ballasts at a second lab 

to determine the magnitude of any 

variation. DOE found that tested 

efficiencies for the ballast models sent 

to the second lab were slightly lower (by 

0.6 percent on average) than the values 

measured at the main test facility. DOE 

then applied this additional 0.6 

reduction to the efficiency levels, which 

were based on the primary lab’s test 

data. 

Select Baseline and More Efficient 

Ballasts. For each representative ballast 

type, DOE established baseline ballasts 

to serve as reference points against 

which DOE measures changes from 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards. Generally, a baseline ballast 

is a commercially available ballast that 

just meets existing Federal energy 

conservation standards and provides 

basic consumer utility. If no standard 

exists for that specific ballast, the 

baseline ballast represents the most 

common ballast sold within a 

representative ballast type with the 

lowest ballast luminous efficiency. DOE 

selected specific characteristics such as 

starting method, BF, and input voltage 

to characterize the most common 

ballast. DOE also selected multiple 

baseline ballasts for some representative 

ballast types to ensure consideration of 

varied consumer economics. Because 

fluorescent lamp ballasts are designed to 

operate fluorescent lamps, DOE also 

considered properties of the entire 

lamp-and-ballast system. Though 

ballasts are capable of operating several 

different lamp wattages, in the April 

2011 NOPR, DOE chose the fluorescent 

lamp most commonly used with each 

ballast for analysis. 

DOE selected commercially available 

ballasts with higher BLEs as 

replacements for each baseline ballast 

by considering the design options 

identified in the technology assessment 

and screening analysis (see chapter 4 of 

the NOPR TSD). DOE also included two 

substitution cases in the engineering 

analysis. In the first substitution case, 

the consumer is not able to change the 

spacing of the fixture and therefore 

replaces one baseline ballast with a 

more efficient ballast. This generally 

represents the lighting retrofit scenario 

where fixture spacing is predetermined 

by the existing installation. In this case, 

light output is generally maintained to 

within 10 percent of the baseline system 

lumen output.31 In the second 

substitution case, the consumer is able 

to change the spacing of the fixture and 

purchases either more or fewer ballasts 

to maintain light output. This represents 

a new construction scenario in which 

the consumer has the flexibility to 

assign fixture spacing based on the light 

output of the new system. In this case, 

DOE normalizes the light output relative 

to the baseline ballast. 

Conduct Price Analysis. In the April 

2011 NOPR, DOE developed ballast 

manufacturer selling prices using three 

main inputs: (1) Teardown data; (2) 

manufacturer price lists (blue books); 

and (3) confidential manufacturersupplied MSPs and incremental MPC 

values. In general, DOE used a 

combination of information from 

teardowns and manufacturer price lists 

throughout the analysis and used the 

aggregated manufacturer-supplied MSPs 

for comparison purposes. DOE used 

ratios of online supplier retail prices to 

scale to ELs where data from both 

teardowns and manufacturer price lists 

were unavailable. 

Scaling to Non-Representative 

Product Classes. DOE scales ELs from 

representative product classes to those 

product classes it did not analyze 

directly. In the NOPR analysis, DOE 

applied a two percent reduction to the 

efficiency levels for the 8-foot HO IS/RS 

representative product class to 

determine efficiency levels for the 8-foot 

HO PS product class. 

Comments Received. In response to 

the April 2011 NOPR and subsequent 

NODA, DOE received comments on the 

available data, methodology, 

engineering results, and efficiency 

levels. All of these comments are 

discussed in further detail in the 

following sections. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70569 

32The average across several samples for each 

model number. 

33 DOE obtained these values in accordance with 

the active mode test procedure in Appendix Q1 of 

10 CFR 430. 

34These test results were contained in a Power 

Point presentation that was subsequently posted to 

the public meeting Web site at: http://www1.

eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

residential/fluorescent_ballasts_nopr_public_

meeting.html. 

35The August 2011 NODA and accompanying 

data are available here: www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/residential/

notice_of_data_availability.html. 

2. Available Test Data 

For the April 2011 NOPR, DOE tested 

more than 450 ballasts to develop 

proposed energy conservation 

standards. At the time the NOPR was 

published, DOE posted test data to its 

public Web site as Appendix 5C of the 

TSD. Appendix 5C contained a listing of 

all ballast models tested at DOE’s 

primary lab for the April 2011 NOPR, 

including identifying characteristics 

such as lamp type operated, number of 

lamps operated, starting method, ballast 

factor, input voltage, and catalog 

performance value. For each ballast 

model, DOE also reported average 32

tested values for input power, total lamp 

arc power, and BLE.33

At the May 2011 public meeting, 

NEMA presented data collected from 

several manufacturers.34 NEMA’s data 

included average BLE test results from 

three manufacturers that were 

subsequently reduced by 0.8 percent to 

account for compliance certification 

requirements. Attendees of the public 

meeting noted that the BLE values of the 

most efficient ballast models tested by 

NEMA appeared to be less than the most 

efficient ballast models tested by DOE. 

NEMA also noted that about 60 percent 

of DOE’s test data represented ballast 

models with less than four tested 

samples, which is not consistent with 

the minimum number of samples 

required to demonstrate compliance 

with DOE’s standards. The CA Utilities 

stated that if possible, DOE should 

conduct testing of four or more samples 

to more accurately reflect the testing 

process that must be completed by 

manufacturers for certification 

purposes. (NEMA, No. 52 at p. 9; CA 

Utilities, No. 45 at p. 3) 

Following the May 2011 public 

meeting, DOE posted to the public 

meeting Web site a more comprehensive 

set of test data used to develop the April 

2011 NOPR, which specified ballasts by 

serial numbers, added round robin test 

results, and included results for each 

sample tested, rather than the average 

across several samples for each model 

number. DOE also purchased and tested 

more than 120 additional ballasts to 

increase tested models’ sample size to a 

minimum of four samples consistent 

with compliance certification 

requirements in 10 CFR 429.26. 

Furthermore, DOE tested additional 

ballast models, particularly for sign 

ballasts and residential ballasts, to gain 

more market information about these 

products. All available test data—the 

NEMA-provided data, the data utilized 

for the April 2011 NOPR, and the results 

of additional testing conducted after 

publication of the April 2011 NOPR— 

were posted on DOE’s Web site in 

conjunction with the publication of the 

August 2011 NODA.35

3. NEMA-Provided and DOE BLE Data 

Comparison 

As described in the previous section, 

at the May 2011 public meeting, NEMA 

members presented test results for the 

highest efficiency NEMA Premium 

products. NEMA emphasized that its 

results represented only high efficiency 

products, which generally exceeded 

NEMA Premium efficiency 

requirements. Therefore the 

comparisons did not include hundreds 

of products in lower-efficiency product 

lines that would be eliminated at the 

proposed standard level. NEMA 

compared its results to TSL3, the 

proposed standard level in the April 

2011 NOPR. Based on its data and 

analysis, NEMA determined that 88 

percent of its highest efficiency 

products failed to meet the proposed 

standard level. NEMA added that these 

IS and PS ballasts are likely 80 to 85 

percent of the total market. NEMA 

concluded that the implementation of 

the proposed standards would cause a 

catastrophic ballast shortage in the 

market. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 25–7; NEMA, 

No. 98 at pp. 2, 6) 

A comparison of DOE and NEMA data 

sets showed that BLE values reported by 

NEMA were consistently lower than 

those reported by DOE. For example, 

NEMA noted that its data showed no 

ballast with a BLE higher than 91 

percent at 50 watts, while DOE’s data 

showed a BLE as high as 94 percent at 

the same wattage. NEMA also found that 

the variation between samples of each 

ballast model was much smaller within 

manufacturer-provided data than within 

DOE’s data. NEMA underscored the 

significance of its data, stating that it 

would submit data derived using these 

same methods to demonstrate 

compliance with new standards. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at pp. 47–8, 50, 99; NEMA, No. 98 

at p. 6) 

Earthjustice, Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), ASAP, 

NEEP, and the CA Utilities emphasized 

the importance of determining the cause 

of the differences between DOE and 

NEMA test data. (Earthjustice, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 66; 

NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at pp. 120–1; ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 46–7; NEEP, 

No. 49 at pp. 1, 2; CA Utilities, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 62; CA 

Utilities, No. 45 at p. 2) NEEA noted 

that the source of the discrepancy 

between DOE and NEMA data should be 

determined before any efficiency levels 

are fit to either data set. (NEEA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 138– 

9) Acuity Brands suggested DOE divide 

its test data according to manufacturer 

and compare it with the test data from 

the individual manufacturers obtained 

under non-disclosure agreements. 

(Acuity Brands, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 149) 

ASAP suggested DOE continue to use 

its own data for the final rule analysis 

and any supplemental data provided by 

manufacturers should be assessed in its 

raw form to ensure comparability with 

DOE data. (ASAP, No. 46 at p. 1) CA 

Utilities also advised DOE to continue 

to use its own test results for the final 

rule unless it determined a specific fault 

with the testing process of the labs used 

by DOE. (CA Utilities, No. 45 at p. 4) 

Following the May 2011 public 

meeting, under non-disclosure 

agreements, several manufacturers 

provided the model numbers and 

efficiencies for the ballasts included in 

NEMA’s data set. Upon receiving this 

information, DOE conducted a 

comparative analysis between NEMA 

data and DOE’s independently tested 

data. DOE published the results of its 

analysis in the August 2011 NODA. 

DOE concluded that its data collection 

methods were consistent with Appendix 

Q1 of 10 CFR 430 and that, after 

removing NEMA’s reduction factor as 

discussed in section V.B.3.a, the 

remaining differences between the two 

data sets arise primarily from normal 

measurement variation. Subsequent 

comments received on the NODA 

reaffirmed DOE’s conclusions. 

Therefore, for this final rule, DOE 

continued to use its own data and 

utilized NEMA-provided data for 

comparison. The sections below detail 

DOE’s comparative analysis and discuss 

several comments by interested parties 

suggesting possible sources of 

differences between the two datasets. 

a. NEMA Reduction Factor 

As described above, the data 

contained in NEMA’s presentation at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70570 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

the May 2011 public meeting 

represented the mean of four or five 

samples decreased by 0.8 percent to 

account for compliance certification 

requirements. To calculate this 0.8 

reduction factor, NEMA referred DOE to 

an analysis NEMA submitted in a 

comment in response to the preliminary 

TSD. In that analysis, NEMA calculated 

the 0.8 percent reduction factor based 

on application of the certification 

equation described in 10 CFR 429.26. 

NEMA assumed that each sample set’s 

three standard deviation spread was 

equal to five percent of the mean 

efficiency (2.5 percent for design 

variation and 2.5 percent for 

measurement variation). NEMA then 

calculated a mean efficiency adjustment 

factor (from sample sizes of four and 

five) by inserting this standard deviation 

into the certification equation. This 

adjustment factor represented NEMA’s 

estimate of the percent difference 

between the sample mean and the value 

NEMA anticipated reporting to DOE for 

certification. CA Utilities commented 

that NEMA’s reduction of its test results 

by 0.8 percent may have been a 

misinterpretation of the test procedure 

and could have caused the discrepancy 

between DOE’s and NEMA’s BLEs. (CA 

Utilities, No. 45 at p. 2) ASAP agreed 

that DOE should not directly compare 

its data to NEMA’s reduced points. 

(ASAP, No. 46 at p. 1) 

In the August 2011 NODA, DOE 

stated that to understand potential 

discrepancies between NEMA and 

DOE’s test data, it was necessary to 

ensure that similar calculation 

methodologies had been undertaken for 

the two data sets. Therefore, for the 

purpose of comparing the efficiency 

data, DOE removed the 0.8 percent 

reduction factor from NEMA’s presented 

ballast efficiencies, resulting in values 

that represented mean tested 

efficiencies. DOE compared these 

efficiency values to DOE’s mean tested 

efficiencies presented in the April 2011 

NOPR. 

b. Arc Power Versus Rated Power 

Due to the relationship between total 

lamp arc power and ballast efficiency, 

in the April 2011 NOPR, DOE proposed 

establishing efficiency levels as 

logarithmic equations dependent on 

total lamp arc power. When NEMA 

plotted their test data against the DOE 

proposed efficiency levels, however, 

NEMA paired their ballast efficiency 

test data with approximated arc powers 

rather than measured arc powers. CA 

Utilities and NEEA and NPCC noted 

that NEMA appeared to list a batch of 

products all at the same ‘‘rated power,’’ 

and compared the performance of all of 

those products against the same BLE 

standard. They stated that their 

understanding was that standards are to 

be calculated based on the measured 

lamp arc power specific to each ballast, 

not the rated lamp power. (NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 44 at p. 5; CA Utilities, No. 

45 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE agrees that total lamp arc power, 

measured in accordance with the active 

mode test procedure, should be used 

when comparing manufacturer-provided 

data to DOE’s efficiency levels. In the 

August 2011 NODA, DOE noted that the 

lamp arc power associated with a 

particular ballast in NEMA’s data was 

an approximation rather than a test 

result. DOE found NEMA’s 

approximation to be higher than typical 

test results in DOE’s data set, with 

differences as high as 27.6 percent. As 

this discrepancy could potentially cause 

NEMA’s test data to appear to have 

artificially lower efficiencies relative to 

DOE’s efficiency levels, DOE revised 

NEMA’s approximate lamp arc powers 

using ANSI reference lamp arc powers 

to calculate total expected lamp arc 

power. 76 FR 52892, 52895–6 (August 

24, 2011). These lamp arc powers better 

aligned with expected total lamp arc 

powers for similar ballast types. DOE 

used these calculated powers when 

comparing the efficiency levels to the 

manufacturer-provided data as 

discussed in section V.B.5. 

c. Test Procedure and Lab Accreditation 

NEMA commented that the difference 

between the data it collected and DOE’s 

results may be due to DOE’s labs not 

having proper accreditation. NEMA 

stated that all of the labs used for its 

testing were certified according to ANSI 

C82.11–2002 and DOE should only test 

in similarly certified labs. NEMA 

specifically noted that it did not believe 

the Lighting Research Center (LRC) was 

ANSI C82.11–2002 certified. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

30, 116) GE emphasized that labs should 

be accredited in accordance with ISO 

17025, which is a definition of 

laboratory performance and 

accreditation for test equipment and test 

engineers using that equipment. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 

116) Similarly, CA Utilities suggested 

that the difference between NEMA’s and 

DOE’s test results could be because the 

BLE test procedure is new and may 

require clarification. (CA Utilities, No. 

45 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that 10 CFR 430.25 

requires testing of fluorescent lamp 

ballasts to be performed in accordance 

with Appendix Q1 of 10 CFR part 430 

Subpart B by test laboratories accredited 

by National Volunteer Laboratory 

Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or a 

NVLAP-recognized organization, 

Underwriter Laboratories, or Council of 

Canada in accordance with ISO 17025. 

76 FR 25211, 25219 (May 4, 2011). ISO 

17025 is an international standard that 

outlines general requirements for the 

competence of testing and calibration 

laboratories. NVLAP operates an 

accreditation system that requires 

applicant laboratories to be assessed 

against all ISO 17025 requirements. 

As described in the August 2011 

NODA, DOE contacted both test 

laboratories utilized for DOE testing and 

verified each is properly accredited and 

that all testing was conducted in 

accordance with the active mode test 

procedure in Appendix Q1. CA Utilities 

stated that this action greatly improved 

the overall credibility of DOE’s dataset. 

(CA Utilities, No. 58 at pp. 1–2) Given 

the verification of data collection 

methods, DOE continues to use its own 

data in this final rule. 

d. Sample Size 

NEMA also commented that the 

number of samples tested for several 

ballast models was too small, 

potentially resulting in test data 

unrepresentative of the mean 

efficiencies of the ballast model’s 

population. They pointed out that about 

60 percent of DOE’s test data 

represented an average efficiency 

calculated with fewer than four 

samples, which is less than the 

minimum number of samples required 

to demonstrate compliance with DOE’s 

standards. (NEMA, No. 52 at p. 9) CA 

Utilities also stated that if possible, DOE 

should conduct testing of four or more 

samples to more accurately reflect the 

testing process that must be completed 

by manufacturers for compliance. (CA 

Utilities, No. 45 at p. 3) 

Since the publication of the April 

2011 NOPR, DOE has conducted 

additional testing to increase the sample 

size of selected ballast models. More 

than 90 percent of tested ballast models 

now have a minimum of four samples. 

Only in those cases where models have 

been discontinued or were unavailable 

for purchase was DOE unable to test a 

minimum of four samples. DOE posted 

a complete set of test data on its Web 

site at the time the August 2011 NODA 

was published. 

CA Utilities and NEEA and NPCC 

commended DOE for conducting 

additional testing to increase the sample 

size to a minimum of four ballast 

samples, consistent with the 

certification requirements in 10 CFR 

429.26. NEEA and NPCC stated that the 

additional testing conducted improved 

the dataset’s accuracy and credibility, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70571 

36 3-sigma is a statistical calculation that refers to 

data within three standard deviations from a mean. 

It is based on the rule that for a normal distribution, 

nearly all values lie within three standard 

deviations of the mean. 

which contributed to the development 

of appropriate standard levels. (CA 

Utilities, No. 58 at p. 2; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 59 at p. 2) DOE discusses 

how it utilized all available data in 

sections V.B.4 and V.B.5. 

e. Measured Versus Calculated BLE 

In response to the April 2011 NOPR, 

NEMA commented that it found several 

samples of DOE test data in which the 

measured BLE reported in appendix 5C 

of the NOPR TSD was not consistent 

with the BLE calculated by NEMA. 

Though some of the differences were 

small, NEMA provided examples of four 

ballast models with differences up to 

8 percent. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 28–9) DOE 

addressed these discrepancies in the 

August 2011 NODA. 

For the small discrepancies identified 

by NEMA, DOE noted that the 

information provided by NEMA was 

consistent with calculating the BLE 

values by dividing the average arc 

power of all samples by the average 

input power of all samples. This method 

is not consistent with the active mode 

test procedure. In contrast, DOE’s 

average BLE reported in appendix 5C of 

the TSD was determined, as required in 

the test procedure, by averaging the BLE 

of each individual sample. Based on 

DOE’s analysis, this difference in 

methodology accounts for the small 

discrepancies observed between the 

values reported in appendix 5C and 

those calculated by NEMA. 

DOE also worked to resolve the large 

differences cited by NEMA. DOE 

identified six samples with measuredversus-calculated BLE differences 

ranging from 7.8 to 8.0 percentage 

points, which included the specific 

examples cited by NEMA. These six 

samples were all magnetic ballasts; in 

accordance with the active mode test 

procedure (see Table A, Appendix Q1 of 

10 CFR part 430 Subpart B), DOE 

calculated BLE for these samples by 

reducing the measured ballast efficiency 

(total lamp arc power divided by ballast 

input power) by a frequency adjustment 

factor (1.00 for high-frequency ballasts 

and values ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 for 

low-frequency ballasts). These larger 

discrepancies are consistent with NEMA 

not including this adjustment factor in 

its calculation of BLE. Thus, given the 

above explanation and the absence of 

any additional comments regarding this 

subject, DOE’s measured BLE values are 

correctly calculated and consistent with 

the active mode test procedure. 

f. Ballast Factor 

NEMA also identified differences in 

appendix 5C of the NOPR TSD between 

catalog and tested values for ballast 

factor, in some cases as large as 10 or 

15 percent. NEMA reported that based 

on its own tests, it would expect the 

average difference between catalog BF 

and tested BF to be 1.5 percent. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

27–8) DOE acknowledges that there 

might be differences between ballast 

factor values reported in catalogs and 

DOE’s test data. Catalogs generally 

report ballast factor using the procedure 

in Appendix Q of 10 CFR part 430 

subpart B, which requires photometric 

measurements. DOE calculated ballast 

factor in the April 2011 NOPR using 

electrical measurements by measuring 

the lamp arc power for the test ballast 

and dividing it by the reference lamp 

arc power as specified by ANSI 

standards. Available information 

suggests that manufacturing variation, 

coupled with application of a different 

test procedure to determine BF, 

accounts for the difference between 

catalog BF and DOE measured BF. 

Because DOE did not establish product 

classes or standards using BF and the 

active mode test procedure final rule 

did not adopt a new method for its 

calculation, however, ballast factor is 

not relevant to this rulemaking. 

g. Variation Within DOE’s Data 

Stakeholders also questioned the 

variation present within DOE’s data and 

offered several suggestions on how to 

measure variation within the test 

results. Lutron and NEMA suggested 

DOE perform a gauge repeatability and 

reproducibility (R&R) analysis, a 

recognized technique to reconcile 

differences among measurements. 

(Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at pp. 118–9; NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 121) Philips 

suggested that DOE look at the variation 

among each unit and among each lab, 

and then use the total variation to 

conduct a 3-sigma 36 analysis. Philips 

noted, however, that three samples is 

not a very statistically large sample size 

in examining this kind of variation. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at p. 113) 

As described in the previous sections, 

DOE evaluated several factors to verify 

the integrity of its data. DOE has 

confirmed that testing was conducted in 

accordance with the active mode test 

procedure and that its calculations of 

BLE are accurate. Furthermore, 

additional testing has increased sample 

size such that it is consistent with 

compliance certification requirements. 

After accounting for the above items, 

DOE believes that variation in its data 

reflects expected measurement, design, 

and lab-to-lab variation. DOE addresses 

these sources of variation in the 

following sections. 

4. Accounting for Variation and 

Compliance Certification Requirements 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

accounted for lab-to-lab variation and 

compliance certification requirements 

by calculating reduction factors for each 

and adjusting the efficiency levels 

accordingly. DOE calculated a 0.6 

percent reduction factor for lab-to-lab 

variation by comparing the data from 

the primary laboratory, which 

conducted the majority of DOE’s testing, 

with data from its secondary laboratory, 

which tested a limited number of 

identical samples. DOE applied the 0.6 

percent lab-to-lab variation reduction to 

the efficiency curves so that the 

standard level could, on average, be met 

by ballasts tested at the less efficient lab. 

To account for certification 

requirements, DOE calculated the 

difference between the output of the 

compliance certification equation in 10 

CFR 429.26 and the sample mean of 

DOE’s test data to be 0.2 percent. As 

DOE’s certification requirements at 10 

CFR 429.26 require manufacturers to 

report the lower of these two values, 

DOE reduced the efficiency levels, 

based on average BLEs, by this value. 

OSI and Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. 

(Lutron) commented that in addition to 

lab-to-lab variation, both design and 

measurement variation need to be taken 

into account when setting a standard to 

make sure that the average of different 

tested samples will meet the minimum 

BLE requirements. OSI commented that 

design tolerances exist because different 

components are used in different 

production runs. OSI estimated this 

variation to be about two percent. (OSI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

137–8, 152; Lutron, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 151–2) 

NEMA submitted analyses in 

response to the NOPR recommending 

modifications to DOE’s methodology of 

accounting for certification 

requirements and variation. NEMA’s 

first analysis used an assumed design 

variation and measurement variation 

(each 2.5 percent) in the compliance 

certification equation to adjust each 

ballast efficiency data point. After 

analyzing the more detailed set of data 

posted after the May 2011 public 

meeting, NEMA submitted a similar 

analysis but used an assumed design 

variation and a calculated measurement 

variation. NEMA then suggested that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70572 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE base its efficiency levels on the 

adjusted data points rather than mean 

BLE values. Specifically, NEMA 

determined the mean BLE for each 

ballast model by averaging all tested 

values of that particular model. NEMA 

then calculated the maximum 

measurement variation across labs for 

each category of fluorescent lamp ballast 

(e.g., 4-foot MBP, 4-foot MiniBP, or 

8-foot high output). NEMA added this 

highest calculated measurement 

variation for each ballast type to a 2.5 

percent assumed design tolerance to 

characterize the total variation. NEMA 

then entered these variations into the 

compliance equation to calculate a 

reduction factor based on sample size of 

each tested model. NEMA commented 

that DOE should make similar 

allowances in the standard levels to 

account for the variation present in 

DOE’s own data. (NEMA, No. 52 at pp. 

8–10) 

The CA Utilities also conducted an 

analysis using the data DOE provided 

following the May 2011 public meeting. 

They agreed with NEMA that 

compliance certification requirements 

should be considered when assessing 

whether products will meet each 

standard level. However, they pointed 

out that NEMA had employed methods 

to characterize the certification 

procedures that were not consistent 

with the requirements specified in 10 

CFR 429.26. Instead, the CA Utilities 

used individual samples of DOE’s 

efficiency data to calculate both the 

sample mean and the value determined 

by the compliance certification equation 

in 10 CFR 429.26. Then, as directed by 

the compliance certification regulations, 

they represented the reported efficiency 

as the lower of the two values. They 

suggested that DOE base its efficiency 

levels on these reported values. (CA 

Utilities, No. 45 at pp. 3, 4–5) 

Consistent with the April 2011 NOPR, 

DOE recognizes the importance of 

considering the variation present in the 

test data when developing efficiency 

levels. DOE acknowledges that due to 

design and measurement variation, the 

reported value for compliance 

certification may deviate from the 

sample mean and this difference must 

be accounted for. As described in the 

following sections, DOE has modified 

its approach to account for variation and 

compliance certification procedures 

based on the comments provided. 

a. Design Variation and Compliance 

Certification Requirements 

As stated earlier, 10 CFR 429.26 

requires manufacturers to test a 

minimum of four fluorescent lamp 

ballasts and report the lower of either 

the mean efficiency of the samples or 

the output of a compliance certification 

equation based on the lower 99 percent 

confidence limit of the sample. The 

lower 99 percent confidence limit 

equation requires a calculation of the 

standard deviation of the sample set to 

account for measurement variation. 

Because over 90 percent of ballast 

models tested by DOE include samples 

obtained during two different years, the 

standard deviation for these models also 

incorporates design variation that is 

present in the sample set. 

Both NEMA and the CA Utilities had 

previously commented that, in order to 

develop efficiency levels, DOE should 

adjust its mean efficiency data points to 

represent values similar to those 

manufacturers would report to DOE for 

compliance certification. However, their 

approaches differed in how they 

computed the standard deviation input 

for the compliance certification 

equation. The CA Utilities calculated 

the standard deviation among all 

samples of a particular ballast model 

tested at a single lab. NEMA, however, 

calculated the standard deviation by 

assuming a 2.5 percent design variation 

and then adding an additional factor 

based on DOE’s lab-to-lab test data for 

each ballast category. 

In the August 2011 NODA, DOE 

disagreed with NEMA’s method of 

applying the compliance certification 

requirements. First, the compliance 

requirements direct manufacturers to 

calculate the standard deviation of the 

tested sample, rather than an assumed 

population standard deviation. Second, 

in practice, this calculation would likely 

not include data from more than one lab 

unless manufacturers chose to test their 

samples of a single ballast model at 

more than one location. DOE agreed that 

lab-to-lab variation was important, but 

considered accounting for it as a 

separate adjustment to efficiency levels 

as discussed below in section V.B.4.b. 

The CA Utilities evaluated both the 

sample mean and compliance equation 

for each ballast model and compared the 

lower of the two, the reported value, to 

the standard level. DOE believed the CA 

Utilities’ approach for accounting for 

compliance certification requirements 

was consistent with the procedures laid 

out in 10 CFR 429.26 and therefore, in 

the August 2011 NODA, considered 

using this methodology for the final 

rule. To facilitate this approach, as 

discussed earlier, DOE conducted 

additional testing after publication of 

the NOPR to increase the sample size of 

several ballast models in accordance 

with compliance certification 

requirements. To account for these 

requirements, DOE calculated a new 

data set that represented the reported 

value for all ballast models. DOE used 

these reported values to develop the 

efficiency levels described in the August 

2011 NODA. 

CA Utilities and NEEA and NPCC 

supported DOE’s methodology of 

accounting for certification 

requirements when setting standard 

levels. They stated that the use of 

reported values accounts for design 

variation within a product line and 

measurement variation among multiple 

test runs within a single lab. These 

organizations also commented that this 

approach is more accurate than DOE’s 

previous proposal to apply a 0.2 percent 

reduction to all efficiency levels. (CA 

Utilities, No. 58 at p. 2; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 59 at p. 2) 

NEMA, however, disagreed with the 

methodology presented in the August 

2011 NODA. Specifically, NEMA 

claimed that the correction factor they 

calculated is essential to account for 

manufacturing and component variance. 

NEMA commented that because DOE’s 

samples were acquired when market 

demand was low, the manufacturing 

variation present in DOE’s test data was 

not representative of typical variation. 

They reasoned that manufacturers could 

be more selective when purchasing 

components for products manufactured 

during that time period. Under normal 

market conditions, manufacturers 

compete for the same component supply 

and often obtain parts that vary in 

quality and cost. NEMA commented 

that DOE should have tested a 

statistically representative sample set 

for each model (i.e., a larger sampling 

from multiple productions lots, 

assembled over time) and that, absent 

this, DOE should have used a 

statistically derived method for 

determining an appropriate reduction 

rather than empirical data. (NEMA, No. 

56 at pp. 2, 4) 

As described previously, DOE 

believes that NEMA’s recommended 0.8 

percent reduction does not reflect 

appropriate certification procedures. As 

stated in 10 CFR 429.26, manufacturers 

are required to evaluate the certification 

equation using the standard deviation of 

the samples tested, not the expected 

variation in the population. 

Furthermore, NEMA included lab-to-lab 

variation when calculating its reduction 

factor. This calculation would likely not 

include data from more than one lab, 

however, unless manufacturers chose to 

test their samples of a single ballast 

model at more than one location. In 

addition, NEMA utilized a normal 

distribution critical value for the 99th 

percentile rather than the specified 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70573 

37The compliance equation found in 10 CFR 

429.26 requires the use of a t-statistic, to calculate 

the reported value. NEMA used a different 

statistical distribution, the standard normal 

distribution, in the calculation of its reduction 

factor. 

t-statistic for the 99th percentile in 

evaluating the compliance equation.37

As explained in the preceding 

paragraphs, DOE considered both design 

variation and certification requirements 

when developing efficiency levels using 

the methodology presented in the 

August 2011 NODA. DOE purchased 

samples over several years, 

encompassing more than one 

production lot. While NEMA states that 

DOE purchased samples at a time when 

manufacturers could easily obtain the 

most efficient components, DOE also 

purchased ballasts (for the purpose of 

increasing sample size) during years in 

which interviewed manufacturers stated 

that they faced component shortages. 

Furthermore, consistent with 10 CFR 

429.26, over 90 percent of models tested 

had a sample size of 4 or more. For 

these reasons, DOE continues to use the 

methodology described in the August 

2011 NODA in this final rule. 

NEMA commented that half of all 

borderline but compliant products will 

fail to meet the standard if an 

adjustment factor is calculated using 

average empirical data, such as DOE’s 

method described above. (NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 2) DOE notes that the 

certification requirements do not 

mandate that every sample tested must 

meet or exceed the standard level, rather 

they require that the average of the 

tested samples meet or exceed the 

standard. A compliant product may still 

have samples that test below the 

standard, provided that the average BLE 

meets or exceeds the level adopted in 

this final rule. NEMA’s concern may be 

regarding a situation where all ballast 

samples are selected from a production 

run in which lower-quality components 

cause all samples to test at the lower 

end of the expected range attributable to 

design variation. However, there is no 

requirement that all samples be selected 

from the same production run. In fact, 

10 CFR 429.26 states that samples 

should be randomly chosen. 

Manufacturers can also choose to test 

more than the minimum number of 

samples to address concerns about a 

borderline product. 

b. Lab-to-Lab Variation 

As described in section V.B.1, DOE 

accounted for lab-to-lab variation in the 

April 2011 NOPR by comparing data 

from two different labs and calculating 

a 0.6 percent reduction factor to apply 

to efficiency levels. NEMA noted that 

DOE’s data showed significant variation 

between labs and stressed the 

importance of accurately quantifying 

this variation. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 140–1) NEMA 

pointed out that DOE typically only 

used one lab to make measurements 

rather than validating variation using 

multiple labs. (NEMA, No. 52 at p. 7) 

Philips suggested that, after evaluating 

data among multiple labs, DOE should 

apply a reduction representative of the 

maximum variation present in the data 

rather than average variation. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 

113–5) 

In the August 2011 NODA, DOE 

considered revising its methodology to 

account for lab-to-lab variation. DOE 

received test data from NEMA following 

the May 2011 public meeting and also 

received test data from NEMA-member 

manufacturers. The information from 

manufacturers allowed DOE to match 

NEMA test data with the same ballast 

models tested at DOE’s primary and 

secondary labs. Using the modelspecific test data supplied by 

manufacturers (representative of three 

different manufacturer labs) and DOE’s 

BLE data (representative of the two labs 

used by DOE), DOE determined that on 

average, the BLE test data from DOE’s 

primary lab was 0.7 percent more 

efficient than the average test lab. DOE 

attributed this offset to systematic labto-lab variation and therefore 

considered reducing the efficiency 

levels by 0.7 percent so that they are 

representative of ballasts tested at the 

average test lab. This approach was 

slightly different than that taken in the 

April 2011 NOPR, which applied a 0.6 

percent reduction to efficiency levels, 

representing the average offset between 

DOE’s primary lab and the least efficient 

lab (in that case, DOE’s secondary lab). 

DOE believed that adjusting efficiency 

levels so that they represent the average 

test lab better characterized the mean 

performance of products currently being 

sold. 

CA Utilities, NEEA, and NPCC 

commented that DOE should not use 

NEMA’s data to calculate lab-to-lab 

variation. CA Utilities stated that 

because NEMA provided an 

approximation for arc power instead of 

measured arc power, their data is not 

useful for assessing lab-to-lab variation. 

They suggested DOE use its own data 

from the primary and secondary test 

labs to quantify this type of variation. 

(CA Utilities, No. 58 at p. 2; NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 59 at p. 2) 

DOE believes that NEMA’s data 

reflects correct application of the active 

mode test procedure, given confidential 

data received from individual 

manufacturers and NEMA’s description 

of testing provided during the public 

meeting. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 51) Although 

interested parties expressed concern 

that NEMA did not provide the 

measured lamp arc power for each 

model, DOE notes that its approach for 

calculating lab-to-lab variation does not 

incorporate measured lamp arc power. 

Rather, DOE directly compares the BLE 

for a given ballast model to the BLE 

provided by NEMA for the same model. 

Although some stakeholders suggested 

that DOE only utilize its own results, 

DOE believes it should incorporate all 

available data. By doing so, the number 

of labs included in the calculation 

increases from two to five and the 

number of models available for 

comparison between labs increases as 

well. Therefore, DOE maintains the 

methodology described in the August 

2011 NODA for this final rule. 

5. Efficiency Levels 

a. Curve Shape 

As described in section V.B.1, DOE 

concluded in the April 2011 NOPR that 

a logarithmic relationship best modeled 

the observed trend between total lamp 

arc power and BLE and therefore 

proposed efficiency levels using this 

equation form. Several manufacturers 

commented that, based on the test data 

they collected, the shape of the 

proposed efficiency levels was not a 

good fit for all commercially available 

products. GE commented that it found 

larger discrepancies between its test 

data and minimum BLE requirements 

for ballasts with lower input power than 

higher input power. GE reported that 

none of its ballasts met the proposed 

standard efficiency in the low power 

range. (GE, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 43 at p. 58) NEMA also noted that 

at approximately 80 W and below, very 

few manufacturers had products 

meeting the programmed start minimum 

BLE requirements. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 66–7; 

NEMA, No. 47 at p. 6) NEMA suggested 

an alternative equation in which they 

increased the natural log constant and 

decreased the additive constant to 

increase the curvature of the proposed 

standard and better fit the dataset. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at p. 59) NEMA also recommended 

breaking up the power ranges into 

separate product classes to have the 

formulas fit the test data better and 

suggested a breaking point somewhere 

in the 50 to 100W range. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 75–6) 

Acuity Brands expressed concern that 

DOE was not considering can size when 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70574 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

determining what types of ballasts met 

proposed standards. NEMA reported 

that consumer demand has moved the 

ballast market into smaller can sizes, 

specifically to A- and N-cans, from Fcans. NEMA stated that three 

representative ballast types in A-cans 

currently make up 80 percent of the 

total U.S. market, and the market is in 

the process of migrating to even smaller 

N-cans. NEMA explained that smaller 

ballasts enable reduced fixture size and 

plenum height in buildings. Not only is 

this convention in accordance with 

green building practices, but smaller can 

sizes allow for a reduction of gas and 

waste, and a 10 to 15 percent reduction 

of steel in the manufacturing process. 

NEMA and Acuity Brands added that 

the smaller can sizes also increase the 

photometric efficiency of the fixture by 

two to six percent (for fixtures housing 

an A-can compared to an F-can). The 

small can allows better optical control 

and fuller use of the reflector as the 

thinner ballast housing blocks less light 

than larger cans. The smaller ballasts are 

also easier to access in the event that the 

ballast needs replacing. The limited 

space constrains the technology and 

components used, however, limiting 

possible efficiency gains. NEMA argued 

that, given the size of A- and N-cans, 

industry is currently developing the 

highest practical efficiency with NEMA 

Premium products. NEMA emphasized 

that while ballasts in the larger F-can 

can have higher efficiencies, consumer 

demand and fixture design makes 

moving to larger cans unsustainable. 

Acuity Brands asserted that if standard 

levels eliminate the smaller can sizes, 

DOE must, in its analysis, account for 

the additional costs of fixture redesign, 

engineering time, and incremental 

transportation costs. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 32–3, 

35–7; Acuity Brands, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 99–100, 107– 

9, 171–2) 

CA Utilities and NEEA and NPCC 

commented that lower standards are not 

needed to accommodate ballasts of the 

smallest can size, and CA Utilities noted 

that they were not aware of any unique 

utility provided by N-cans. CA Utilities 

also stated that NEMA had not 

presented data demonstrating that Ncans are less efficient than A-cans or 

that smaller can size can reduce the use 

of steel. (CA Utilities, No. 45 at p. 6) 

NEEA and NPCC strongly urged the 

Department to proceed with the 

proposed standards unless conclusive 

data is presented on these issues that 

would suggest a different standard is 

warranted. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 44 at 

p. 8–9) 

Upon analysis, NEMA’s test data 

showed a larger efficiency decrease at 

lower wattages than DOE’s data 

indicated. Although DOE and NEMA 

generally tested the same types of 

ballasts, NEMA tested more 

permutations of ballast factor and 

number of lamps for each product line, 

particularly at lower wattages. For 

example, NEMA’s data contained BLE 

values for 1-lamp 4-foot MBP ballasts 

with both low and high ballast factors, 

whereas DOE’s data included 1-lamp 4- 

foot MBP ballasts with only normal 

ballast factors. For these reasons, in the 

August 2011 NODA, DOE considered 

changing the contour of the efficiency 

levels to better fit all of the available 

data. DOE acknowledges that industry is 

migrating to smaller can sizes, and the 

methodology described below allows 

ballasts with small can sizes to remain 

on the market. 

Stakeholders had provided comments 

on a potential new equation form during 

the May 2011 public meeting, when 

DOE presented a power law equation fit 

to the data provided by NEMA. Several 

manufacturers commented that upon 

initial review, the new power law 

equation appeared to be a better fit to 

the NEMA data. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 136– 

7, NEMA, No. 47 at p. 3 OSI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 137– 

8) NEMA further stated that the 

logarithmic equation in the April 2011 

NOPR was more stringent at lower 

wattages relative to higher wattages. A 

lower wattage ballast’s efficiency is 

more affected by fixed losses than a 

higher wattage ballast. The new power 

law equation seemed to accommodate 

this difference in efficiency (NEMA, No. 

47 at p. 11) 

NEEA and NPCC supported the use of 

a logarithmic equation dependent on 

lamp arc power and based on the data 

presented by DOE in the April 2011 

NOPR. However, NEEA and NPCC 

noted that the NEMA data does have a 

different shape and could be better fit by 

the power law equation presented 

during the May 2011 NOPR public 

meeting. The CA Utilities agreed, stating 

that the data supported the new curve 

shape. (NEEA and NPCC, No. 44 at p. 

4–6; CA Utilities, No. 45 at p. 5–6) 

Based on an application of several 

equation forms for efficiency levels, 

DOE concluded in the August 2011 

NODA that a power law equation fit 

both the NEMA data and DOE data 

better than the logarithmic relationship 

proposed in the April 2011 NOPR. A 

power law equation takes the form: 

Where: power = average total lamp arc 

power. 

The exponent ‘‘C’’ determines the 

shape of the equation. Because NEMA’s 

test data included a greater number of 

low wattage ballasts, DOE determined 

the exponent ‘‘C’’ by fitting a power law 

regression to NEMA’s data. For the IS/ 

RS product class (product class 1 in 

Table V.1), DOE found the exponent 

‘‘C’’ to be 0.25. The exponent 0.25 is 

also a quantity used in relating power to 

relative losses (analog of efficiency) for 

distribution transformers, and 

fluorescent lamp ballasts similarly 

employ transformers and inductors. The 

PS NEMA data, however, yielded a 

different exponent for ballasts that use 

the PS starting method. PS ballasts have 

proportionately higher fixed losses due 

to internal control circuitry and heating 

of lamp electrodes (cathode heating). As 

such losses are a larger proportion of 

total losses at lower powers, the PS 

product classes have a steeper slope 

across the range of wattages 

corresponding to a larger exponent ‘‘C’’ 

of 0.37. 

Once the exponents were established 

for the two starting method categories, 

DOE fit the power law equation to the 

reported value data (calculated in 

accordance with 10 CFR 429.26 as 

discussed in section V.B.4) by adjusting 

the coefficient ‘‘B’’ to delineate among 

criteria such as different product lines, 

lines, ballasts that operate different 

lamp types, and other clusters in 

efficiency data. The most efficient 

(maximum technologically feasible) ELs 

approximate the April 2011 NOPR 

proposals for the highest wattages, but 

better follow product line efficiency 

trends at lower wattages. DOE 

confirmed the impacts of efficiency 

levels considered in the August 2011 

NODA by comparing the levels to both 

DOE’s and NEMA’s data. 

In subsequent comments, NEMA 

supported the use of a power law 

equation to develop efficiency levels. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER14NO11.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70575 

(NEMA, No. 56 at p. 3) DOE received no 

adverse comment regarding this 

approach, and therefore maintains the 

use of this equation form for the final 

rule. 

b. Max Tech Ballast Efficiency 

As described in the April 2011 NOPR 

and appendix 5D of the NOPR TSD, 

DOE was not able to identify any 

working prototypes with efficiencies 

higher than those of commerciallyavailable ballasts. DOE therefore 

established the maximum 

technologically feasible efficiency level 

as the highest level that is 

technologically feasible for a sufficient 

diversity of commercially available 

products (spanning several ballast 

factors, number of lamps per ballast, 

and types of lamps operated) within 

each product class. 

NEEA and NPCC agreed that no 

additional information suggests that 

higher efficiency levels exist above the 

most efficient levels analyzed for each 

product class in the April 2011 NOPR. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 44 at p. 6) NEMA 

reiterated this point by commenting that 

there were no improvements possible 

over the level of efficiency proposed by 

DOE in the April 2011 NOPR. NEMA 

stated that electronic ballasts perform 

functions that require some fixed level 

of power consumption including: 

Switching losses related to power 

conversion from AC to DC and back to 

AC, cathode preheating, striation 

control, and end of life protection. 

NEMA commented that using lower loss 

switches would increase cost 

dramatically, and that lower loss 

magnetic components would necessitate 

an overall increase in ballast size, which 

the market would not accept. (NEMA, 

No. 47 at pp. 6–7) 

The CA Utilities, NEEA and NPCC, 

and the second Joint Comment 

commented that the max tech levels 

could be more stringent for higher 

wattage ballasts such as those that 

operate four 4-foot MBP lamps. They 

noted that among the 4-lamp 4-foot MBP 

IS/RS ballasts tested by DOE, a high 

percentage met the max tech level, and 

there was typically a greater range of 

efficiency among those ballasts that met 

the standard. (CA Utilities, No. 45 at p. 

5–6; Second Joint Comment, No. 57 at 

p. 1; CA Utilities, No. 58 at p. 3; NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 59 at p. 2) 

DOE determined the max tech level 

for today’s final rule to be the highest 

level that is technologically feasible for 

a sufficient diversity of lamp types, 

ballast factors, and numbers of lamps, 

regardless of manufacturer. DOE 

developed EL3 for the IS/RS product 

class in accordance with this criteria. 

For some ballast types in this class, 

there is only one product available at 

the max tech level and therefore raising 

this level would remove these products 

from the marketplace. Therefore, DOE 

has concluded that EL3 represents the 

highest level for the IS/RS product class 

that is technologically feasible for a 

sufficient diversity of products and 

maintains this level for the final rule. 

The following sections describe the 

impact of each efficiency level in more 

detail. 

c. IS and RS Ballasts 

DOE developed three efficiency levels 

for the IS/RS product class. The least 

efficient level (EL1) was designed to 

eliminate 4-foot MBP T12 ballasts while 

allowing 4-foot MBP T8 and 8-foot 

slimline ballasts to comply with energy 

conservation standards. EL2 

corresponds to a level which allows the 

highest-efficiency product lines from 

each of the four major ballast 

manufacturers to comply. DOE defines a 

full product line as spanning a sufficient 

diversity of products (spanning several 

ballast factors, numbers of lamps per 

ballast, and types of lamps operated). 

EL3 is the maximum technologically 

feasible level and allows nearly two 

manufacturer product lines comply. 

d. PS Ballasts 

DOE developed three efficiency levels 

for the PS product class (product class 

number 2 in Table V.1). The least 

efficient level (EL1) was designed to 

eliminate the least efficient 4-foot MBP, 

4-foot T5 standard output, and 4-foot T5 

high output PS ballasts. This also 

corresponds to a level at which each of 

the four major fluorescent lamp ballast 

manufacturers maintain a diversity of 

products. EL2 allows full product lines 

from two major manufacturers. Finally, 

EL3, the maximum technologically 

feasible level, was designed to represent 

the most efficient PS ballasts tested by 

DOE. EL3 is the highest level that allows 

one full line of products to meet 

standards, regardless of manufacturer. 

e. Eight-Foot HO Ballasts 

For the 8-foot HO IS/RS product class 

(product class 3 in Table V.1), DOE 

developed three efficiency levels. For 

this product class, DOE tested ballasts 

that operate two lamps, the most 

common lamp-and-ballast combination. 

EL1 was designed to just allow the least 

efficient T12 electronic ballasts, 

eliminating magnetic ballasts. EL2 

allows the least efficient T8 ballast 

tested and eliminates the vast majority 

of T12 electronic ballasts. Finally, EL3 

was designed to just allow the most 

efficient T8 ballast tested by DOE. 

f. Sign Ballasts 

The sign ballast market is primarily 

comprised of magnetic and electronic 

ballasts that operate T12 HO lamps. 

DOE tested sign ballasts that operate up 

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

HO lamps. The test data showed that 

sign ballasts exist at two levels of 

efficiency. Therefore, DOE analyzed a 

baseline and one efficiency level above 

that baseline. EL1 was designed to allow 

a full line of electronic sign ballasts, 

including ballasts that operate up to six 

8-foot HO lamps. 

g. Residential Ballasts 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE had 

proposed that both residential and 

commercial ballasts could achieve 

similar levels of efficiency at the highest 

levels analyzed. Based on the similarity 

in efficiency, DOE included both ballast 

types in the same product class. 

However, for the final rule, DOE 

conducted additional testing which 

indicates that 4-lamp residential ballasts 

are not able to achieve the same levels 

as commercial ballasts. Therefore, DOE 

has established a separate product class 

for residential ballasts and adjusted the 

efficiency levels for these ballasts to 

reflect the new data. EL1 was designed 

to just allow the least efficient T8 MBP 

ballasts, eliminating T12 residential 

ballasts. EL2, the maximum 

technologically feasible level, is the 

highest level that allows a full range of 

T8 products (including both two- and 

four-lamp ballasts) to comply. 

6. Representative Units 

a. Baseline Ballasts 

For each ballast type analyzed, DOE 

selected a baseline ballast from which to 

measure improvements in efficiency. 

Baseline ballasts are what DOE believes 

to be the most common, least efficacious 

ballasts for each representative ballast 

type. For ballasts subject to existing 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

a baseline ballast is a commercially 

available ballast that just meets existing 

standards and provides basic consumer 

utility. If no standard exists for that 

specific ballast type, the baseline ballast 

represents the most common ballast 

sold within a representative ballast type 

with the lowest tested ballast luminous 

efficiency. In cases where two types of 

ballasts (each operating a different lamp 

diameter) are included in the same 

representative ballast type, DOE chose 

multiple baseline ballasts. 

NEMA commented that magnetic 

ballasts should not be used as baselines. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at pp. 38–9). DOE notes that while 

magnetic ballasts are not appropriate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70576 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

38T5 ballasts comprise the remaining market 

share. 

baselines for the majority of ballast 

types, for certain ballast types they 

represent the most common, least 

efficient ballasts that meet existing 

energy conservation standards. For 

example, as most magnetic 4-foot MBP 

and 8-foot slimline ballasts do not meet 

the BEF standards set forth by the 2000 

Ballast Rule and EPACT 2005, DOE 

chose electronic baselines for these 

ballast types. DOE used a magnetic 

ballast as a baseline for 8-foot HO 

ballasts, however, because a T12 

magnetic ballast represents the least 

efficient ballast that meets existing 

energy conservation standards. 

Consistent with projections that a 

significant portion of 8-foot HO ballasts 

sold in 2014 (the compliance year of the 

new and amended standards in this 

final rule) will be electronic T8HO 

ballasts, DOE analyzes a T8 electronic 

ballast as a second baseline for this 

ballast type. DOE also used a magnetic 

ballast as a baseline for sign ballasts, 

which is typical of the least efficient 

products that are commercially 

available. In addition, according to 

DOE’s shipment estimates, magnetic 

ballasts constitute a significant portion 

of the sign ballast market. For these 

reasons, DOE continues to analyze both 

electronic and magnetic baselines for 

the 8-foot HO and sign representative 

ballast types in this final rule. 

While NEAA and NPCC supported the 

use of T12 ballasts as an analytical 

baseline, EEI reasoned that due to the 

2009 Lamps Rule, only T8 lamps will be 

able to comply with the new lamp 

efficacy standards. Therefore, T8 lampand-ballast systems will be the baseline 

(in terms of product availability) for all 

consumers as of July 2012. (NEEA and 

NPCC, No. 44 at p. 6; EEI, No. 48 at 

p. 2) 

DOE has concluded that both T8 and 

T12 ballasts are appropriate baselines. 

Although many T12 lamps will not meet 

the standards adopted in the 2009 

Lamps Rule, several manufacturers have 

already introduced T12 lamp models 

that are not covered by these standards. 

Therefore, DOE projects that T12 

products will be offered in 2014, the 

compliance year for this rulemaking. 

For example, DOE projects that in 2014 

shipments (in the base case with 

existing technologies), while T8 ballasts 

will have a 78 percent market share, T12 

ballasts will still have a market share of 

4 percent of covered shipments, or 

about 5.3 million ballasts.38 Thus, DOE 

continues to use T12 ballasts as 

baselines in this final rule. 

b. Representative Units 

DOE then selected representative 

units at each efficiency level with 

higher BLEs as replacements for each 

baseline ballast. Representative units are 

typically ballasts that just meet the EL 

requirements based on the 

representative units’ lamp arc power. 

Because DOE revised the shape of the 

efficiency levels, it also reevaluated its 

selection of representative units. DOE 

selected three new representative units 

based on the revised EL requirements. 

The revised representative units 

included the EL3 units for 2-lamp 4-foot 

MBP and 2-lamp 8-foot slimline ballasts 

in the IS/RS product class, and the EL2 

unit for 2-lamp 4-foot MBP ballasts in 

the residential IS/RS product class. See 

chapter 5 of the TSD for more details. 

c. Reduced Wattage Lamps 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE paired 

each ballast with a representative lamp 

type to develop system input power and 

lumen output characteristics for use in 

the LCC and NIA. Based on the active 

mode test procedure for fluorescent 

lamp ballasts, DOE used full wattage 

lamps for T8 and T5 ballasts and 

reduced wattage lamps for T12 ballasts. 

For example, for ballasts that operate 4- 

foot MBP lamps, DOE paired an F32T8 

lamp with T8 ballasts and an F34T12 

lamp with T12 ballasts. NEMA 

commented that due to the prevalence 

of energy-saving lamps in the market 

today, the standard 32 watt lamp is not 

an appropriate selection for the 4-foot 

MBP T8 system. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 38–9) 

DOE agrees that all ballasts do not 

operate full-wattage lamps and thus 

revised the engineering analysis to 

incorporate the distribution of full- and 

reduced-wattage lamps on the market. 

In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE estimated 

the distribution of lamps by wattage that 

would be compliant with the 2012 

energy conservation standards. For this 

final rule, DOE used those distributions 

to develop weighted-average lamp 

wattages (e.g., a rated wattage of 30.8 W 

for 4-foot MBP T8 lamps) to pair with 

T8 and T5 ballasts. In addition, DOE 

also updated the ballast luminous 

efficiency, system input power, system 

lumen output, lamp lifetime, and lamp 

price to reflect the distribution of lamp 

wattages. See chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD for additional details. 

7. Scaling to Product Classes Not 

Analyzed 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE did not 

analyze 8-foot HO PS ballasts directly. 

Thus, it developed a scaling 

relationship for this starting method. To 

do so, DOE compared 4-foot MBP IS 

ballasts to their PS counterparts. DOE 

found the average reduction in BLE 

from IS to PS to be 2 percent and 

therefore applied this reduction to the 

efficiency levels for the 8-foot HO IS/RS 

product class. 

P.R. China found this approach 

potentially lacking scientific basis and 

suggested DOE provide a more detailed 

explanation of its methodology. (P.R. 

China, No. 51 at p. 4) As discussed in 

section V.B.6, DOE identified and 

selected certain product classes as 

‘‘representative’’ product classes where 

DOE would concentrate its analytical 

effort. DOE chose these representative 

product classes and the representative 

units within them primarily because of 

their high market volumes. DOE then 

scaled from these representative classes 

to those not directly analyzed. In the 

NOPR, DOE calculated a 2 percent 

reduction factor to scale between IS/RS 

and PS product classes. This factor was 

determined by comparing pairs of 

ballasts in which the only characteristic 

that differed was starting method. 

Absent new information, DOE continues 

to use the 2 percent reduction factor. 

However, because DOE has established 

different efficiency level shapes for the 

IS/RS versus PS product classes, DOE 

has revised its methodology for scaling 

an IS/RS efficiency level to a PS 

efficiency level in this final rule. 

To establish residential PS and 8-foot 

HO PS efficiency levels, DOE input the 

arc power of the representative unit at 

each EL into the IS/RS efficiency level 

equation to calculate the minimum 

required BLE. DOE then fit an efficiency 

level with a PS exponent (the exponent 

‘‘C’’ is 0.37 for PS ballasts) such that it 

passed through the minimum required 

BLE by adjusting the coefficient ‘‘B’’. 

Then, DOE applied the 2 percent 

reduction factor to the overall equation 

to account for the expected difference in 

efficiency between IS and PS ballasts. 

Because multiple representative ballast 

types existed in the same product class, 

DOE sought to match the stringency of 

the PS curve to the IS curve at the 

highest arc power within that product 

class. 

8. Manufacturer Selling Prices 

DOE received comments on the 

process used to develop manufacturer 

selling prices (MSPs). NEMA 

commented that published blue book 

values account for only a small fraction 

of market prices and are skewed to be 

higher relative to the rest of the market. 

(NEMA, No. 47 at p. 7) DOE recognizes 

that blue book values are often 

significantly higher than MSPs and 

therefore used teardown data and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70577 

confidential manufacturer-supplied 

MSPs in combination with blue book 

values to determine more accurate 

MSPs. DOE determined these MSP 

values by applying manufacturerspecific ratios between blue book prices 

and teardown- or aggregated 

manufacturer-sourced MSPs to blue 

book prices. By applying the 

manufacturer-specific ratios, the blue 

book price was reduced to reflect more 

realistic MSPs. 

NEMA also commented that they do 

not think the price analysis method 

employed by DOE in the April 2011 

NOPR accurately accounts for 

manufacturing variances among 

companies and circuit topology. In 

particular, NEMA disagreed with DOE’s 

determination that higher efficiency 

ballasts were less expensive to 

manufacture than normal efficiency 

ballasts. (NEMA, No. 47 at p. 5) Based 

on DOE’s assessment, certain higher 

efficiency ballasts are less expensive 

than lower efficiency ballasts. DOE 

notes that these trends are consistent 

with confidential manufacturer cost 

data received during interviews. Several 

low efficiency ballasts are magnetic 

ballasts, which are comprised of 

materials different from electronic 

ballasts. The difference in materials, 

such as the use of larger amounts of 

electrical steel and copper or aluminum 

windings in magnetic ballasts, would 

account for the higher cost. Similarly, 

DOE found some electronic T12 ballasts 

to carry a higher MSP than a more 

efficient T8 electronic ballast. Though 

these electronic ballasts utilize similar 

components, the low demand for T12 

ballasts reduces the potential for highvolume discounts leading to a higher 

MSP relative to the T8 ballast. 

NEMA questioned DOE’s statement in 

the April 2011 NOPR that teardown 

prices are independent of long term 

commodity prices. (NEMA, No. 47 at p. 

7) DOE acknowledges that a teardown 

analysis may be sensitive to the 

dynamic nature of the electrical 

component market, but continues to use 

the teardown results given that limited 

pricing information is publicly 

available. In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

amended its teardown approach such 

that incremental differences between 

two efficiency levels were based on 

pricing differences between single 

manufacturers’ ballasts rather than 

basing prices directly from teardowns of 

different manufacturers. DOE notes that 

the industry did not provide average 

incremental MPC values. Instead, some 

manufacturers provided confidential 

data on an individual basis. DOE has 

not identified any new information that 

would affect its conclusion in the April 

2011 NOPR, and therefore maintains 

this approach for the final rule. 

9. Results 

In this final rule, DOE establishes 

efficiency levels in terms of a power law 

equation that relates total lamp arc 

power to BLE. When developing 

efficiency level equations, DOE plotted 

the reported value for each ballast 

model to account for certification 

requirements. DOE then applied a 

reduction factor to the efficiency level 

equations based on an analysis of lab-tolab variation. Table V.2 summarizes the 

efficiency levels developed by DOE for 

each product class. Costs associated 

with ballasts that meet these efficiency 

levels are presented in chapter 5 of the 

TSD. 

TABLE V.2—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCT CLASSES

BLE = A/(1+B*total lamp arc power∧-C) where A, B, and C are as follows: 

Representative product class Efficiency 

level A B C 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ....................................................... EL 1 0.46

4-foot MBP lamps EL 2 0.993 0.31 0.25 

2-foot U-shaped lamps EL 3 0.27 

8-foot slimline lamps 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ................................................................... EL 1 0.60 

4-foot MBP lamps EL 2 0.993 0.55 0.37 

2-foot U-shaped lamps EL 3 0.51 

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps 

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate 8-foot HO lamps ........................ EL 1 1.01 

EL 2 0.993 0.38 0.25 

EL 3 0.28 

Sign ballasts that operate 8-foot HO lamps .................................................................................... EL 1 0.993 0.47 0.25 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate ..................................................................................... EL 1 0.41 

4-foot MBP lamps EL 2 0.993 0.29 0.25 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

TABLE V.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR SCALED PRODUCT CLASSES

BLE = A/(1 + B * total lamp arc power∧-C) where A, B, and C are as follows: 

Scaled product class Efficiency 

level A B C 

PS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate 8-foot HO lamps .................................... EL 1 1.86 

EL 2 0.973 0.70 0.37 

EL 3 0.52 

PS residential ballast that operate .................................................................................................. EL 1 0.71 

4-foot MBP lamps EL 2 0.973 0.50 0.37 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70578 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

39The Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Available at 

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

16, 2011.) 

C. Markups to Determine Product Price 

By applying markups to the MSPs 

estimated in the engineering analysis, 

DOE estimated the amounts consumers 

would pay for baseline and more 

efficient products. At each step in the 

distribution channel, companies mark 

up the price of the product to cover 

business costs and maintain a profit 

margin. Identifying the appropriate 

markups and ultimately determining 

consumer product price depend on the 

type of distribution channels through 

which the product moves from 

manufacturer to consumer. 

In response to the April 2011 NOPR, 

DOE received no comments regarding 

its markups analysis, and therefore 

retained this approach for this final rule. 

DOE’s markups analysis method and 

results are discussed in the following 

sections. 

1. Distribution Channels 

Before it could develop markups, DOE 

needed to identify distribution channels 

(i.e., how the products are distributed 

from the manufacturer to the end user) 

for the ballast designs addressed in this 

final rule. Most ballasts used in 

commercial and industrial applications 

pass through one of two types of 

distribution channels—an original 

equipment manufacturer (OEM) channel 

and a wholesaler channel. The OEM 

distribution channel applies to ballasts 

shipped in fixtures. In this distribution 

channel, the ballast passes from the 

manufacturer to a fixture OEM which in 

turn sells it to an electrical wholesaler 

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

passes to a contractor, and finally to the 

end user. The wholesaler distribution 

channel applies to ballasts not shipped 

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

this distribution channel, the ballast 

passes from the manufacturer to an 

electrical wholesaler, then to a 

contractor, and finally to the end user. 

DOE assumed a separate home 

improvement retailer distribution 

channel for residential ballasts, because 

DOE could not obtain retail sales data 

detailing the breakdown between fixture 

ballasts and replacement ballasts, DOE 

assumed for the markups analysis that 

the manufacturer sells the residential 

ballast to a fixture OEM who in turn 

sells it in a fixture to a home 

improvement retailer, where it is 

purchased by the end user. 

2. Estimation of Markups 

Publicly-owned companies must 

disclose financial information regularly 

through filings with the U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission (SEC). Filed 

annually, SEC form 10–K provides a 

comprehensive overview of the 

company’s business and financial 

conditions. To estimate OEM, 

wholesaler, and retailer markups, DOE 

used financial data from 10–K reports 

from publicly owned lighting fixture 

manufacturers, electrical wholesalers, 

and home improvement retailers. 

DOE’s markup analysis developed 

both baseline and incremental markups 

to transform the ballast MSP into an end 

user product price. DOE used the 

baseline markups to determine the price 

of baseline designs. Incremental 

markups are coefficients that relate the 

change in the MSP of higher-efficiency 

designs to the change in the OEM, 

wholesaler, and retailer sales prices. 

These markups refer to higher-efficiency 

designs sold under market conditions 

with new and amended energy 

conservation standards. The calculated 

average baseline markups for fixture 

OEM companies, electrical wholesalers, 

and home improvement retailers were 

1.50, 1.23, and 1.51, respectively. The 

average incremental markups for OEMs, 

wholesalers, and home improvement 

retailers were 1.17, 1.05, and 1.15, 

respectively. 

While recognizing that SEC form 

10–K data is not product-specific, actual 

product markups are generally businesssensitive. For this rule, DOE contacted 

the National Association of Electrical 

Distributors (NAED) and received 

feedback from two NAED member 

companies, both confirming that DOE’s 

calculated wholesaler markups were 

consistent with their actual markups for 

commercial and industrial ballast 

designs. DOE also contacted Home 

Depot and Lowe’s regarding price 

markups for residential fluorescent 

lighting products, but both 

organizations declined to comment, 

citing competition concerns. 

Consequently, DOE based its estimated 

markups for commercial, industrial and 

residential ballast designs on financial 

data from 10–K reports. 

For ballasts used in commercial and 

industrial applications, DOE adjusted 

the calculated average baseline and 

incremental markups to reflect 

estimated proportions of ballasts sold 

through the OEM and wholesaler 

distribution channels. DOE assumed 

ballasts in the fixture OEM channel 

represent 63 percent of the market and 

ballasts in the wholesaler channel 

represent 37 percent. These percentages 

are from chapter 3 (engineering 

analysis) of the final TSD for the 2000 

Ballast Rule and were based on a 

comment submitted by NEMA for that 

rulemaking. For the current ballast 

rulemaking, neither NEMA nor other 

interested parties provided updated 

estimates of distribution channel 

proportions, or offered adverse 

comment regarding DOE’s assumed 

proportions. 

DOE then multiplied the resulting 

weighted average markups by a 

contractor markup of 1.13 (also from the 

2000 Ballast Rule, and used in the 2009 

Lamps Rule) and sales tax to develop 

total weighted baseline and incremental 

markups, which reflect all individual 

markups incurred in the ballast 

distribution channels. DOE has not 

identified a more recent estimate for 

contractor markups, and did not receive 

related data or estimates from interested 

parties in response to the ballasts 

preliminary TSD or April 2011 NOPR. 

For residential ballasts, DOE assumed 

that end users purchased ballasts— 

already installed in fixtures—directly 

from home improvement retailers with 

no contractor involvement or markup. 

DOE used OEM and retailer markups 

and sales tax to calculate total baseline 

and incremental markups for residential 

ballasts. 

The sales tax represents state and 

local sales taxes applied to the end user 

equipment price. DOE derived state and 

local taxes from data provided by the 

Sales Tax Clearinghouse.39 These data 

represent weighted averages that 

include state, county and city rates. 

DOE then derived population-weighted 

average tax values for each census 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70579 

40U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. U.S. Lighting 

Market Characterization. Volume I: National 

Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption 

Estimate. 2002. Available at http://apps1.eere.

energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/

lmc_vol1.pdf. 

41U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey: Micro-Level Data, File 2 

Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and 

Multi-building Facilities. 2003. Available at http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/public_use.html. 

42U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. Manufacturing Energy 

Consumption Survey, Table 1.4: Number of 

Establishments Using Energy Consumed for All 

Purpose. 2006. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

emeu/mecs/mecs2006/2006tables.html. 

43U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: File 1: Housing Unit Characteristics. 2005. 

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

recspubuse05/pubuse05.html. 

division and large state, and then 

derived U.S. average tax values using a 

population-weighted average of the 

census division and large state values. 

This approach provided a national 

average tax rate of 7.25 percent. 

3. Summary of Markups 

3. Summary of Markups 

TABLE V.4—SUMMARY OF BALLAST DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKUPS

Commercial/industrial ballasts Residential ballasts 

OEM distribution 

(ballasts shipped in fixtures) 

Wholesaler distribution 

(individual ballasts only) 

Retailer distribution 

(ballasts shipped in fixtures) 

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to the April 2011 NOPR, 

NEMA said it disagreed with DOE’s 

incremental markups for OEMs, 

contractors and home improvement 

retailers, citing current economic 

conditions, price compression and 

commodity fluctuations. NEMA did not 

provide details about or suggested 

revisions to incremental markups. 

(NEMA, No. 47 at p. 7) DOE was not 

able to obtain confidential pricing and 

markups data from OEMs and home 

improvement retailers to validate its 

estimated baseline and incremental 

markups. Absent representative 

markups data, DOE retained its 

previously-vetted approach using SEC 

form 10–K financial reports to estimate 

markups for OEMs and home 

improvement retailers. Similarly, no 

new data to support different contractor 

markups were available, so DOE 

retained its NOPR markups for this final 

rule. 

Using these markups, DOE generated 

ballast end user prices for each 

efficiency level it considered. Chapter 7 

of the final rule TSD provides additional 

detail on the markups analysis. 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

For the energy use analysis, DOE 

estimated the energy use of ballasts in 

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

by consumers in commercial, industrial 

and residential applications). The 

energy use analysis provided the basis 

for other DOE analyses, particularly 

assessments of the energy savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from DOE’s adoption of 

new and amended standard levels. 

To develop annual energy use 

estimates, DOE multiplied annual usage 

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

DOE characterized representative lampand-ballast systems in the engineering 

analysis, which provided measured and 

normalized system input power ratings 

(the latter used to compare baseline- and 

standards-case systems on an equal 

light-output basis). To characterize the 

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

developed annual operating hour 

distributions by sector, using data 

published in the U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization: Volume I (LMC),40 the 

Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS),41 the 

Manufacturer Energy Consumption 

Survey (MECS),42 and the Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).43

DOE assumed, based on its market and 

technology assessment, that PS ballasts 

operating 4-foot MBP T8 lamps in the 

commercial sector were operated on 

occupancy sensors. Based on its survey 

of available literature, DOE assumed 

that occupancy sensors would result, on 

average, in a 30-percent reduction in 

annual operating hours. 

DOE received no comments on the 

April 2011 NOPR regarding the energy 

use analysis for ballasts and retains this 

approach for today’s final rule. Chapter 

6 of the final rule TSD provides a more 

detailed description of DOE’s energy use 

analysis. 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts of potential energy conservation 

standards for ballasts on individual 

consumers. For any given efficiency 

level, DOE measures the PBP and the 

change in LCC relative to an estimated 

baseline product efficiency level. The 

LCC is the total consumer expense over 

the life of a product, consisting of 

purchase, installation, and operating 

costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounted 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and summed them over the 

lifetime of the product. The PBP is the 

estimated amount of time (in years) it 

takes consumers to recover the 

increased purchase cost (including 

installation) of a more efficient product 

through lower operating costs. DOE 

calculates the PBP by dividing the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70580 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

44RECS was updated in 2009, but these updates 

did not address lighting usage; therefore, DOE used 

RECS 2005 data for this final rule. 45 DOE continues to use AEO2010 in its final rule 

analyses. The comment period on DOE’s NODA, 

discussed previously, closed on September 14, 

2011, and DOE is required by consent decree to 

publish the final amended standards for fluorescent 

lamp ballasts by October 28, 2011. (State of New 

York, et al. v. Bodman et al., 05 Civ. 7807 (LAP) 

and Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. 

Bodman, et al., 05 Civ. 7808 (LAP) (Nov. 3, 2006), 

as amended on June 20, 2011.) The additional time 

required for DOE to consider the comments and 

information submitted by interested parties did not 

allow sufficient time for DOE to update the final 

rule analyses using AEO2011. DOE has determined, 

however, that the AEO2011 30-year annual growth 

rates for energy consumption (electric power) and 

electricity generating capacity are almost identical 

to those in AEO2010. The forecasted near-term 

electricity prices in AEO2010 are slightly higher 

than in AEO2011, and would produce slightly 

shorter payback periods. However, these payback 

periods and other LCC and NIA results are not 

expected to vary significantly using AEO2010 and 

AEO2011. 

change in purchase cost (normally 

higher) by the change in average annual 

operating cost (normally lower) that 

results from the more efficient standard. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed costs include the cost of the 

product—which includes MSPs, 

distribution channel markups, and sales 

taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to 

the calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, discount rates, and the year 

that compliance with new and amended 

standards is required. To account for 

uncertainty and variability, DOE created 

probability distributions for inputs such 

as operating hours, electricity prices, 

discount rates and sales tax rates, and 

disposal costs. For example, DOE 

created a probability distribution of 

annual energy consumption in its 

energy use analysis based, in part, on a 

range of annual operating hours. The 

operating hour distributions capture 

variation across census divisions and 

large states, building types, and lampand-ballast systems for three sectors 

(commercial, industrial, and 

residential). Because ballast MSPs were 

specific to the representative ballast 

designs evaluated in DOE’s engineering 

analysis and price markups were based 

on limited publicly-available financial 

data, DOE used discrete values instead 

of distributions for these inputs. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC and PBP, which 

incorporates Crystal Ball (a 

commercially available software 

program), relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty 

and variability into the analysis. The 

Monte Carlo simulations randomly 

sample input values from probability 

distributions of these values, performing 

more than 10,000 iterations per 

simulation run. The final rule TSD 

chapter 8 and its appendices provide 

details on the spreadsheet model and all 

inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses. 

Table V.5 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations for the 

April 2011 NOPR as well as the changes 

made for this final rule. The subsections 

that follow discuss the model inputs 

and DOE’s changes to them. 

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

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final 

rule 

Product Cost ................... Derived by multiplying ballast MSPs by distribution channel markups and sales tax .......... No change. 

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

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

Updated labor rates from 

2009$ to 2010$. 

Annual Energy Use ......... Determined operating hours by associating building type-specific operating hours with regional distributions of various building types using lighting market and building energy 

consumption survey data: LMC (2002), CBECS (2003), MECS (2006), and RECS 

(2005) 44 (see section V.D).

No change (newer data 

unavailable). 

Energy Prices .................. Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 826 data for 2010 .............................................................

Variability: Energy prices determined at state level. 

No change. 

Energy Price Projections Forecasted using Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO2010) ................................................ No change.45

Replacement and Disposal Costs.Commercial/Industrial: Included labor and materials costs for lamp replacement, and disposal costs for failed lamps.

Residential: Included only materials cost for lamps, with no lamp disposal costs. 

Variability: Assumed commercial and industrial consumers pay recycling costs in approximately 30 percent of lamp failures and 5 percent of ballast failures.

Updated labor rates from 

2009$ to 2010$. 

Product Lifetime .............. Ballasts: Lifetime based on average lifetimes from the 2000 Ballast Rule (and used in the 

2009 Lamps Rule).

Lamps: Assumed as 91 percent—94 percent of rated life, to account for lamp type and 

relamping practices.

No change. 

Discount Rates ................ Commercial/Industrial: Estimated cost of capital to affected firms and industries; developed weighted average of the cost to the company of equity and debt financing.

Residential: Estimated by examining all possible debt or asset classes that might be 

used to purchase ballasts.

Variability: Developed a distribution of discount rates for each end-use sector. 

No change. 

Compliance Date of 

Standards.

2014 ....................................................................................................................................... No change. 

Ballast Purchasing 

Events.

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

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

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the MSPs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the 

distribution channel markups described 

in section V.C.1 (along with sales taxes). 

DOE used different markups for baseline 

products and higher-efficiency 

products, because the markups 

estimated for incremental costs differ 

from those estimated for baseline 

models. 

DOE received comments on the April 

2011 NOPR questioning its product cost 

assumptions for residential ballasts. 

NEEA and NPCC noted that residential 

consumers would more likely replace an 

entire fluorescent lamp fixture upon 

ballast failure, and that these fixtures 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70581 

would be less expensive than DOE’s 

estimated ballast prices. (NEEA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 169– 

170; NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 43 at pp. 163–164; NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 44 at p. 6) DOE notes that 

fluorescent fixture and ballast price are 

highly variable, but maintains that its 

estimated residential ballast prices 

(approx. $10–12) are comparable with 

those for inexpensive fixtures (e.g., shop 

lights) that residential consumers might 

replace upon ballast failure. DOE also 

notes that fixture price data that 

correspond with individual ballast 

efficiency levels are not readily 

available. Therefore, DOE retained its 

residential ballast product cost 

approach for this final rule. 

On February 22, 2011, DOE published 

a Notice of Data Availability (NODA, 76 

FR 9696) stating that DOE may consider 

improving regulatory analysis by 

addressing product and equipment price 

trends. DOE notes that learning curve 

analysis characterizes the reduction in 

production cost mainly associated with 

labor-based performance improvement 

and higher investment in new capital 

equipment at the microeconomic level. 

Experience curve analysis tends to focus 

more on entire industries and aggregates 

over various casual factors at the 

macroeconomic level: ‘‘Experience 

curve’’ and ‘‘progress function’’ 

typically represent generalizations of 

the learning concept to encompass 

behavior of all inputs to production and 

cost (i.e., labor, capital, and materials).’’ 

The economic literature often uses these 

two terms interchangeably. The term 

‘‘learning’’ is used here to broadly cover 

these general macroeconomic concepts. 

Consistent with the February 2011 

NODA, DOE examined historical 

producer price indices (PPI) for 

fluorescent ballasts and found both 

positive and negative real price trends 

depending on the specific time period 

examined. Therefore, in the absence of 

a definitive trend, DOE assumed in its 

price forecasts for the NOPR that the 

real prices of fluorescent ballasts are 

constant in time and that fluorescent 

ballast prices will trend the same way 

as prices in the economy as a whole. 

DOE is aware that there have been 

significant changes in both the 

regulatory environment and mix of 

fluorescent ballast and controls 

technologies that create analytical 

challenges for estimating longer-term 

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

trends sensitivity calculations to 

examine the dependence of the analysis 

results on different analytical 

assumptions. 

DOE received no comments on the 

April 2011 NOPR regarding its ballast 

price trend basis. For this final rule, 

DOE also considered adjusting ballast 

prices using forecasted price indices 

(called deflators) used by EIA to develop 

the AEO. When adjusted for inflation, 

the deflator-based price indices decline 

from 100 in 2010 to approximately 54 in 

2043. The effect is diminished 

significantly when discounting is taken 

into account. Deflator-based net present 

value (NPV) results from the national 

impacts analysis (NIA) were 

approximately 9 percent higher than 

NPV values based on constant real 

prices for ballasts. Given this minor 

difference in estimated NPV, and that 

DOE did not receive negative comments 

on its constant real price basis in the 

NOPR, DOE retained its constant real 

price approach for this final rule. A 

more detailed discussion of price trend 

modeling and calculations is provided 

in Appendix 8B of the final rule TSD. 

2. Installation Cost 

The installation cost is the total cost 

to the consumer to install the 

equipment, excluding the marked-up 

consumer product price. Installation 

costs include labor, overhead, and any 

miscellaneous materials and parts. As 

detailed in the final rule TSD, DOE 

considered the total installed cost of a 

lamp-and-ballast system to be the 

consumer product price (including sales 

taxes) plus the installation cost. DOE 

applied installation costs to lamp-andballast systems installed in the 

commercial and industrial sectors, 

treating an installation cost as the 

product of the average labor rate and the 

time needed for installation. Using the 

same approach, DOE assumed that 

residential consumers must pay for the 

installation of a fixture containing a 

lamp-and-ballast system, and calculated 

installation price in the same manner. 

DOE received no comments on the April 

2011 NOPR concerning its installation 

costs for the LCC analysis, and retained 

this approach for this final rule. 

3. Annual Energy Use 

As discussed in section V.D, DOE 

estimated the annual energy use of 

representative lamp-and-ballast systems 

using system input power ratings and 

sector operating hours. The annual 

energy use inputs to the LCC and PBP 

analyses are based on weighted average 

annual operating hours, whereas the 

Monte Carlo simulation draws on a 

distribution of annual operating hours 

to determine annual energy use. 

4. Energy Prices 

For the LCC and PBP, DOE derived 

average energy prices for 13 U.S. 

geographic areas consisting of the nine 

census divisions, with four large states 

(New York, Florida, Texas, and 

California) treated separately. For 

census divisions containing one of these 

large states, DOE calculated the regional 

average excluding the data for the large 

state. The derivation of prices was based 

on data from 2010 EIA Form 826, 

‘‘Monthly Electric Utility Sales and 

Revenue Data.’’ DOE received no 

comments on the April 2011 NOPR 

concerning its derivation of energy 

prices for the LCC analysis and retained 

this approach for this final rule. 

5. Energy Price Projections 

To estimate the trends in energy 

prices, DOE used the price forecasts in 

AEO2010. To arrive at prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied current average 

prices by the forecast of annual average 

price changes in AEO2010. Because 

AEO2010 forecasts prices to 2035, DOE 

followed past EIA guidelines and used 

the average rate of change from 2020 to 

2035 to estimate the price trend for 

electricity from 2035 to 2043. In 

addition, the spreadsheets that DOE 

used to conduct the LCC and PBP 

analyses allow users to select price 

forecasts from AEO’s low-growth, highgrowth, and reference case scenarios to 

estimate the sensitivity of the LCC and 

PBP to different energy price forecasts. 

DOE received no specific comments on 

the April 2011 NOPR concerning its 

energy price forecasting method for the 

LCC analysis and retained this approach 

for this final rule. 

6. Replacement and Disposal Costs 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

addressed lamp replacements occurring 

within the analysis period as part of 

operating costs for considered lampand-ballast system designs. 

Replacement costs in the commercial 

and industrial sectors included the labor 

and materials costs associated with 

replacing a lamp at the end of its 

lifetime, discounted to 2011. For the 

residential sector, DOE projected that 

consumers would install their own 

replacement lamps and incur no related 

labor costs. 

Some consumers recycle failed lamps 

and ballasts, thus incurring a disposal 

cost. For the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE 

found average recycling costs of 10 

cents per linear foot for GSFL and $3.50 

for each ballast. DOE surveyed current 

online recycling cost data for this 

rulemaking, and determined that its 

2009 recycling cost estimates were still 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70582 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

46Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 

‘‘National Mercury-Lamp Recycling Rate and 

Availability of Lamp Recycling Services in the 

U.S.’’ Nov. 2004. 

47The data are available at http:// 

pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar. 

48State of New York, et al. v. Bodman et al., 05 

Civ. 7807 (LAP) and Natural Resources Defense 

Council, et al. v. Bodman, et al., 05 Civ. 7808 (LAP) 

(Nov. 3, 2006), as amended on June 20, 2011. 

valid. A 2004 report by the Association 

of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers 

noted that approximately 30 percent of 

lamps used by businesses and 2 percent 

of lamps in the residential sector are 

recycled nationwide.46 Consistent with 

the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE considered 

the 30-percent lamp-recycling rate to be 

significant and incorporated lamp 

recycling costs into the LCC analysis for 

commercial and industrial consumers. 

DOE was unable to obtain reliable 

ballast recycling rate data, but projected 

that the likely higher ballast recycling 

costs would largely discourage 

voluntary ballast recycling by 

commercial and industrial consumers. 

DOE therefore did not include ballast 

recycling costs in the LCC analysis. 

Given the low (2 percent) estimated 

lamp recycling rate in the residential 

sector, DOE assumed that residential 

consumers would be even less likely to 

voluntarily incur the higher recycling 

costs for ballasts. Therefore, DOE 

excluded the recycling costs for lamps 

or ballasts from the LCC analysis for 

residential ballast designs. 

DOE received no comments on the 

April 2011 NOPR concerning these 

assumed recycling rates and costs, and 

retained this approach in the final rule 

LCC analysis. The Monte Carlo 

simulation for the final rule allowed 

DOE to examine variability in recycling 

practices; consequently, DOE assumed 

that commercial and industrial 

consumers pay recycling costs in 5 

percent of ballast failures—as well as 

the 30 percent of lamp failures assumed 

in the LCC analysis. As in the LCC 

analysis, DOE assumed that residential 

lamp and ballast disposal rates were 

insignificant, and excluded the related 

disposal costs from the Monte Carlo 

simulation for residential ballast 

designs. 

7. Product Lifetime 

Chapter 8 of the final rule TSD details 

DOE’s basis for its calculation of average 

ballast lifetimes. DOE used assumptions 

from the 2000 Ballast Rule and the 2009 

Lamps Rule. DOE explicitly sought 

comment on these assumptions but 

received no additional information 

upon which to base changes to them in 

today’s final rule. For ballasts in the 

commercial and industrial sectors, DOE 

used an average ballast lifetime of 

49,054 hours that, when combined the 

respective average annual operating 

hours, yielded average ballast lifetimes 

of approximately 13 and 10 years in the 

commercial and industrial sectors, 

respectively. Consistent with the 2000 

Ballast Rule and the 2009 Lamps Rule, 

DOE assumed an average ballast lifetime 

of approximately 15 years in the 

residential sector, which corresponds 

with 11,835 hours total on an assumed 

789 hours per year operating schedule. 

To account for a range of relamping 

practices (e.g., group and spot 

relamping, where lamps are replaced 

preemptively or after failure, 

respectively), DOE assumed that lamps 

operated, on average, for 91–94 percent 

of rated life, depending on lamp type. 

DOE also assumed that ballast 

lifetimes can vary due to both physical 

failure and economic factors (e.g., early 

replacements due to retrofits). DOE 

accounted for variability in lifetime in 

LCC and PBP via the Monte Carlo 

simulation (using repeated random 

sampling), and in the shipments and 

NIA analyses by assuming a Weibull 

distribution for lifetimes that represents 

failures and replacements. DOE received 

no adverse comments on the April 2011 

NOPR concerning its product lifetime 

assumptions and retained this approach 

for this final rule. 

8. Discount Rates 

The discount rate is the rate at which 

future expenditures are discounted to 

estimate their present value. In the April 

2011 NOPR, DOE estimated separate 

discount rates for commercial, 

industrial, and residential consumers. 

For both the proposed and final rules, 

DOE also developed a distribution of 

discount rates for each end-use sector 

from which the Monte Carlo simulation 

samples. 

For the industrial and commercial 

sectors, DOE assembled data on debt 

interest rates and the cost of equity 

capital for representative firms that use 

ballasts. DOE determined a distribution 

of the weighted-average cost of capital 

for each class of potential owners using 

data from the Damodaran online 

financial database.47 DOE used the same 

distribution of discount rates for the 

commercial and industrial sectors. The 

average discount rates, weighted by the 

shares of each rate value in the sectoral 

distributions, are 6.9 percent for 

commercial end users and 7.2 percent 

for industrial end users. 

For the residential sector, DOE 

assembled a distribution of interest or 

return rates from sources including the 

Federal Reserve Board’s ‘‘Survey of 

Consumer Finances’’ (SCF) in 1989, 

1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007. 

DOE assigned weights in the 

distribution based on the shares of each 

financial instrument in household 

financial holdings according to SCF 

data. The weighted-average discount 

rate for residential product owners is 

estimated to be 5.6 percent. 

DOE received no comments on the 

April 2011 NOPR concerning its 

estimated discount rates for the LCC 

analysis and retained this approach for 

this final rule. 

9. Compliance Date of Standards 

The compliance date is when a 

covered product is required to meet a 

new or amended standard. EPCA 

requires that any new or amended 

standards established in this rule apply 

to products manufactured after a date 

that is five years after—(i) the effective 

date of the previous amendment; or (ii) 

if the previous final rule did not amend 

the standards, the earliest date by which 

a previous amendment could have been 

effective; except that in no case may any 

amended standard apply to products 

manufactured within three years after 

publication of the final rule establishing 

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

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

2006 consent decree, as amended, to 

publish any amended standards for 

ballasts by October 28, 2011.48 In 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(7)(C), 

the compliance date is three years after 

the publication of any final new and 

amended standards. DOE calculated the 

LCC for all end users as if each one 

would purchase a new ballast in the 

year compliance with the standard is 

required. 

10. Ballast Purchasing Events 

DOE based the LCC and PBP analyses 

for this rulemaking on scenarios where 

consumers must purchase a ballast. 

Each of these purchasing events may 

involve a different set of ballast or lampand-ballast designs and, therefore, a 

different set of LCC savings for a certain 

efficiency level. The two scenarios are 

(1) ballast failure and (2) new 

construction/renovation. In the ballast 

failure scenario, DOE assumed that the 

consumer of the failed ballast would 

replace it with a standards-compliant 

lamp-and-ballast combination such that 

the system light output never drops 

more than 10 percent below that of the 

baseline system. For the ballast failure 

scenario, DOE used rated system input 

power to calculate annual energy use. 

For new construction/renovation, DOE 

assumed that consumers may design a 

new installation that matches the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70583 

overall light output of the base-case 

system. DOE used normalized system 

input power, adjusted to yield 

equivalent light output from both the 

baseline and substitute new 

construction/renovation systems. 

DOE received no comments on the 

April 2011 NOPR concerning its 

assumed ballast purchasing events for 

the LCC analysis and retained this 

approach for this final rule. 

F. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

DOE’s NIA assessed the national 

energy savings (NES) and the NPV of 

total consumer costs and savings that 

would be expect from new or amended 

standards at specific efficiency levels. 

(‘‘Consumer’’ in this context refers to 

users of the regulated product.) 

DOE used a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings for 

each TSL. The TSD and other 

documentation for the rulemaking 

explain the models and how to use 

them, allowing interested parties to 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. 

DOE used the NIA spreadsheet to 

calculate the NES and NPV, based on 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data from the energy 

use and LCC analyses. DOE forecasted 

the energy savings, energy cost savings, 

product costs, and NPV of consumer 

benefits for each product class for 

products sold from 2014 through 2043. 

The forecasts provided annual and 

cumulative values for these four output 

parameters. DOE examines sensitivities 

in the NIA by analyzing different 

efficiency scenarios, such as Roll-up 

and Shift. 

DOE evaluated the national impacts of 

new and amended standards for ballasts 

by comparing base-case projections with 

standards-case projections. The basecase projections characterize energy use 

and consumer costs for each product 

class in the absence of new or amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

compared these projections with 

projections characterizing the market for 

each product class if DOE adopted new 

or amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. In 

characterizing the base and standards 

cases, DOE considered historical 

shipments, the mix of efficiencies sold 

in the absence of new standards, and 

how that mix may change over time. 

Additional information about the NIA 

spreadsheet is in final rule TSD chapter 

11. 

Table V.6 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the NES and NPV analyses for the 

April 2011 NOPR, as well as the 

changes to the analyses for the final 

rule. A discussion of selected inputs 

and changes follows. See chapter 11 of 

the final rule TSD for further details. 

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

ANALYSES

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final 

rule 

Shipments ............................. Derived annual shipments from shipments model .......................................................... See Table V.7. 

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

Annual Energy Consumption 

per Unit.

Established in the energy use analysis (NOPR TSD chapter 6) ..................................... Energy use analysis updated using most recent available inputs. 

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

Electricity Price Forecast ...... AEO2010 .......................................................................................................................... No change. 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factor.Used marginal conversion factors generated by NEMS–BT; factors held constant after 

2035.

No change. 

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

Present Year ........................ 2011 ................................................................................................................................. No change. 

1. Shipments 

Product shipments are an important 

input to any estimate of the future 

impact of a standard. To develop the 

shipments portion of the NIA 

spreadsheet, DOE used a three-step 

process to: (1) Estimate historical 

shipments; (2) calculate installed ballast 

stock; and (3) develop annual shipment 

projections for the analysis period 

2014–2043. Table V.7 summarizes the 

approach and data DOE used to derive 

the inputs to the shipments analysis for 

the April 2011 NOPR and the changes 

DOE made for today’s final rule. A 

discussion of these inputs and changes 

follows. For details on the shipments 

analysis, see chapter 10 of the final rule 

TSD. 

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

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Historical Shipments ........... Used historical shipments for 1990–2005 to develop shipments and stock projections for the analysis period; changed lifetime distribution and growth assumptions, mitigating oscillations in shipment projections.No change. 

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

Weibull lifetime distribution.

No change. 

Growth ................................. Used 2010 AEO projections for floorspace growth ...................................................... Revised growth rate for residential sector. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70584 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Base Case Scenarios ......... Analyzed both existing technology and emerging technology scenarios ..................... Added dimming ballast penetration rate to the 

emerging technology scenario; revised efficiency 

apportionments for commercial sector ballasts 

operating 4-foot MBP 

lamps. 

Standards Case Scenarios Analyzed Shift and Roll-up scenarios based on both existing and emerging technology cases.No change. 

a. Historical Shipments 

For the April 2011 NOPR, DOE used 

U.S. Census Bureau Current Industrial 

Reports (CIR) to estimate historical 

(1990–2005) shipments for each 

representative ballast type. The census 

CIR data cover NEMA shipments for 

individual ballast designs (e.g., 2-lamp 

F96T8), as well as aggregated shipments 

for multiple designs to prevent 

disclosing data for individual 

companies. For lower-volume ballast 

designs, the CIR withheld shipments 

data to avoid disclosing individual 

company data. 

For CIR reporting years for which 

specific shipments data are too 

aggregated or unavailable, DOE 

estimated historical shipments using 

trends within the available data and/or 

market trends identified in ballast 

manufacturer interviews, the 2009 

Lamps Rule, and the 2000 Ballast Rule. 

DOE then adjusted these estimates to 

account for the volume of ballasts that 

non-NEMA companies import or 

manufacture. DOE received no 

comments on the April 2011 NOPR 

regarding historical ballast shipments 

data and estimates. DOE also found no 

historical ballast shipment data to 

validate its NOPR shipments analysis 

because neither NEMA nor its member 

companies typically retain data of the 

vintage in question (1990–2005). DOE 

therefore concluded that census data 

remain the best available data for 

estimating historical ballast shipments 

and retained its approach for this final 

rule. 

b. Ballast Stock Projections 

In its shipments analysis for the April 

2011 NOPR, DOE calculated the 

installed ballast stock using historical 

shipments estimated from U.S. Census 

Bureau CIR data (1990–2005) and 

projected shipments for future years. 

DOE estimated the installed stock 

during the analysis period by 

calculating how many ballasts will 

survive up to a given year based on a 

Weibull lifetime distribution for each 

ballast type. DOE received no comments 

on the April 2011 NOPR regarding its 

ballast stock projection method and 

retained this approach for this final rule. 

c. Projected Shipments 

By modeling ballast market segments 

(i.e., purchasing events) and applying 

lifetime distribution, growth and 

emerging technologies penetration rate 

assumptions, and efficiency scenarios, 

DOE developed annual shipment 

projections for the analysis period 

(2014–2043). The following subsections 

address the lifetime, base-case market 

share apportionment, emerging 

technology, market trend, and efficiency 

scenario issues that DOE considered in 

its shipments analysis for the final rule. 

i. Ballast Lifetime Assumptions 

In its shipments analysis for the April 

2011 NOPR, DOE retained the average 

ballast physical lifetimes used in its 

preliminary analysis, and combined 

them with Weibull distributions for 

lifetimes to model ballast failures and 

retrofits. DOE received no comments on 

the April 2011 NOPR regarding its 

assumed average ballast lifetimes and 

lifetime distributions and retained this 

approach for this final rule. 

ii. Base-Case Market Share 

Apportionments 

When choosing lighting systems, 

consumers consider attributes such as 

lifetime, efficiency, price, lumen output, 

rated wattage, and total system power. 

Therefore, within each product class, 

DOE developed efficiency level market 

share apportionments to account for the 

mix of system attributes that consumers 

select in the base case. These market 

share apportionments were used to 

estimate base case historical shipments 

and installed stock for each ballast 

design. 

DOE was not able to obtain detailed 

historical ballast shipment data to 

develop percentage market shares for 

the analyzed ballast designs. Based on 

initial manufacturer interviews, 

however, DOE was able to develop a 

general assumed market-share 

apportionment using shipments of 

electronic ballasts for 4-foot T8 MBP 

systems. DOE then applied this general 

apportionment to each product class in 

the base case, assigning 69 percent of 

shipments to the baseline ballast design, 

and dividing the remaining 31 percent 

of shipments among the higher 

efficiency designs. 

For the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

received several comments regarding 

base case market share apportionments 

and their effects on estimated energy 

savings and economic benefits. 

Universal questioned DOE assigning a 

majority market share to baseline ballast 

designs, noting at least 80 percent of 

NEMA manufacturers’ current ballast 

shipments are classified as NEMA 

Premium. (Universal, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 38; NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 4) Philips and Universal further 

contended that DOE’s baseline 

apportionments—including magnetic 

ballast designs—effectively 

underestimated the efficiency of the 

installed ballast stock and overestimated 

the resulting energy savings and 

economic benefits of the proposed 

efficiency standards. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 64; 

Universal, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 43 at p. 38) 

DOE agrees that the ballast market is 

shifting to higher efficiency designs, but 

notes that its baseline representative 

ballasts (excluding ballasts operating 

two 8-foot T12 lamps, and four-lamp 

sign ballasts) are electronic designs. 

Therefore, less-efficient magnetic 

baseline designs did not have a 

significant effect on DOE’s NIA results. 

However, DOE reviewed the prevalence 

of NEMA Premium products in its 

tested ballasts (including baseline 

products), and adjusted the market 

share apportionments of higher 

efficiency level ballasts in the IS and 

RS, and PS product classes accordingly. 

DOE could not verify NEMA’s estimated 

80 percent market share for higher 

efficiency designs. Based on its review, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70585 

49U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Solid-State 

Lighting Research and Development: Multi Year 

Program Plan. March 2011 (Updated May 2011). 

Washington, DC Available at http://apps1.eere.

energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_my

pp2011_web.pdf. 

50California Energy Commission’s 2013 Building 

Energy Efficiency Standards Rulemaking Web page. 

Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ 

2013standards/prerulemaking/. (Last accessed May 

27, 2011.) 

however, DOE assigned a 64-percent 

market share to the higher efficiency 

level designs and a 36-percent market 

share to baseline ballast designs in these 

product classes in the base case for the 

final rule shipments analysis. 

iii. Emerging Technologies Shipment 

Forecasts 

In its previous analyses, DOE 

modeled separate existing and emerging 

technologies shipment scenarios to 

characterize the uncertainty in ballast 

market penetration by emerging solidstate lighting (SSL) technologies. The 

existing technologies scenario generally 

considers only the market penetration of 

technologies that are mature in terms of 

price and efficiency, largely excluding 

SSL. In the emerging technologies 

scenario, the shipments and installed 

stock of ballasts (e.g., ballasts operating 

4-foot MBP T8 lamps) decrease due to 

significant replacement by SSL. This 

scenario effectively lowers the energy 

savings of new fluorescent lamp ballast 

standards. DOE acknowledges both 

scenarios and the likelihood that actual 

results will fall between them by 

presenting the two scenarios’ energy 

savings and economic effects as a range. 

Consistent with the 2009 Lamps Rule 

and its current research, DOE assumed 

no SSL penetration for residential linear 

fluorescent applications. DOE stated in 

the April 2011 NOPR that residential 

energy codes will drive the market 

toward higher efficacy lighting systems, 

but that the related market growth will 

be greater for compact fluorescent lamp 

(CFL)-based fixtures than for 4-foot MBP 

fluorescent systems. As discussed in 

DOE’s SSL Multi Year Program Plan 

(updated May 2011), the vast majority of 

residential sockets are dedicated to 

incandescent lamps, for which screwbase compact fluorescent and SSL 

lamps are direct replacements.49 DOE’s 

review of available residential fixture 

surveys confirms that linear fluorescent 

fixtures are typically relegated to utility 

room, laundry, and some kitchen 

applications. A comparison of recent 

California residential lighting data for 

2005 and 2009 shows no significantly 

increased installation of linear 

fluorescent systems, and DOE believes 

that residential consumers will continue 

to opt for lower-first-cost fluorescent 

systems rather than installing more 

expensive SSL replacements for linear 

fluorescent lamps and fixtures. DOE 

received no adverse comments to the 

April 2011 NOPR for not including SSL 

penetration in its residential ballast 

shipments. Given the limited residential 

applications for linear fluorescent 

systems, DOE retained this approach for 

this final rule. 

For the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

received comments regarding how 

regulations requiring use of dimming 

ballasts could affect future shipments of 

fixed-output ballasts. Commenters 

referenced proposed regulations in 

California that would require 

controllable ballasts in non-residential 

applications. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 209; Lutron, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

207–208; Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 179) Philips 

further suggested that SSL and dimming 

ballasts in combination could largely 

eliminate the fixed-output ballast 

market by 2040. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 187) 

As part of its 2013 Title 24 updates 

(effective in 2014), the state of California 

is considering mandatory requirements 

for controllable light sources that could 

require dimming ballasts for nonresidential linear fluorescent systems.50

These proposed changes to Title 24 

would build upon existing requirements 

for stepped lighting controls, requiring 

significantly increased granularity of 

control at the individual fixture level. It 

is uncertain, however, whether these 

proposed changes to Title 24 will be 

enacted. It is also not certain that other 

building standards, such as the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 90.1), 

would adopt the ballast controllability 

requirements being considered in 

California. DOE projects that a 

significant number of fluorescent 

lighting installations where dimming is 

not practical or possible (such as spaces 

without daylighting, or where 

occupancy/vacancy sensing can 

extinguish lighting) will remain, thus 

maintaining demand for fixed-output 

ballasts. 

In its comments to the April 2011 

NOPR, NEMA generally affirmed DOE’s 

shipment projections, but asserted that 

DOE underestimated the current and 

future penetration of SSL in the 

emerging technologies scenario. (NEMA, 

No. 47 at pp. 8–9) NEEA stated that the 

emerging technologies forecast is the 

more likely of DOE’s two shipment 

scenarios, and that DOE should increase 

the penetration of SSL and controllable 

lighting to lower the projected 

shipments of fixed-output ballasts. 

(NEEA and NPCC, No. 44 at p. 7) 

As described previously in this 

section, DOE developed existing and 

emerging technologies shipment 

scenarios to investigate uncertainties in 

ballast market penetration by other 

technologies. Although dimming 

ballasts are an existing technology, DOE 

considered them an ‘‘emerging 

application’’ for fluorescent lighting 

applications and included dimming 

ballasts with SSL products in its 

emerging technologies shipments 

scenario for this final rule. As discussed 

in chapter 10 of the final rule TSD, 

because SSL penetration has increased 

since the inception of this rulemaking, 

DOE increased its estimated penetration 

rate earlier in the shipments analysis 

period. DOE also increased the 

maximum penetration of 40.6 percent 

(for SSL in the April 2011 NOPR) to a 

maximum penetration of 75 percent (for 

SSL and dimming ballasts combined). 

This increased penetration resulted in 

decreased shipments for affected ballast 

types for the lower boundary, base case 

shipments scenario. 

iv. Anticipated Market Trends 

DOE received comments on the April 

2011 NOPR regarding its shipment 

projections for residential ballasts. 

NEEA and NPCC questioned whether 

DOE overestimated residential ballast 

shipments, based on the commenters’ 

understanding of ballast lifetimes and 

new construction growth rates. (NEEA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

194–195; NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 195) DOE 

calculates shipments of ballasts due to 

new construction, retrofits and 

replacements for failed ballasts. After 

reviewing its assumptions for these 

three purchasing events, DOE adjusted 

its estimated shipments downward by 

approximately 30 percent for the final 

rule shipments analysis. See chapter 10 

of the final rule TSD for additional 

details. 

v. Efficiency Scenarios 

Several of the inputs for determining 

NES (e.g., the annual energy 

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

the total annual installed cost and the 

total annual operating cost savings) 

depend on product efficiency. 

For the April 2011 NOPR, DOE used 

two shipment efficiency scenarios: 

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

scenario is a standards case in which all 

product efficiencies in the base case that 

do not meet the standard would roll up 

to meet the new standard level. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70586 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

51The National Academies, Board on Energy and 

Environmental Systems, Letter to Dr. John Mizroch, 

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

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy from 

James W. Dally, Chair, Committee on Point-of-Use 

and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to 

Energy Efficiency Standards, May 15, 2009. 

Consumers in the base case who 

purchase ballasts above the standard 

level are not affected as they are 

assumed to continue to purchase the 

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

characterizes consumers primarily 

driven by the first-cost of the analyzed 

products. In contrast, the Shift scenario 

models a standards case in which the 

standard affects all base-case consumer 

purchases (regardless of whether their 

base-case efficiency is below the 

standard). In this scenario, any 

consumer may purchase a more efficient 

ballast, preserving the same relationship 

to the baseline ballast efficiency. For 

example, if a consumer purchased a 

ballast one efficiency level above the 

baseline, that consumer would do the 

same after a standard is imposed. In this 

scenario, DOE assumed product 

efficiencies in the base case that do not 

meet the standard would roll up to meet 

the new standard level, as in a roll-up 

scenario. However, product efficiencies 

at or above the new standard level 

would shift to higher efficiency levels. 

As the standard level increases, market 

share incrementally accumulates at the 

highest standard level because it 

represents max tech (i.e., moving 

beyond this efficiency level is not 

achievable with today’s technology). 

DOE received no comments on the 

April 2011 NOPR regarding its Roll-up 

and Shift efficiency scenarios and 

retained this approach for the final rule 

shipments analysis. 

2. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

To estimate the national energy 

savings expected from appliance 

standards, DOE uses a multiplicative 

factor to convert site energy 

consumption (at the home or 

commercial building) into primary or 

source energy consumption (the energy 

required to convert and deliver the site 

energy). These conversion factors 

account for the energy used at power 

plants to generate electricity and losses 

in transmission and distribution. For 

electricity, the conversion factors vary 

over time due to projected changes in 

generation sources (i.e., the power plant 

types projected to provide electricity to 

the country). The factors that DOE 

developed are marginal values, which 

represent the response of the system to 

an incremental decrease in consumption 

associated with appliance standards. 

For the April 2011 NOPR, DOE used 

annual site-to-source conversion factors 

based on the version of NEMS that 

corresponds to AEO2010, which 

provides energy forecasts through 2035. 

For 2036–2043, DOE used conversion 

factors that remain constant at the 2035 

values. 

Section 1802 of EPAct 2005 directed 

DOE to contract a study with the 

National Academy of Science (NAS) to 

examine whether the goals of energy 

efficiency standards are best served by 

measurement of energy consumed, and 

efficiency improvements, at the actual 

point-of-use or through the use of the 

full-fuel-cycle, beginning at the source 

of energy production (Pub. L. 109–58 

(August 8, 2005)). NAS appointed a 

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

Energy Efficiency Standards’’ to conduct 

the study, which was completed in May 

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

including, in addition to site energy use, 

the following: Energy consumed in the 

extraction, processing, and transport of 

primary fuels such as coal, oil, and 

natural gas; energy losses in thermal 

combustion in power generation plants; 

and energy losses in transmission and 

distribution to homes and commercial 

buildings.51

In evaluating the merits of using 

point-of-use and full-fuel-cycle 

measures, the NAS committee noted 

that DOE uses what the committee 

referred to as ‘‘extended site’’ energy 

consumption to assess the impact of 

energy use on the economy, energy 

security, and environmental quality. 

The extended site measure of energy 

consumption includes the energy 

consumed during the generation, 

transmission, and distribution of 

electricity but, unlike the full-fuel-cycle 

measure, does not include the energy 

consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels. A majority of 

the NAS committee concluded that 

extended site energy consumption 

understates the total energy consumed 

to make an appliance operational at the 

site. As a result, the NAS committee 

recommended that DOE consider 

shifting its analytical approach over 

time to use a full-fuel-cycle measure of 

energy consumption when assessing 

national and environmental impacts, 

especially with respect to the 

calculation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The NAS committee also recommended 

that DOE provide more comprehensive 

information to the public through labels 

and other means, such as an enhanced 

Web site. For those appliances that use 

multiple fuels (e.g., water heaters), the 

NAS committee indicated that 

measuring full-fuel-cycle energy 

consumption would provide a more 

complete picture of energy consumed 

and permit comparisons across many 

different appliances, as well as an 

improved assessment of impacts. 

In response to the NAS 

recommendations, DOE issued, on 

August 20, 2010, a Notice of Proposed 

Policy proposing to incorporate a fullfuel cycle analysis into the methods it 

uses to estimate the likely impacts of 

energy conservation standards on 

energy use and emissions. Specifically, 

DOE proposed to use full-fuel-cycle 

(FFC) measures of energy and GHG 

emissions, rather than the primary 

(extended site) energy measures it 

currently uses. Additionally, DOE 

proposed to work collaboratively with 

the FTC to make FFC energy and GHG 

emissions data available to the public to 

enable consumers to make cross-class 

comparisons. On October 7, 2010, DOE 

held an informal public meeting to 

discuss and receive comments on its 

planned approach. The Notice, a 

transcript of the public meeting and all 

public comments received by DOE are 

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

search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?

R=EERE-2010-BT-NOA-0028. Following 

the close of the public comment period, 

DOE issued a final policy statement on 

these subjects and will take steps to 

begin implementing that policy in 

future rulemakings and other activities. 

76 FR 51281 (August 18, 2011). The 

Statement of Policy is available at: 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-

08-18/pdf/2011-21078.pdf. 

G. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable sub-groups of consumers 

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

national standard may 

disproportionately affect. DOE received 

no comments regarding specific subgroups and, therefore, evaluated the 

same sub-groups addressed in the 2009 

Lamps Rule, assuming that consumers 

using GSFL would share similar 

characteristics with ballast consumers. 

Specifically, DOE evaluated the 

following consumer sub-groups for the 

April 2011 NOPR: low-income 

households; institutions of religious 

worship; and institutions that serve lowincome populations (e.g., small 

nonprofits). DOE received no comments 

on the April 2011 NOPR regarding its 

choice of consumer sub-groups, and 

retained this approach for this final rule. 

The final rule TSD chapter 12 presents 

the consumer subgroup analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70587 

52 In this final rule, we define ‘commoditized’ to 

mean that a large number of products are produced 

by many manufacturers, such that the products are 

differentiated only by price. 

H. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the financial impact of new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of ballasts, and to 

calculate the impact of such standards 

on employment and manufacturing 

capacity. The MIA has both quantitative 

and qualitative aspects. The quantitative 

part of the MIA primarily relies on the 

GRIM, an industry cash-flow model 

using inputs specific to this rulemaking. 

The key GRIM inputs are data on the 

industry cost structure, product costs, 

shipments, and assumptions about 

markups and conversion expenditures. 

The key output is the INPV. DOE used 

the GRIM to calculate cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and to 

compare changes in INPV between a 

base case and various TSLs (the 

standards cases). The difference in INPV 

between the base and standards cases 

represents the financial impact of the 

new and amended standards on 

manufacturers. Different sets of 

shipment and markup assumptions 

(scenarios) will produce different 

results. The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses factors such as product 

characteristics, characteristics of and 

impacts on particular sub-groups of 

firms, and important market and 

product trends. DOE outlined its 

complete methodology for the MIA in 

the NOPR. 76 FR 20090, 20134 (April 

11, 2011). Chapter 13 of the TSD 

outlines the complete MIA. 

1. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

New and amended energy 

conservation standards will cause 

manufacturers to incur conversion costs 

to bring their production facilities and 

product designs into compliance. For 

the MIA, DOE classified these 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) product conversion costs and (2) 

capital conversion costs. For the final 

rule, DOE converted the NOPR product 

and capital conversion costs to 2010$ 

from 2009$ using the producer price 

index (PPI) for the relevant industry. 

The PPI is disaggregated into each North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code. For fluorescent 

lamp ballasts, DOE updated the 

conversion costs using the specific PPI 

index under NAICS code 335311— 

‘‘Electric power and specialty 

transformer manufacturing’’ and series 

ID PCU3353113353115—‘‘Fluorescent 

lamp ballasts.’’ DOE’s estimates of the 

product and capital conversion costs for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts can be found 

in section VII.B.2.a, of today’s final rule 

and in chapter 13 of the TSD. 

a. Product Conversion Costs 

Product conversion costs are 

investments in research, development, 

testing, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs necessary to make 

product designs comply with the new or 

amended energy conservation 

standard.DOE based its estimates of the 

product conversion costs that would be 

required to meet each TSL on 

information obtained from manufacturer 

interviews, the engineering analysis, the 

NIA shipment analysis, and market 

information about the number of models 

and stock-keeping units (SKUs) each 

major manufacturer supports. This 

methodology, described in full in the 

April 2011 NOPR (76 FR 20090, 20136 

(April 11, 2011)), centers on an 

assessment of the number of models and 

SKUs manufacturers will need to 

upgrade to meet new and amended 

standards. DOE applied a per-model and 

per-SKU cost to every product currently 

offered by manufacturers that does not 

meet the analyzed standard levels. 

Several stakeholders questioned this 

methodology, arguing that DOE’s 

assumption that manufacturers would 

upgrade all models that do not currently 

meet existing standards leads to 

overstated conversion cost estimates. In 

reality, manufacturers would not 

upgrade non-compliant models in 

product categories where they already 

offer similar compliant models. (NEEA 

and NPCC, No. 44 at pp. 7–8; CA 

Utilities, No. 45 at pp. 7–8) Similarly, 

NEEA and NPCC stated that 

manufacturers may not upgrade all noncompliant product lines as they shift 

resources away from fluorescent lighting 

toward emerging technologies such as 

solid-state lighting. (NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 44 at p. 8) 

In contrast, manufacturers argued that 

full product line upgrades would be 

necessary to compete. GE explained that 

manufacturers must upgrade noncompliant models even in categories in 

which compliant models currently exist 

because today’s high efficiency products 

generally bundle additional premium 

features at a higher cost. These premium 

features, such as Type CC protection, 

cold temperature rating, case size, and 

lamp striation control, are detailed in 

the April 2011 NOPR. 76 FR 20090, 

20108–9 (April 11, 2011). To remain 

competitive, manufacturers would need 

to offer compliant products stripped of 

these premium features to the costconscious OEM channels. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 217) 

Philips emphasized that manufacturers 

cannot simply ignore the ballast market 

by choosing not to make the necessary 

investments to meet today’s standards 

because it represents an important part 

of the lighting business. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 213– 

4) 

Although DOE’s max tech efficiency 

levels do not preclude ballasts with 

premium features, DOE agrees that 

competition in the OEM channel would 

force manufacturers to offer a low-cost 

product at the new baseline standard 

level. The large fixture manufacturers 

that compose the OEM channel are 

price-sensitive, and their large orders 

afford them substantial buying power. 

Their business is valuable to the ballast 

industry because the manufacturers rely 

on these high-volume orders to improve 

plant utilization and lower fixed costs 

per unit for all models. As such, DOE 

does not predict that large ballast 

manufacturers can afford to ignore the 

demand for these commoditized 52

products. DOE also finds it 

unreasonable to assume that 

manufacturers would forego investment 

in the ballast market due to a shifting 

focus on emerging technologies because 

ballast sales currently generate 

significant revenue for these companies. 

For these reasons, DOE has not adjusted 

its methodology for determining the 

number of models that would need to be 

upgraded in response to standards. 

b. Capital Conversion Costs 

Capital conversion costs are 

investments in property, plant, and 

equipment necessary to adapt or change 

existing production facilities such that 

new product designs can be fabricated 

and assembled. Estimates for capital 

conversion costs varied greatly from 

manufacturer to manufacturer, as 

manufacturers anticipated different 

paths to compliance based on the 

modernity, flexibility, and level of 

automation of the equipment already 

existing in their factories. However, all 

manufacturers DOE interviewed 

indicated that capital costs would be 

relatively moderate compared to the 

required engineering costs. 76 FR 20090, 

20136 (April 11, 2011). 

2. Markup Scenarios 

For the MIA, DOE modeled two 

standards-case markup scenarios to 

represent the uncertainty regarding the 

potential impacts on prices and 

profitability for manufacturers following 

the implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) A 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, and (2) a two-tier markup 

scenario. These scenarios lead to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70588 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

different markups values, which, when 

applied to the inputted MPCs, result in 

varying revenue and cash flow impacts. 

The preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario assumes that 

manufacturers are able to maintain the 

base-case total operating profit in 

absolute dollars in the standards case, 

despite higher product costs and 

investment. DOE adjusted the 

manufacturer markups in the GRIM at 

each TSL to yield approximately the 

same earnings before interest and taxes 

in the standards case in the year after 

the compliance date of the new and 

amended standards as in the base case. 

The preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario represents the upper 

bound of industry profitability 

following amended energy conservation 

standards. Under this scenario, while 

manufacturers are not able to yield 

additional operating profit from higher 

production costs and the investments 

required to comply with the new and 

amended energy conservation standard, 

they are able to maintain the same 

operating profit in the standards case as 

in the base case. 

DOE also modeled a lower bound 

profitability scenario with the two-tier 

markup scenario. In this scenario, DOE 

assumed that the markup on fluorescent 

lamp ballasts varies according to two 

efficiency tiers in both the base case and 

the standards case. DOE used 

information from MIA interviews to 

estimate markups for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts under a two-tier pricing strategy 

in the base case. In the standards case, 

DOE modeled the situation in which 

portfolio reduction squeezes the margin 

of higher-efficiency products as they 

become the new baseline, presumably 

high-volume products. 76 FR 20090, 

20137 (April 11, 2011). 

3. Other Key GRIM Inputs 

Key inputs to the GRIM characterize 

the fluorescent lamp ballast industry 

cost structure, investments, shipments, 

and markups. For today’s final rule, 

DOE made several updates to the GRIM 

to reflect changes in these inputs. These 

updates do not represent changes in 

methodology from the April 2011 

NOPR. Specifically, DOE incorporated 

changes made in the engineering 

analysis and NIA, including updates to 

the MPCs, shipment forecasts, and 

shipment efficiency distributions. These 

updated inputs affected the values 

calculated for the conversion costs and 

markups described above, as well as the 

INPV results presented in section 

VII.B.2. 

4. Other Comments From Interested 

Parties 

The following section discusses a 

number of other comments DOE 

received on the April 2011 NOPR MIA 

methodology. 

a. Fixture Redesigns for Ballast Can Size 

Changes 

Several interested parties commented 

that new and amended standards could 

drive larger ballast designs, which 

would result in product redesign and 

tooling costs for fixture manufacturers 

because fixtures are built for a particular 

ballast can size. NEMA stated that 

increasing efficiency by employing 

additional circuitry to reduce variation 

would drive larger case sizes. (NEMA, 

No 47 at p. 9) At the same time, the 

market has trended over time toward the 

use of smaller can sizes (from the 

standard can to the A-can and, most 

recently, from the A-can to the N-can). 

Larger can sizes would reverse this 

trend and cost fixture manufacturers 

tens of millions of dollars each, 

according to NEMA and Acuity Brands. 

Accordingly, these fixture redesign costs 

should be included in DOE’s analysis. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at pp. 33–4, 36–7; Acuity Brands, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 

171–2) 

DOE recognizes that the fluorescent 

lamp ballast market has trended over 

time toward the use of smaller can sizes. 

For today’s final rule, as discussed in 

section V.B.5.a, DOE is not analyzing 

any efficiency levels that would 

eliminate manufacturers’ ability to meet 

standard levels with the smaller N-cans. 

DOE has accounted for sources of 

variation and compliance certification 

requirements, as described in section 

V.B.4, and does not project that ballasts 

will grow in size in response to 

standards. As such, fixture 

manufacturers will not incur product 

redesign and tooling costs to 

accommodate larger ballasts. 

b. Potential Benefits to Ballast 

Manufacturers 

ASAP noted that energy conservation 

standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts 

could accelerate the adoption of 

emerging technologies. Because ballast 

manufacturers often also offer these 

emerging technologies and can typically 

command higher margins on these 

emerging technology products, ballast 

manufacturers could be less affected by 

standards than estimated by DOE. 

(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at pp. 209–11) 

As addressed in response to 

comments in the April 2011 NOPR (76 

FR 20090, 20138 (April 11, 2011)), the 

potential exists for the market to 

increasingly migrate from traditional 

fixed light output fluorescent lamp 

ballasts to alternate technologies such as 

LEDs and dimming ballasts. DOE 

therefore models the emerging 

technologies shipment scenario as 

described in section V.F.1.c and in 

chapter 10 of the TSD. This market shift 

to emerging technologies occurs in the 

base case. That is, the shift is not 

standards-induced. DOE excludes the 

revenue from substitute technologies 

earned by manufacturers who produce 

ballasts in the GRIM because the 

revenue stream would be present in 

both the base case and the standards 

case, resulting in no impact on the 

change in INPV. 

c. Opportunity Cost of Investments 

NEMA and Philips stated that the TSL 

proposed in the April 2011 NOPR (76 

FR 20090, 20166–9 (April 11, 2011)) 

would have a high opportunity cost due 

to the limited capital for investment and 

R&D. Any investments incurred to meet 

amended ballast standards would reflect 

foregone investments in emerging 

technologies such as solid state lighting 

and controls, and reduced wattage lamp 

and ballast systems, which the industry 

believes offer both better prospects for 

market growth and greater potential for 

energy savings than traditional fixedlight-output fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at pp. 212–3; NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 40–1; NEMA, 

No. 47 at pp. 9, 11) Specifically, NEMA 

argued that the investments necessary to 

meet new and amended ballast 

standards would be better spent 

developing new technologies that can 

save far more energy than the 2 to 3 

percent additional energy savings this 

standard would generate. (NEMA, No. 

52 at p. 10) NEMA also stated that the 

proposed rule provided no clear 

incentive for manufacturers to comply 

with standards by making already 

highly efficient products even more 

efficient. (NEMA, No. 47 at p. 9) 

DOE recognizes that there is an 

opportunity cost associated with any 

investment, and agrees that 

manufacturers would need to spend 

capital to meet today’s standard that 

they would not have to spend in the 

base case. As a result, manufacturers 

must determine the extent to which they 

will balance investment in the 

traditional ballast market with that in 

emerging technologies or other ventures. 

DOE includes the product and capital 

conversion costs necessary to meet 

today’s standard in its analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70589 

d. Component Availability 

OSI stated that there are currently 

long lead times for many electronic 

components. As DOE standards push 

the fluorescent lamp ballast industry to 

higher efficiency components, 

manufacturers will have limited choices 

in what components they are able to 

receive from suppliers, causing longer 

product lead times and decreased 

product availability. (OSI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 65) 

DOE recognized this component 

shortage in the April 2011 NOPR (76 FR 

20090, 20139 (April 11, 2011)), but DOE 

projects limited component availability 

to be a relatively short term 

phenomenon arising from the capacity 

reduction that occurred in the recent 

recession and that component suppliers 

will ultimately adjust. DOE addresses 

this issue again in full in section 

VII.B.2.c of today’s notice. 

e. Impact on Competition 

NEMA stated that manufacturers may 

lose their ability to differentiate their 

products because they will need to 

remove premium features to meet price 

pressure and proposed standard levels. 

This would force all manufacturers to 

offer the same basic product. NEMA 

states that DOE should ensure that 

manufacturers are able to offer products 

above the standard in order to 

differentiate themselves. (NEMA, No. 47 

at p. 9) NEEP, while agreeing that high 

efficiency ballasts may be commoditized 

by this standard, states that 

manufacturers will retain opportunities 

for differentiation by focusing on 

dimming ballasts and controls. (NEEP, 

No. 49 at pp. 3–4) 

DOE agrees that ballast manufacturers 

may not be able to maintain today’s 

margins after standards become 

effective, particularly in the short run, 

as demonstrated by the markup 

scenarios described in section V.H.2. 

DOE disagrees, however, that 

manufacturers will no longer be able to 

differentiate themselves. For some 

minimally compliant products, DOE 

agrees with manufacturers that price 

competition will play a large role in the 

market, as is currently the case. 

Manufacturers may continue to 

differentiate in domains other than 

price, including premium features such 

as Type CC protection, cold temperature 

rating, case size, and lamp striation 

control. Because of this effort to 

differentiate, as discussed in the section 

V.H.1, DOE included costs associated 

with upgrading non-compliant 

products, even when a compliant 

product already exists in the category. 

Therefore, DOE believes NEMA’s 

concerns are accounted for in DOE’s 

analysis. 

NEMA stated that manufacturers may 

not be able to complete the redesigns 

needed to meet the max tech levels 

proposed in the April 2011 NOPR (76 

FR 20090 (April 11, 2011)). (NEMA, No. 

47 at p. 9) NEEP, however, believes that 

by setting efficiency levels such that a 

select subset of existing NEMA 

Premium ballasts qualify at today’s 

standard levels, the market would not 

be faced with a shortage of qualifying 

products and major shift in R&D 

resources. (NEEP, No. 49 at p. 2) 

At TSL 3A, the level promulgated in 

today’s final rule, DOE projects that 38 

percent of shipments already meet the 

standard. The reconciliation of the DOE 

and NEMA test data and the substantial 

share of shipments at the proposed level 

indicate that the industry will be able to 

meet market demand by the compliance 

date. 

5. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

representing more than 90 percent of 

fluorescent lamp ballast sales. These 

interviews were in addition to those 

DOE conducted as part of the 

engineering analysis. DOE outlined the 

key issues for the rulemaking for 

manufacturers in the NOPR. 76 FR 

20090, 20139–40 (April 11, 2011). DOE 

considered the information received 

during these interviews in the 

development of the NOPR and this final 

rule. 

6. Sub-Group Impact Analysis 

During the NOPR phase, DOE 

identified two sub-groups for a separate 

impact analysis—small manufacturers 

and sign ballast manufacturers. DOE 

describes the impacts on small 

manufacturers in section VIII.B and the 

impacts on sign ballast manufacturers in 

section VII.B.2.d. 

I. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a standard. Employment 

impacts consist of direct and indirect 

impacts. Direct employment impacts are 

any changes in the number of 

employees working for manufacturers of 

the appliance products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking, their 

suppliers, and related service firms. The 

MIA addresses the direct employment 

impacts that concern ballast 

manufacturers in section VII.B.2.b. 

Indirect employment impacts are 

changes in employment within the 

larger economy that occur due to the 

shift in expenditures and capital 

investment caused by the purchase and 

operation of more efficient products, 

and are addressed in this section. 

The indirect employment impacts of 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

outside of the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced 

spending on energy by end users; (2) 

reduced spending on new energy 

supplies by the utility industry; (3) 

increased spending on new products to 

which the new standards apply; and (4) 

the effects of those three factors 

throughout the economy. DOE expects 

the net monetary savings from standards 

to be redirected to other forms of 

economic activity, and expects these 

shifts in spending and economic activity 

to affect the demand for labor in the 

short term. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects of such shifts in economic 

activity on the demand for labor is to 

compare sector employment statistics 

developed by the Labor Department’s 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (Data 

on industry employment, hours, labor 

compensation, value of production, and 

the implicit price deflator for output for 

these industries are available upon 

request by calling the Division of 

Industry Productivity Studies ((202) 

691–5618) or by sending a request by 

email to dipsweb@bls.gov. These data 

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

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

regularly publishes its estimates of the 

number of jobs per million dollars of 

economic activity in different sectors of 

the economy, as well as the jobs created 

elsewhere in the economy by this same 

economic activity. Data from BLS 

indicate that expenditures in the utility 

sector generally create fewer jobs (both 

directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy. There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital intensive and less 

labor intensive than other sectors. See 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the 

Regional Input-Output Modeling System 

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

Department of Commerce, 1992. 

Energy conservation standards have 

the effect of reducing consumer utility 

bills. Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

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

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

and manufacturing sectors). Thus, based 

on the BLS data alone, DOE’s analysis 

shows that net national employment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70590 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

will increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from new and 

amended standards for ballasts. 

In developing today’s adopted 

standards, DOE estimated indirect 

national employment impacts using an 

input-output (I–O) model of the U.S. 

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies (ImSET), version 3.1.1. 

ImSET is a spreadsheet model of the 

U.S. economy that focuses on 187 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. (Roop, J.M., M.J. Scott, and 

R.W. Schultz, ImSET 3.1: Impact of 

Sector Energy Technologies (PNNL18412 Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory) (2009). Available at http:// 

www.pnl.gov/main/publications/ 

external/technical_reports/PNNL18412.pdf.) ImSET is a special purpose 

version of the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark 

National Input-Output’’ model, 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model with structural coefficients to 

characterize economic flows among the 

187 sectors. ImSET’s national economic 

I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. 

benchmark table (Stewart, R.L., J.B. 

Stone, and M.L. Streitwieser, ‘‘U.S. 

Benchmark Input-Output Accounts, 

2002,’’ Survey of Current Business (Oct. 

2007)), specially aggregated to the 187 

sectors. DOE estimated changes in 

expenditures using the NIA spreadsheet. 

Using ImSET, DOE estimated the net 

national, indirect-employment impacts 

on employment by sector of the trial 

standard levels for ballasts. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and 

understands the uncertainties involved 

in projecting employment impacts, 

especially changes in the later years of 

the analysis.4 Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rule. Because 

ImSET predicts small job impacts 

resulting from this rule, regardless of 

these uncertainties, the actual job 

impacts are likely to be negligible in the 

overall economy. DOE may consider the 

use of other modeling approaches for 

examining long run employment 

impacts. 

DOE also notes that the employment 

impacts estimated with ImSET for the 

entire economy differ from the 

employment impacts in the lighting 

manufacturing sector estimated in 

Chapter 13 using the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). The 

methodologies used and the sectors 

analyzed in the ImSET and GRIM 

models are different. 

DOE received two comments on the 

April 2011 NOPR, inquiring whether 

DOE’s employment analysis accounted 

for effects on ballast manufacturer 

employment, and if sector-specific 

results could be extracted from the 

ImSET model output. (Acuity Brands, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 

229; Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 43 at p. 227.) As discussed 

previously in this section, DOE’s 

employment analysis models national 

effects on indirect employment 

(excluding ballast manufacturers) due to 

shifts in expenditures and capital 

investment caused by the purchase and 

operation of more efficient appliances. 

As previously noted, the MIA addresses 

direct employment impacts on ballast 

manufacturers in section VII.B.2.b. 

DOE notes that the indirect 

employment numbers generated by 

ImSET are an estimate of the job 

impacts of the projected national energy 

and cost savings resulting from new or 

amended standards. These calculated 

impacts assume that the 187 sectors in 

the ImSET model are unchanged from 

the time that the I–O parameters were 

estimated (last updated in 2008 using 

year 2002 Economic Census data). As 

noted in the ImSET documentation, 

actual job creation will depend on 

future labor market supply conditions 

and macroeconomic policy. 

DOE reviewed current ImSET sectoral 

details and identified one economic 

sector that corresponds with lighting 

product manufacturers, excluding lamp 

bulb and related parts (sector S111, 

Lighting Fixture Manufacturing). While 

this sector could encompass some 

ballast manufacturers, DOE notes that it 

is not exclusively representative of 

ballasts. Further, while ImSET can 

produce gross product impacts (in 

dollars) by sector, it does not produce 

sector-specific employment figures. 

Rather, ImSET characterizes economic 

flows among and interactions between 

187 sectors in the model. Producing 

sector-specific employment figures 

would require DOE to artificially 

constrain its ImSET input data, which 

could reduce the meaningfulness of the 

results. DOE therefore did not calculate 

sector S111 employment figures, and 

retained its NOPR employment analysis 

approach for this final rule. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis, see chapter 15 of the 

final rule TSD. 

J. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis includes 

estimates of the effects of the adopting 

new or amended standards on the utility 

industry. For this analysis, DOE used 

the NEMS–BT model to generate 

forecasts of electricity consumption, 

electricity generation by plant type, and 

electricity generating capacity by plant 

type that would result from each TSL. 

The estimated impacts of a standard are 

estimated to be the differences between 

values forecasted by NEMS–BT and the 

values in the AEO2010 reference case. 

In response to the April 2011 NOPR, 

NEEA, NPCC and NEEP commented that 

DOE did not consider the avoided costs 

of power plant construction 

corresponding to the avoided generation 

capacity from new or amended 

standards. By NEEA and NPCC’s 

estimates, the present value cost of new 

generation capacity to supply the 

cumulative energy savings at TSL 3 

would nearly equal DOE’s cumulative 

NPV at TSL 3 (which excludes avoided 

power plant and infrastructure 

construction). NEEA and NPCC further 

suggested that DOE examine the 

difference in the value of total 

electricity sales between the NEMS–BT 

reference case and standards level cases, 

which could serve as a proxy for the 

economic value of the standard level to 

all electricity consumers. (NPCC, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 223; 

NEEA and NPCC, No. 44 at pp. 9–10) 

NEEP also commented that decreased 

demand is shown to drive energy prices 

down, benefiting consumers in general. 

(NEEP, No. 49 at p. 4) 

DOE acknowledges that the aggregate 

economic benefits from avoided 

construction of new generating capacity 

and infrastructure are potentially large. 

However, there may be negative effects 

on some of the actors involved in 

electricity supply, particularly power 

plant providers and fuel suppliers. 

There is also uncertainty about the 

extent to which the benefits for 

electricity users from reduced electricity 

prices would be a transfer from actors 

involved in electricity supply to 

electricity consumers. DOE also takes 

under advisement the guidance 

provided by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies 

on identifying and measuring benefits 

and costs in its regulatory analyses 

(OMB Circular A–4, section E, 

September 17, 2003). Specifically, at 

page 38, Circular A–4 instructs that 

transfers should be excluded from the 

estimates of the benefits and costs of a 

regulation. DOE applied this approach 

for the utility impact analysis in the 

April 2011 NOPR, as well as in this final 

rule. 

DOE is continuing to investigate the 

extent to which projected changes in 

electricity prices that result from 

standards represent a net economic gain 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70591 

53 DOE notes that future iterations of the NEMS– 

BT model will ncorporate any changes necessitated 

by issuance of the Transport Rule. 

to the nation. In response to the 

comments discussed in this section, 

DOE included the estimated effects of 

adopted standards on electricity prices 

and the cumulative NPV of resulting 

savings in electricity expenditures in 

the TSD. DOE also included in the TSD 

representative costs of avoided 

electricity generation capacity by fuel 

type, although these costs are provided 

for illustrative purposes only. For more 

details on the utility impact analysis, 

see chapter 14 of the final rule TSD. 

K. Environmental Assessment 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

the requirements of DOE Order 451.1B: 

NEPA Compliance Program, DOE has 

prepared an environmental assessment 

(EA) of the impacts of the new and 

amended standards for ballasts in this 

final rule, which it has included as 

chapter 16 of the final rule TSD. DOE 

found that the environmental effects 

associated with the standards for 

ballasts were not significant. Therefore, 

DOE is issuing a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI), pursuant to 

NEPA, the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part 

1021). The FONSI is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In the EA, DOE estimated the 

reduction in power sector emissions of 

CO2, NOX, and Hg using the NEMS–BT 

computer model. In the EA, NEMS–BT 

is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, 

except that ballast energy use is reduced 

by the amount of energy saved (by fuel 

type) due to each TSL. The inputs of 

national energy savings come from the 

NIA spreadsheet model, while the 

output is the forecasted physical 

emissions. The net benefit of each TSL 

in today’s final rule is the difference 

between the forecasted emissions 

estimated by NEMS–BT at each TSL and 

the AEO2010 Reference Case. NEMS–BT 

tracks CO2 emissions using a detailed 

module that provides results with broad 

coverage of all sectors and inclusion of 

interactive effects. 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from 

affected electricity generating units 

(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and 

regional emissions cap-and-trade 

programs, and DOE has preliminarily 

determined that these programs create 

uncertainty about the potential 

amended standards’ impact on SO2

emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act 

sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for 

affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous 

States and the District of Columbia (DC). 

SO2 emissions from 28 eastern states 

and DC are also limited under the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR 25162 

(May 12, 2005)), which created an 

allowance-based trading program. 

Although CAIR was remanded to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) 

(see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176 (DC Cir. 2008)), it remained in 

effect temporarily, consistent with the 

DC Circuit’s earlier opinion in North 

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

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

Transport Rule proposal, a replacement 

for CAIR (75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 2010)), 

and on July 6, 2011 EPA issued the final 

Transport Rule, entitled the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011). (http://www.epa.gov/ 

crossstaterule/). Because the AEO2010 

NEMS used for today’s final rule 

assumes the implementation of CAIR, 

DOE has not been able to take into 

account the effects of the Transport Rule 

for this rulemaking.53

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, any excess 

SO2 emissions allowances resulting 

from the lower electricity demand 

caused by the imposition of an 

efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. 

However, if the new and amended 

standards resulted in a permanent 

increase in the quantity of unused 

emissions allowances, there would be 

an overall reduction in SO2 emissions 

from the standards. While there remains 

some uncertainty about the ultimate 

effects of efficiency standards on SO2

emissions covered by the existing capand-trade system, the NEMS–BT 

modeling system that DOE uses to 

forecast emissions reductions currently 

indicates that no physical reductions in 

power sector emissions would occur for 

SO2. 

As discussed above, the AEO2010 

NEMS used for today’s final rule 

assumes the implementation of CAIR, 

which established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern states and the 

District of Columbia. With CAIR in 

effect, the energy conservation 

standards for ballasts are expected to 

have little or no physical effect on NOX

emissions in those states covered by 

CAIR, for the same reasons that they 

may have little effect on SO2 emissions. 

However, the adopted standards would 

be expected to reduce NOX emissions in 

the 22 states not affected by CAIR. For 

these 22 states, DOE used the NEMS–BT 

to estimate NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in 

today’s final rule. 

Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOX, 

future emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps. In May 2005, 

EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule 

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

CAMR would have permanently capped 

emissions of Hg for new and existing 

coal-fired power plants in all states by 

2010. However, on February 8, 2008, the 

DC Circuit issued a decision in New 

Jersey v. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 517 F.3d 574 (DC Cir. 2008), in 

which it vacated CAMR. EPA has 

decided to develop emissions standards 

for power plants under Section 112 of 

the Clean Air Act, consistent with the 

DC Circuit’s opinion on CAMR. See 

http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/ 

pdfs/certpetition_withdrawal.pdf. 

Pending EPA’s forthcoming revisions to 

the rule, DOE is excluding CAMR from 

its environmental assessment. In the 

absence of CAMR, a DOE standard 

would likely reduce Hg emissions and 

DOE used NEMS–BT to estimate these 

reductions. However, DOE continues to 

review the impact of rules that reduce 

energy consumption on Hg emissions, 

and may revise its assessment of Hg 

emission reductions in future 

rulemakings. 

L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

final rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits likely to result from 

the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX

that are expected to result from each of 

the TSLs considered. In order to make 

this calculation similar to the 

calculation of the NPV of consumer 

benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the 

lifetime of products shipped in the 

forecast period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

monetary values used for each of these 

emissions and presents the values 

considered in this rulemaking. 

For today’s final rule, DOE is relying 

on a set of values for the SCC that was 

developed by an interagency process. A 

summary of the basis for these values is 

provided in the following sections, and 

a more detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided as an 

appendix to chapter 17 of the final rule 

TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

Under section 1(b) of Executive Order 

12866, agencies must, to the extent 

permitted by law, ‘‘assess both the costs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70592 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

54National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC (2009). 

55 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

56Throughout this section, references to tons of 

CO2 refer to metric tons. 

and the benefits of the intended 

regulation and, recognizing that some 

costs and benefits are difficult to 

quantify, propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that the benefits of the intended 

regulation justify its costs.’’ The purpose 

of the SCC estimates presented here is 

to allow agencies to incorporate the 

monetized social benefits of reducing 

CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses 

of regulatory actions that have small, or 

‘‘marginal,’’ impacts on cumulative 

global emissions. The estimates are 

presented with an acknowledgement of 

the many uncertainties involved and 

with a clear understanding that they 

should be updated over time to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed these SCC estimates, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this 

process was to develop a range of SCC 

values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing 

scientific and economic literatures. In 

this way, key uncertainties and model 

differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking 

process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of CO2. 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of CO2

emissions, the analyst faces a number of 

serious challenges. A recent report from 

the National Research Council 54 points 

out that any assessment will suffer from 

uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about (1) Future emissions 

of greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of 

past and future emissions on the climate 

system, (3) the impact of changes in 

climate on the physical and biological 

environment, and (4) the translation of 

these environmental impacts into 

economic damages. As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the 

harms associated with climate change 

will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing CO2

emissions. Consistent with the directive 

in Executive Order 12866 quoted 

previously in this section, the purpose 

of the SCC estimates presented here is 

to make it possible for Federal agencies 

to incorporate the social benefits from 

reducing CO2 emissions into costbenefit analyses of regulatory actions 

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

on cumulative global emissions. Most 

Federal regulatory actions can be 

expected to have marginal impacts on 

global emissions. 

For such policies, the agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or 

costs from increased) emissions in any 

future year by multiplying the change in 

emissions in that year by the SCC value 

appropriate for that year. The net 

present value of the benefits can then be 

calculated by multiplying each of these 

future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all 

affected years. This approach assumes 

that the marginal damages from 

increased emissions are constant for 

small departures from the baseline 

emissions path, an approximation that 

is reasonable for policies that have 

effects on emissions that are small 

relative to cumulative global CO2

emissions. For policies that have a large 

(non-marginal) impact on global 

cumulative emissions, there is a 

separate question of whether the SCC is 

an appropriate tool for calculating the 

benefits of reduced emissions. This 

concern is not applicable to this notice, 

and DOE does not attempt to answer 

that question here. 

At the time of the preparation of this 

notice, the most recent interagency 

estimates of the potential global benefits 

resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in 

2010, expressed in 2010$, were $4.9, 

$22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 

avoided. For emissions reductions that 

occur in later years, these values grow 

in real terms over time. Additionally, 

the interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic 

effects,55 although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. Specifically, the 

interagency group has set a preliminary 

goal of revisiting the SCC values within 

2 years or at such time as substantially 

updated models become available, and 

to continue to support research in this 

area. In the meantime, the interagency 

group will continue to explore the 

issues raised by this analysis and 

consider public comments as part of the 

ongoing interagency process. 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

To date, economic analyses for 

Federal regulations have used a wide 

range of values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing CO2 emissions. 

In the final model year 2011 CAFE rule, 

the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(DOT) used both a ‘‘domestic’’ SCC 

value of $2 per ton of CO2 and a 

‘‘global’’ SCC value of $33 per ton of 

CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 

2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 

percent per year.56 DOT also included a 

sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of 

CO2. See Average Fuel Economy 

Standards Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 FR 14196 

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

Environmental Impact Statement 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90 

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

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

domestic SCC value is meant to reflect 

the value of damages in the United 

States resulting from a unit change in 

CO2 emissions, while a global SCC value 

is meant to reflect the value of damages 

worldwide. 

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission 

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

sensitivity analysis), also increasing at 

2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars 

and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011– 

2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) 

(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger 

Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015 at 3–58 (June 2008) 

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

fuel-economy). A regulation for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70593 

57The models are described in appendix 16–A of 

the final rule TSD. 

packaged terminal air conditioners and 

packaged terminal heat pumps finalized 

by DOE in October of 2008 used a 

domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton 

CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 

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

2008) In addition, EPA’s 2008 Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Under the Clean Air Act identified what 

it described as ‘‘very preliminary’’ SCC 

estimates subject to revision. 73 FR 

44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA’s global 

mean values were $68 and $40 per ton 

CO2 for discount rates of approximately 

2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 

2006$ for 2007 emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing CO2 emissions. 

To ensure consistency in how benefits 

are evaluated across agencies, the 

Administration sought to develop a 

transparent and defensible method, 

specifically designed for the rulemaking 

process, to quantify avoided climate 

change damages from reduced CO2

emissions. The interagency group did 

not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: global SCC 

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

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

These interim values represent the first 

sustained interagency effort within the 

U.S. government to develop an SCC for 

use in regulatory analysis. The results of 

this preliminary effort were presented in 

several proposed and final rules and 

were offered for public comment in 

connection with proposed rules, 

including the joint EPA–DOT fuel 

economy and CO2 tailpipe emission 

proposed rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates, 

which were considered for this final 

rule. Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored 

the technical literature in relevant 

fields. The interagency group relied on 

three integrated assessment models 

commonly used to estimate the SCC: the 

FUND, DICE, and PAGE models.57

These models are frequently cited in the 

peer-reviewed literature and were used 

in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Each model was given equal 

weight in the SCC values that were 

developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three values are based on the 

average SCC from three integrated 

assessment models, at discount rates of 

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

which represents the 95th percentile 

SCC estimate across all three models at 

a 3-percent discount rate, is included to 

represent higher-than-expected impacts 

from temperature change further out in 

the tails of the SCC distribution. For 

emissions (or emission reductions) that 

occur in later years, these values grow 

in real terms over time, as depicted in 

Table V.8. 

TABLE V.8—SOCIAL COST OF CO2, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton] 

Discount rate 

5% Avg 3% Avg 2.5% Avg 3% 95th 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. As the National 

Research Council report mentioned in 

section V.L.1.a points out, there is 

tension between the goal of producing 

quantified estimates of the economic 

damages from an incremental ton of 

carbon and the limits of existing efforts 

to model these effects. There are a 

number of concerns and problems that 

should be addressed by the research 

community, including research 

programs housed in many of the Federal 

agencies participating in the interagency 

process to estimate the SCC. 

DOE recognizes the uncertainties 

embedded in the estimates of the SCC 

used for cost-benefit analyses. As such, 

DOE and others in the U.S. Government 

intend to periodically review and 

reconsider those estimates to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70594 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

58Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. 

For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050 

using the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by 

the interagency group. 

59For additional information, refer to U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on 

the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities, Washington, DC. 

60OMB, Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 

17, 2003). 

improvements in modeling. In this 

context, statements recognizing the 

limitations of the analysis and calling 

for further research take on exceptional 

significance. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

most recent values identified by the 

interagency process, adjusted to 2010$ 

using the GDP price deflator. For each 

of the four cases specified, the values 

used for emissions 2010 were $4.9, 

$22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 

avoided (values expressed in 2010$).58

To monetize the CO2 emissions 

reductions expected to result from new 

and amended standards for ballasts, 

DOE used the values identified in Table 

A1 of the ‘‘Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866,’’ which is 

reprinted in appendix 17A of the final 

rule TSD, appropriately adjusted to 

2010$. To calculate a present value of 

the stream of monetary values, DOE 

discounted the values in each of the 

four cases using the specific discount 

rate that had been used to obtain the 

SCC values in each case. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the TSLs it considered. 

As noted in the previous section, DOE 

has taken into account how new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce NOX emissions in those 

22 states that are not affected by the 

CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized 

value of NOX emissions reductions 

resulting from the standard levels 

considered for today’s final rule based 

on environmental damage estimates 

found in the relevant scientific 

literature. Available estimates suggest a 

very wide range of monetary values, 

ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per 

ton of NOX from stationary sources, 

measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a 

range of $450 to $4,623 per ton in 

2010$).59 In accordance with guidance 

from the U.S. Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), DOE conducted two 

calculations of the monetary benefits 

derived using each of the economic 

values used for NOX, one using a real 

discount rate of 3 percent and another 

using a real discount rate of 7 percent.60

DOE is aware of multiple agency 

efforts to determine the appropriate 

range of values used in evaluating the 

potential economic benefits of reduced 

Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent 

valuation and reporting of Hg emissions 

before it once again monetizes Hg 

emissions in its rulemakings. 

VI. Other Issues for Discussion 

A. Proposed Standard Levels in April 

2011 NOPR 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to adopt the max tech level, 

which represented the highest level that 

was technologically feasible for a 

sufficient diversity of products 

(spanning several ballast factors, 

numbers of lamps per ballast, and types 

of lamps operated). DOE received 

several comments supporting the 

proposed standard levels. NEEP 

commented that assuming the test data 

discrepancy between DOE’s and 

NEMA’s data is resolved, the proposed 

standards would greatly benefit the 

Northeast region of the United States 

where energy prices are typically higher 

than the rest of the country, increasing 

the magnitude of life cycle cost savings 

for those consumers. They also observed 

that locking in strong efficiency levels 

for ballasts would complement the 

strong fluorescent lamp standards that 

are set to take effect on July 14, 2012. 

NEEP added that the NOPR proposal 

would help the Northeast region meet 

its energy savings and emission 

reduction goals including those set 

forward in Massachusetts’ Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2008. (NEEP, 

No. 49 at pp. 2–4) 

EEI also supported the proposed 

standards and agreed they would be cost 

effective for the vast majority of 

commercial consumers based on the 

analysis and data put forward in the 

April 2011 NOPR. (EEI, No. 48 at p. 1) 

In addition to the above feedback, 

DOE also received several comments 

that disagreed with the proposed 

standard levels. These comments are 

discussed in more detail in the 

following paragraphs. 

NEMA disagreed with DOE’s proposal 

to adopt the max tech efficiency levels. 

NEMA stated that, even when using 

DOE data, very few products met the 

proposed minimum BLE requirements. 

For example, only one residential, 

T5SO, and T5HO ballast met DOE’s 

proposed standard levels. NEMA 

commented that the DOE is therefore 

using only one product to develop a 

rule. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 43 at p. 29–32) NEMA analyzed its 

own dataset and suggested an 

alternative level that allowed the 

majority of manufacturers’ NEMA 

Premium products, which represent 

their most efficient product offerings. 

NEMA noted that although it is not 

shown in the submitted data, several 

products they manufacture are not 

NEMA Premium products and therefore 

would not meet their proposal. At a 

minimum, NEMA requested that two 

manufacturers’ complete product lines 

be able to meet the standard levels. 

NEMA also added that they would 

support a proposal that does not create 

limited availability, disruption in the 

market, or extreme R&D redesign costs. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at p. 41–5; NEMA, No. 47 at p. 6) 

ASAP disagreed with NEMA’s 

recommendation that all manufacturers’ 

high efficiency products should meet 

the highest level. ASAP noted that 

based on the DOE data, there were two 

products that were compliant in each 

class. ASAP therefore approved of 

DOE’s decision to adopt the max tech 

level. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 43 at p. 50–1; ASAP, No. 

46 at p. 1) NEEP agreed and supported 

the result that only a subset of NEMA 

Premium products met the proposed 

standard. (NEEP, No. 49 at p. 1–2) CA 

Utilities also agreed that all products 

with a NEMA Premium designation 

should not meet the proposed standard 

because NEMA Premium covers a range 

of efficiency with some ballasts only 

meeting TSL1 or TSL2 as analyzed in 

the April 2011 NOPR. They noted that 

they reviewed the data and found that 

there is at least one product for each 

specific utility that meets the standard, 

though all manufacturers may not have 

an offering for each utility. (CA Utilities, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at p. 

62–3; CA Utilities, No. 45 at p. 4; CA 

Utilities, No. 58 at p. 3) 

In response to the August 2011 

NODA, NEMA recommended adopting 

lower efficiency levels for several of the 

product classes. NEMA recommended 

adopting EL2 instead of EL3 for the IS/ 

RS and PS product classes because the 

incremental cost of product redesign at 

EL3 is not outweighed by the 

incremental energy savings between EL2 

and EL3. NEMA added that at EL2, 

manufacturers would focus on retiring 

non-compliant products and improving 

existing product lines rather than 

redesigning a large number of models. 

(NEMA, No. 56 at p. 3) 

For the same reasons, NEMA 

recommended adopting EL2 for the 8- 

foot HO IS/RS product class. They noted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70595 

that the energy savings at EL2 are 

similar to those achieved at EL3 (the 

level proposed in the April 2011 NOPR), 

but EL3 imposes much greater costs on 

manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 3) 

Finally, NEMA recommended EL1 as 

the standard level for residential ballasts 

because linear fluorescent technology is 

more efficient and cost-effective than 

other traditional technologies and 

therefore it does not make sense to 

increase the cost burden on this pricesensitive market. (NEMA, No. 47 at p. 4; 

NEMA, No. 56 at p. 3) EEI also 

commented on residential ballasts, 

stating that although they generally 

agreed with the proposed standard 

levels, they were concerned about the 

impacts of the standards on some 

residential consumers. EEI noted that 

according to the NOPR proposal, 

relative to the T8 baseline, 100 percent 

of consumers have increased life-cycle 

costs. 76 FR 20090, 20146 (April 11, 

2011). (EEI, No. 48 at p. 2) 

DOE determines efficiency levels as 

described in section V.B.5, and then 

assesses the impacts, including those on 

manufacturers and industry 

competition. DOE acknowledges that 

conversion costs increase at higher 

efficiency levels, but also notes that 

higher levels result in increased energy 

savings and NPV for the nation and 

increased LCC savings for consumers. 

Although each efficiency level may not 

allow a full product line from every 

manufacturer, DOE has concluded that, 

for the levels it is adopting in this final 

rule, the benefits outweigh the burdens. 

See section VII.C.2 for more details. 

B. Universal Versus Dedicated Input 

Voltage 

NEMA also expressed concern that 

the proposed standards may eliminate 

universal voltage ballasts from the 

market. NEMA commented that 

although dedicated voltage ballasts are 

more efficient, consumers demand 

universal voltage instead of dedicated 

voltage products. NEMA stated that 

manufacturers may need to shift back to 

the more efficient dedicated voltage 

products to meet the proposed 

standards. This shift away from 

universal voltage would go against 

industry and consumer demand. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at p. 36) NEEA and NPCC 

commented that their data assessment 

strongly suggested ballast efficiency 

does not vary consistently by input 

voltage, and that universal voltage 

ballasts can be as efficient as, or more 

efficient than, fixed input voltage 

ballasts in any individual product class 

and utility category. (NEEA and NPCC, 

No. 44 at p. 3) CA Utilities also stated 

that based on experience and review of 

DOE’s test data, they found no 

indication that universal voltage ballasts 

are consistently less efficient than 

dedicated voltage ballasts and that 

therefore universal and dedicated 

voltage ballasts should be held to the 

same standard levels. (NEMA, No. 56 at 

p. 3; CA Utilities, No. 45 at p. 6) 

DOE agrees with the CA Utilities that 

test data shows universal voltage 

ballasts to be as efficient or more 

efficient than dedicated input voltage 

ballasts. DOE also recognizes that there 

is significant market demand for 

universal voltage fluorescent lamp 

ballasts. In both the April 2011 NOPR 

and this final rule, DOE’s max tech 

efficiency levels are met by universal 

voltage ballasts. For the IS/RS product 

class, 80 percent (37 out of 46) of 

ballasts that meet the proposed standard 

are universal voltage ballasts; for the PS 

product class, over 95 percent (20 out of 

21) are universal voltage ballasts. 

Therefore, DOE does not believe the 

final rule prohibits the manufacture and 

sale of universal voltage products. 

C. Implementation of Adopted Standard 

Levels 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

proposed that standards for all covered 

ballasts require compliance three years 

following publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register. P.R. China noted 

that, for several product classes, DOE 

proposed increasing efficiency 

requirements by a large percentage and 

that adapting to the proposed standards 

could create a large burden on 

manufacturers. P.R. China suggested 

that DOE gradually phase in standards, 

transitioning from the lowest considered 

efficiency level through the higher 

efficiency levels to reach the proposed 

standard. P.R. China stated that this 

approach is internationally accepted 

and would ease the initial burden 

placed on manufacturers. (P.R. China, 

No. 51 at p. 3) 

DOE acknowledges that for certain 

ballast types the standards adopted 

represent a large increase in efficiency 

relative to existing standards or the 

analyzed baseline. However, as 

described in section VII.C.2, DOE 

analyzed the burden on manufacturers 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and 

determined that it was outweighed by 

the benefits of the rule to consumers 

and the nation. 

VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of the TSLs developed for 

today’s final rule. Table VII.1 presents 

the trial standard levels and the 

corresponding product class efficiency 

levels for all product classes. See the 

engineering analysis in section V.B.5 of 

this final rule for a more detailed 

discussion of the efficiency levels. 

TABLE VII.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

Product class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3A TSL 3B 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ....................................................... EL1 EL2 EL3 EL3 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ................................................................... EL1 EL2 EL3 EL3 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

4-foot MiniBP SO lamps 

4-foot MiniBP HO lamps 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate: 8-foot HO lamps ....................... EL1 EL2 EL2 EL3 

PS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate: 8-foot HO lamps ................................... EL1 EL2 EL2 EL3 

Sign ballasts that operate: 8-foot HO lamps ................................................................................... EL1 EL1 EL1 EL1 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate ..................................................................................... EL1 EL1 EL1 EL2 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

8-foot slimline lamps 

PS residential ballasts that operate ................................................................................................. EL1 EL1 EL1 EL2 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70596 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS—Continued 

Product class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3A TSL 3B 

4-foot MBP lamps 

2-foot U-shaped lamps 

In this section, DOE presents the 

analytical results for the TSLs of the 

product classes that DOE analyzed 

directly (the ‘‘representative product 

classes’’). DOE scaled the standards for 

these representative product classes to 

create standards for other product 

classes that were not directly analyzed 

(the 8-foot HO PS and residential PS 

product classes), as set forth in chapter 

5 of the final rule TSD. 

TSL 1, which would set energy 

conservation standards at EL1 for all 

product classes, would eliminate the 

majority of currently available 4-foot 

MBP T12 RS (commercial and 

residential), low-efficiency 4-foot MBP 

T8 PS, magnetic 8-foot HO, and 

magnetic sign ballasts. Based on these 

impacts, TSL 1 would likely cause a 

migration from 4-foot MBP T12 RS 

ballasts (both commercial and 

residential) to 4-foot MBP T8 IS ballasts. 

TSL 1 also prevents inefficient T5 

standard output and high output 

ballasts from becoming prevalent in 

future years. DOE would not anticipate 

any impact of TSL 1 on consumers of 8- 

foot slimline ballasts. 

TSL 2 would establish energy 

conservation standards at EL2 for the IS/ 

RS, PS, and 8-foot HO IS/RS product 

classes. This level would likely 

eliminate low efficiency two-lamp 4- 

foot MBP T8 IS commercial ballasts and 

the least efficient T12 8-foot slimline 

ballasts, causing a migration toward 

high efficiency two lamp 4-foot MBP T8 

IS ballasts and 8-foot T8 slimline 

ballasts. DOE does not anticipate any 

impact of TSL 2 on four-lamp 4-foot 

MBP T8 IS ballast consumers. For PS 

ballasts, high-efficiency 4-foot MBP T8 

ballasts and high-efficiency T5 standard 

output and high output ballasts are 

required at TSL 2. For the 8-foot HO IS/ 

RS product class, this level would likely 

result in the elimination of the majority 

of current T12 electronic ballasts, but 

can be met with T8 electronic ballasts. 

As with TSL 1, TSL 2 would continue 

to use EL1 for the residential IS/RS 

product class, eliminating currently 

available 4-foot MBP T12 RS ballasts, 

but allowing higher efficiency T8 

residential ballasts. In addition, the sign 

ballast efficiency level remains 

unchanged from TSL1. 

TSL 3A would establish energy 

conservation standards at the maximum 

technologically feasible level for all 

product classes except for residential 

and 8-foot HO IS/RS product classes. As 

with TSL 2, the 8-foot HO IS/RS product 

class at TSL 3A results in the 

elimination of current T12 electronic 

ballasts, but can be met with T8 

electronic ballasts. Consistent with TSLs 

1 and 2, TSL 3A also requires EL1 for 

the residential IS/RS product class. This 

TSL represents the most stringent 

efficiency requirements where a positive 

LCC savings for each representative 

product class is maintained. 

TSL 3B represents the maximum 

technologically feasible level for all 

product classes. This level would 

establish energy conservation standards 

at EL1 for sign ballasts, EL2 for 

residential IS/RS product classes, and 

EL3 for the commercial IS/RS and PS, 

and 8-foot HO IS/RS product classes. 

TSL 3B represents the highest EL 

analyzed in all representative product 

classes and is the max tech TSL. Ballasts 

that meet TSL 3B represent the most 

efficient models tested by DOE in their 

respective representative product 

classes. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Consumers affected by new or 

amended standards usually experience 

higher purchase prices and lower 

operating costs. Generally, these effects 

on individual consumers are best 

summarized by changes in LCCs and by 

the payback period. DOE calculated the 

LCC and PBP values for the potential 

standard levels considered in this 

rulemaking to provide key inputs for 

each TSL. These values are reported by 

product class in Table VII.12 through 

Table VII.15. Each table includes the 

average total LCC and the average LCC 

savings, as well as the fraction of 

product consumers for which the LCC 

will either decrease (net benefit), or 

increase (net cost) relative to the 

baseline case. In limited cases, a more 

efficient (i.e., higher BLE) ballast will 

have a higher total LCC and lower LCC 

savings than a less efficient ballast (e.g., 

EL3 versus EL2 in Table VII.9). This is 

because the higher-EL ballast has a 

higher BF and system input power, 

resulting in higher operating costs than 

for the lower-EL ballast. The last 

column in each table contains the 

median PBPs for the consumer 

purchasing a design compliant with the 

TSL. Negative PBP values indicate a 

reduction of both operating costs and 

installed costs (i.e., there is no purchase 

price increment for the consumer to 

recover). Entries of ‘‘N/A’’ indicate 

standard levels that do not reduce 

operating costs, which prevents the 

consumer from recovering the increased 

purchase cost. This scenario did not 

occur at any of the standard levels 

adopted by DOE in today’s final rule. 

The results for each TSL are presented 

relative to the energy use distribution in 

the base case (no amended standards), 

based on energy consumption under 

conditions of actual product use. The 

rebuttable presumption PBP is based on 

test values under conditions prescribed 

by the DOE test procedure, as required 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70597 

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

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ............... 64 247 311 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................. 1 ........................... 57 225 282 29 0 100 ¥3.35 

2 ............................. 2 ........................... 59 218 277 34 0 100 ¥1.66 

3A, 3B .................... 3 ........................... 60 214 274 37 0 100 ¥1.30 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ............... 67 247 314 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................. 1 ........................... 59 222 281 32 0 100 ¥2.97 

2 ............................. 2 ........................... 62 213 275 39 0 100 ¥1.43 

3A, 3B .................... 3 ........................... 62 211 273 40 0 100 ¥1.19 

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

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

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................. Baseline/1 ............ 56 225 281 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................. 2 ........................... 59 218 277 5 0 100 3.62 

3A, 3B .................... 3 ........................... 59 214 273 8 0 100 2.86 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................. Baseline/1 ............ 58 225 283 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................. 2 ........................... 61 216 277 7 0 100 2.76 

3A, 3B .................... 3 ........................... 62 214 275 8 0 100 2.74 

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

RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median payback period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 78 412 490 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 81 403 484 7 0 100 2.65 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 81 412 493 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 83 406 490 3 0 100 4.43 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70598 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.5—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT SLIMLINE LAMPS (T12 BASELINE): 

LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 90 457 547 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 90 432 521 26 0 100 ¥0.12 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 90 425 514 33 0 100 0.01 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 92 457 549 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 92 440 532 17 0 100 ¥0.17 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 92 435 527 22 0 100 0.01 

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

TABLE VII.6—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT SLIMLINE LAMPS (T8 BASELINE): 

LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median payback period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ...................... Baseline/2 ............... 90 432 522 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................. 3 .............................. 91 425 515 7 0 100 0.46 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ...................... Baseline/2 ............... 93 432 524 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................. 3 .............................. 93 426 519 5 0 100 0.61 

TABLE VII.7—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 59 205 263 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ............................ 60 191 251 12 0 100 1.09 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 60 188 249 15 0 100 1.25 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 61 205 266 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ............................ 62 191 253 13 0 100 1.09 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 63 189 252 14 0 100 1.26 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70599 

TABLE VII.8—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median payback period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 77 375 452 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 81 373 454 ¥2 100 0 20.52 

2, 3A, 3B ............... 3 ............................ 83 363 446 6 1 99 6.00 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 79 2375 454 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 83 342 425 29 0 100 1.43 

2, 3A, 3B ............... 3 ............................ 85 334 419 35 0 100 1.76 

TABLE VII.9—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MINIBP SO LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median payback period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 64 268 332 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 64 251 315 18 0 100 0.05 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 66 240 306 27 0 100 0.55 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 70 252 322 10 0 100 3.82 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 66 268 335 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 67 251 317 18 0 100 0.05 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 68 248 316 18 0 100 0.78 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 73 242 315 19 0 100 2.41 

TABLE VII.10—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MINIBP HO LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 64 357 421 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 68 326 395 26 0 100 1.05 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 71 318 389 32 0 100 1.40 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 74 319 393 28 0 100 2.03 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 67 357 423 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 71 326 397 26 0 100 1.05 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 74 323 397 26 0 100 1.63 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 77 321 397 26 0 100 2.13 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70600 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.11—PRODUCT CLASS 3—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT HO LAMPS (T12 BASELINE): 

LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 116 631 747 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 111 571 682 65 0 100 ¥0.66 

2, 3A ...................... 2 ............................ 97 420 517 230 0 100 ¥0.69 

3B .......................... 3 ............................ 101 413 514 233 0 100 ¥0.53 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 119 631 750 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 114 590 704 46 0 100 ¥0.98 

2, 3A ...................... 2 ............................ 99 517 616 134 0 100 ¥1.26 

3B .......................... 3 ............................ 103 513 616 134 0 100 ¥0.97 

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

TABLE VII.12—PRODUCT CLASS 3—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT HO LAMPS (T8 BASELINE): LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median payback period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2, 3A ................. Baseline/2 ............. 94 420 514 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3B .......................... 3 ............................ 98 413 511 3 3 97 4.57 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2, 3A ................. Baseline/2 ............. 96 420 517 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3B .......................... 3 ............................ 100 417 517 ¥1 84 16 9.50 

TABLE VII.13—PRODUCT CLASS 5—SIGN BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 8-FOOT HO LAMPS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 164 1,483 1,646 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2, 3A, 3B ........... 1 ............................ 157 1,086 1,244 403 0 100 ¥0.16 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 166 1,483 1,649 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2, 3A, 3B ........... 1 ............................ 160 1,239 1,398 251 0 100 ¥0.26 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70601 

TABLE VII.14—PRODUCT CLASS 6—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (RESIDENTIAL, T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC * 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 53 71 124 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2, 3A ................. 1 ............................ 46 56 102 21 0 100 ¥5.46 

3B .......................... 2 ............................ 47 58 105 19 0 100 ¥4.92 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 55 71 126 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2, 3A ................. 1 ............................ 48 63 111 15 0 100 ¥9.45 

3B .......................... 2 ............................ 49 61 110 16 0 100 ¥6.35 

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

TABLE VII.15—PRODUCT CLASS 6—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (RESIDENTIAL, T8 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC * 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2, 3A ................. Baseline/1 ............. 45 56 101 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3B .......................... 2 ............................ 46 58 104 ¥2 100 0 N/A 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2, 3A ................. Baseline/1 ............. 47 56 104 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3B .......................... 2 ............................ 49 55 103 1 27 73 8.18 

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

b. Consumer Sub-Group Analysis 

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, 

DOE determined the impact of the trial 

standard levels on the following 

consumer sub-groups: low-income 

consumers, institutions of religious 

worship, and institutions that serve lowincome populations. Representative 

ballast designs used in the industrial 

sector (e.g., ballasts operating HO 

lamps) are not typically used by the 

identified sub-groups, and were not 

included in the sub-group analysis. 

Similarly, DOE assumed that lowincome consumers use residential 

ballasts only, and did not include 

commercial ballast designs in the LCC 

analysis for this sub-group. DOE 

assumed that institutions of religious 

worship and institutions that serve lowincome populations use commercial 

ballasts only, and did not include 

residential ballast designs in the subgroup analysis. 

DOE adjusted inputs to the LCC 

model to reflect conditions faced by the 

identified subgroups. For low-income 

consumers, DOE adjusted electricity 

prices to represent rates typically paid 

by consumers living below the poverty 

line. DOE assumed that institutions of 

religious worship have lower annual 

operating hours than the commercial 

sector average used in the main LCC 

analysis. For institutions serving lowincome populations, DOE assumed that 

the majority of these institutions are 

small nonprofits, and used a higher 

discount rate of 10.7 percent (versus 6.9 

percent for the main commercial sector 

analysis). 

Table VII.16 through Table VII.25 

shows the LCC impacts and payback 

periods for identified sub-groups that 

purchase ballasts. Negative PBP values 

indicate standards that reduce operating 

costs and installed costs. Entries of 

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

not reduce operating costs. In general, 

the average LCC savings for the 

identified sub-groups at the considered 

efficiency levels exhibited the same 

trends and relationships as the averages 

for all consumers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70602 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period ** 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 64 195 260 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 57 178 235 25 0 100 ¥5.81 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 59 173 232 28 0 100 ¥2.89 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 60 170 230 30 0 100 ¥2.26 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 67 195 262 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 59 176 235 27 0 100 ¥5.16 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 62 169 231 32 0 100 ¥2.48 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 62 167 229 33 0 100 ¥2.06 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 64 209 273 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 57 191 247 26 0 100 ¥3.35 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 59 185 244 29 0 100 ¥1.66 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 60 181 241 32 0 100 ¥1.30 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 67 209 276 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 59 188 247 28 0 100 ¥2.97 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 62 180 242 34 0 100 ¥1.43 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 62 179 241 35 0 100 ¥1.19 

* See Table VII.2 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

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

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

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings* 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 56 178 234 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 59 173 231 3 1 99 6.28 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 59 170 229 6 0 100 4.96 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 58 178 237 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 61 171 232 5 0 100 4.79 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 62 169 231 6 0 100 4.75 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 56 191 246 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 59 185 243 3 1 99 3.62 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 59 181 240 6 0 100 2.86 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70603 

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

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

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings* 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 58 191 249 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 61 183 244 5 0 100 2.76 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 62 181 242 7 0 100 2.74 

* See Table VII.3 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

TABLE VII.18—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS: LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings* 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 78 326 405 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 81 319 400 5 0 100 4.61 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 81 326 407 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 83 322 405 2 10 90 7.69 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 78 349 427 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 81 341 422 5 0 100 2.65 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 81 349 429 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 83 344 427 2 4 96 4.43 

* See Table VII.4 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

TABLE VII.19—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT SLIMLINE LAMPS (T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period * * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 90 362 452 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 90 342 431 20 0 100 ¥0.20 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 90 336 426 26 0 100 ¥0.01 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70604 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.19—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT SLIMLINE LAMPS (T12 

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

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period * * 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 92 362 454 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 92 348 441 14 0 100 ¥0.30 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 92 344 436 18 0 100 ¥0.02 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 90 387 477 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 90 365 455 22 0 100 ¥0.12 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 90 359 449 28 0 100 0.01 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1 ............................ Baseline/1 ............. 92 387 479 .................... .................... .................... ....................

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 92 372 465 15 0 100 ¥0.17 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 92 368 460 19 0 100 0.01 

* See Table VII.5 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

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

TABLE VII.20—PRODUCT CLASS 1—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 8-FOOT SLIMLINE LAMPS (T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 90 342 432 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 91 336 427 5 0 100 0.80 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 93 342 434 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 93 337 430 4 0 100 1.05 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 90 365 456 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 91 359 450 6 0 100 0.46 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2 ........................ Baseline/2 ............. 93 365 458 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 93 361 454 4 0 100 0.61 

* See Table VII.6 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70605 

TABLE VII.21—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 59 149 208 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ............................ 60 139 199 9 0 100 1.90 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 60 137 198 10 0 100 2.16 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 61 149 210 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ............................ 62 139 201 9 0 100 1.89 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 63 137 200 10 0 100 2.19 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 59 163 222 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ............................ 60 152 212 10 0 100 1.09 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 60 150 211 11 0 100 1.25 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 61 163 225 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ........................ 2 ............................ 62 152 215 10 0 100 1.09 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 63 151 213 11 0 100 1.26 

* See Table VII.7 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

TABLE VII.22—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 77 273 350 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 81 272 352 ¥2 100 0 35.63 

2, 3A, 3B ............... 3 ............................ 83 265 347 3 80 20 10.41 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 79 273 353 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 83 249 332 20 0 100 2.48 

2, 3A, 3B ............... 3 ............................ 85 243 329 24 0 100 3.06 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 77 299 376 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 81 298 378 ¥2 100 0 20.52 

2, 3A, 3B ............... 3 ............................ 83 290 373 4 19 81 6.00 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 79 299 379 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 83 273 356 22 0 100 1.43 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70606 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.22—PRODUCT CLASS 2—PS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE FOUR 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS: LCC AND PBP SUBGROUP RESULTS—Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

2, 3A, 3B ............... 3 ............................ 85 267 352 27 0 100 1.76 

* See Table VII.8 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

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

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Institutions of Religious Worship 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 64 212 276 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 64 198 263 14 0 100 0.09 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 66 190 256 21 0 100 0.95 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 70 199 270 7 1 99 6.63 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 66 212 279 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 67 198 265 14 0 100 0.09 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 68 197 265 14 0 100 1.35 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 73 192 265 14 0 100 4.19 

Sub-Group: Institutions Serving Low-Income Populations 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 64 227 291 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 64 212 276 15 0 100 0.05 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 66 203 269 22 0 100 0.55 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 70 213 284 7 2 98 3.82 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 66 227 294 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ............................ 1 ............................ 67 212 279 15 0 100 0.05 

2 ............................ 2 ............................ 68 210 278 15 0 100 0.78 

3A, 3B ................... 3 ............................ 73 205 278 15 0 100 2.41 

* See Table VII.9 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

TABLE VII.24—PRODUCT CLASS 6—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (RESIDENTIAL, T12 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period ** 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Low-Income Consumers 

Event I: Replacement 

Baseline ................ 53 71 124 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2, 3A ................. 1 ............................ 46 57 102 21 0 100 ¥5.46 

3B .......................... 2 ............................ 47 58 105 19 0 100 ¥4.92 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70607 

TABLE VII.24—PRODUCT CLASS 6—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (RESIDENTIAL, T12 

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

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period ** 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

Baseline ................ 55 71 126 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2, 3A ................. 1 ............................ 48 63 111 15 0 100 ¥9.45 

3B .......................... 2 ............................ 49 61 110 16 0 100 ¥6.35 

* See Table VII.14 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

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

TABLE VII.25—PRODUCT CLASS 6—IS AND RS BALLASTS THAT OPERATE TWO 4-FOOT MBP LAMPS (RESIDENTIAL, T8 

BASELINE): LCC AND PBP SUB-GROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2010$ Life-cycle cost savings * 

Median 

payback 

period ** 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2010$ 

Percent of consumers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Sub-Group: Low-Income Consumers 

Event I: Replacement 

1, 2, 3A ................. Baseline/1 ............. 45 57 101 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3B .......................... 2 ............................ 46 58 104 ¥2 100 0 N/A 

Event II: New Construction/Renovation 

1, 2, 3A ................. Baseline/1 ............. 47 57 104 .................... .................... .................... ....................

3B .......................... 2 ............................ 49 55 103 1 27 73 8.18 

* See Table VII.15 for average LCC savings for all consumers. 

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

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section IV.D.2, EPCA 

provides a rebuttable presumption that 

an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the increased 

purchase cost for a product that meets 

the standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy savings 

resulting from the standard. DOE’s LCC 

and PBP analyses generate values for 

calculating the payback period for 

consumers affected by potential energy 

conservation standards. This includes, 

but is not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable presumption test discussed in 

section IV.D.2. DOE, however, routinely 

conducts an economic analysis that 

considers the full range of impacts— 

including those on consumers, 

manufacturers, the Nation, and the 

environment—as required under 42 

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

For this final rule, DOE calculated a 

rebuttable presumption payback period 

for each TSL. DOE used discrete values 

rather than distributions for inputs and, 

as required by EPCA, made the 

calculations using the applicable DOE 

test procedures for ballasts. DOE then 

calculated a single rebuttable 

presumption payback value, rather than 

a distribution of payback periods, for 

each TSL. Table VII.26 shows the 

rebuttable presumption payback periods 

that are less than 3 years. Negative PBP 

values indicate standards that reduce 

operating costs and installed costs. 

While DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it also 

considered a more comprehensive 

analysis of the economic impacts of 

these levels to determine whether the 

standard levels considered for today’s 

rule are economically justified pursuant 

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

of this analysis serve as the basis for 

DOE to evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

For the MIA in the April 2011 NOPR, 

DOE used changes in INPV to compare 

the direct financial impacts of different 

TSLs on manufacturers. 76 FR 20090, 

20156–61 (April 11, 2011). DOE used 

the GRIM to compare the INPV of the 

base case (no new or amended energy 

conservation standards) to that of each 

TSL. The INPV is the sum of all net cash 

flows discounted by the industry’s cost 

of capital (discount rate) to the base 

year. The difference in INPV between 

the base case and the standards case is 

an estimate of the economic impacts 

that implementing that standard level 

would have on the entire fluorescent 

ballast industry. For today’s final rule, 

DOE continues to use the methodology 

presented in the NOPR (76 FR 20090, 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER14NO11.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70609 

61 Industry free cash flow is the operating cash 

flow minus capital expenditures. 

20134–5 (April 11, 2011)) and in section 

V.H. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

Table VII.27 and Table VII.28 depict 

the financial impacts on manufacturers 

(represented by changes in INPV) and 

the conversion costs DOE estimates 

manufacturers would incur at each TSL. 

The two tables show two sets of INPV 

impacts: Table VII.27 reflects the lower 

(less severe) bound of impacts and Table 

VII.28 represents the upper bound. To 

evaluate this range of cash-flow impacts 

on the fluorescent lamp ballast industry, 

DOE modeled two different scenarios 

using different markup assumptions. 

These assumptions correspond to the 

bounds of a range of market responses 

that DOE anticipates could occur in the 

standards case (i.e., where new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

apply). Each of the two scenarios results 

in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding industry value at each 

TSL. The April 2011 NOPR (76 FR 

20090, 20156 (April 11, 2011)) discusses 

each of these scenarios in full, and they 

are also presented in chapter 13 of the 

TSD. 

TABLE VII.27—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING

PROFIT MARKUP, EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES, AND SHIFT SHIPMENT SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3A 3B 

INPV ...................... (2010$ millions) ................ 1,219 1,199 1,176 1,144 1,141 

Change in INPV .... (2010$ millions) ................ ................................ (19.6) (42.4) (74.5) (77.6) 

(%) .................................... ................................ ¥1.6% ¥3.5% ¥6.1% ¥6.4% 

Product Conversion 

Costs.

(2010$ millions) ................ ................................ 5 18 46 48 

Capital Conversion 

Costs.

(2010$ millions) ................ ................................ 11 20 28 29 

Total Conversion Costs.(2010$ millions) ................ ................................ 17 38 74 78 

TABLE VII.28—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS—TWO-TIER MARKUP, EMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES, AND ROLL-UP SHIPMENT SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3A 3B 

INPV ............................ (2010$ millions) ................ 733 616 545 464 431 

Change in INPV .......... (2010$ millions) ................ .......................... (116.4) (188.0) (268.6) (301.2) 

(%) .................................... .......................... ¥15.9% ¥25.7% ¥36.7% ¥41.1% 

Product Conversion 

Costs.

(2010$ millions) ................ .......................... 5 18 46 48 

Capital Conversion 

Costs.

(2010$ millions) ................ .......................... 11 20 28 29 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

(2010$ millions) ................ .......................... 17 38 74 78 

TSL 1 represents EL1 for all five 

representative product classes. At TSL 

1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to 

range from ¥$19.6 million to ¥$116.4 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥1.6 

percent to ¥15.9 percent. At this level, 

industry free cash flow 61 is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 12 percent to 

$43.4 million, compared to the basecase value of $49.3 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. 

The INPV impacts at TSL 1 are 

relatively minor, in part because the 

vast majority of shipments already meet 

EL1. DOE estimates that in 2014, the 

year in which compliance with the new 

and amended standards will be 

required, over 99 percent of the IS/RS 

product class shipments, 73 percent of 

the PS product class shipments, 98 

percent of the 8-foot HO IS/RS product 

class shipments, 64 percent of the sign 

ballast product class shipments, and 96 

percent of the residential IS/RS product 

class shipments would meet EL1 or 

higher in the base case. The majority of 

shipments at baseline efficiency levels 

that would need to be converted at TSL 

1 are 2-lamp and 4-lamp 4ft MBP PS 

ballasts, 4-lamp sign ballasts, and 2- 

lamp 4-foot MBP IS/RS residential 

ballasts. 

Because most fluorescent lamp ballast 

shipments already meet the efficiency 

levels analyzed at TSL 1, DOE expects 

conversion costs to be small compared 

to the industry value. DOE estimates 

product conversion costs of $5 million 

due to the research, development, 

testing, and certification costs needed to 

upgrade product lines that do not meet 

TSL 1. For capital conversion costs, 

DOE estimates $11 million for the 

industry, largely driven by the cost of 

converting all magnetic sign ballast 

production lines to electronic sign 

ballast production lines. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, impacts on 

manufacturers are marginally negative 

because, while manufacturers earn the 

same operating profit as is earned in the 

base case for 2015 (the year following 

the compliance date of amended 

standards), they face $17 million in 

conversion costs. INPV impacts on 

manufacturers are not as significant 

under this scenario as in other scenarios 

because most shipments already meet 

TSL 1 and the shift shipment scenario 

moves products beyond the eliminated 

baseline to higher-price (and higher 

gross profit) levels. This results in a 

shipment-weighted average MPC 

increase of 6 percent applied to a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70610 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

growing market over the analysis 

period. 

Shipments under the existing 

technologies scenario are nearly three 

and a half times greater than shipments 

under the emerging technologies 

scenario by the end of the analysis 

period. At TSL 1, the moderate price 

increase applied to a large quantity of 

shipments lessens the impact of the 

minor conversion costs estimated at TSL 

1, resulting in slightly negative impacts 

at TSL 1 under the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario. 

Under the two-tier markup scenario, 

manufacturers are not able to fully pass 

on additional costs to consumers and 

are not guaranteed base-case operating 

profit levels. Rather, products that once 

earned a higher-than-average markup at 

EL1 become commoditized once 

baseline products are eliminated at TSL 

1. Thus, the average markup drops 

below the base-case average markup 

(which is equal to the flat manufacturer 

markup of 1.4). Because shipments 

above the baseline do not shift to higher 

efficiencies with greater costs under the 

roll-up scenario, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC does not significantly 

increase. A lower average markup of 

1.38 and $17 million in conversion costs 

results in more negative impacts at TSL 

1 under the two-tier markup scenario. 

These impacts increase on a percentage 

basis under the emerging technologies 

scenario relative to the existing 

technologies scenario because the basecase INPV against which changes are 

compared is nearly 40 percent lower. 

TSL 2 represents EL1 for the sign 

ballast and residential IS/RS product 

classes. For the IS/RS, PS, and 8-foot 

HO IS/RS product classes, TSL 2 

represents EL2. At TSL 2, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV to range from ¥$42.4 

million to ¥$188.0 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥3.5 percent to ¥25.7 

percent. At this level, industry free cash 

flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 26 percent to $36.6 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $49.3 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. 

Because the sign ballast and 

residential IS/RS product classes remain 

at EL1 at TSL 2, the additional impacts 

at TSL 2 relative to TSL 1 result only 

from increasing the IS/RS, PS, and 8- 

foot HO IS/RS product classes to EL2. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates that 63 percent 

of the IS/RS product class shipments, 19 

percent of the PS product class 

shipments, and 89 percent of the 8-foot 

HO IS/RS product class shipments 

would meet EL2 or higher in the base 

case. Since the 8-foot HO IS/RS product 

class represents only 0.1 percent of the 

fluorescent lamp ballast market, the vast 

majority of impacts at TSL 2 relative to 

TSL 1 result from changes in the IS/RS 

and PS product classes. 

At TSL 2, conversion costs remain 

small compared to the industry value. 

Product conversion costs increase to $18 

million due to the increase in the 

number of product lines within the IS/ 

RS and PS product classes that would 

need to be redesigned at TSL 2. Capital 

conversion costs grow to $20 million at 

TSL 2 because manufacturers would 

need to invest in additional testing 

equipment and convert some 

production lines. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, INPV impacts 

are negative because manufacturers are 

not able to fully pass on higher product 

costs to consumers. The shipmentweighted average MPC increases by 9 

percent compared to the baseline MPC, 

but this increase does not generate 

enough cash flow to outweigh the $38 

million in conversion costs at TSL 2, 

resulting in a ¥3.5 percent change in 

INPV at TSL 2 compared to the base 

case. 

Under the two-tier markup scenario, 

more products are commoditized to a 

lower markup at TSL 2. The impact of 

this lower average markup of 1.36 

outweighs the impact of a 6 percent 

increase in shipment-weighted average 

MPC, resulting in a negative change in 

INPV at TSL 2. The $38 million in 

conversion costs further erodes 

profitability, and the lower base case 

INPV against which the change in INPV 

is compared under the emerging 

technologies scenario increases INPV 

impacts on a percentage basis. 

TSL 3A represents EL1 for the sign 

ballasts and residential IS/RS product 

classes, EL2 for the 8-foot HO IS/RS 

product class, and EL3 for the IS/RS and 

PS product classes. At TSL 3A, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$74.5 million to ¥$268.6 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥6.1 

percent to ¥36.7 percent. At this level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 48 percent to 

$25.8 million, compared to the basecase value of $49.3 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. 

Because the sign ballast and 

residential IS/RS product classes remain 

at EL1 and the 8-foot HO IS/RS product 

class remains at EL2 for TSL 3A, the 

additional impacts at TSL 3A relative to 

TSL 2 result only from increasing the 

IS/RS and PS product classes to EL3. At 

TSL 3A, DOE estimates that 21 percent 

of the IS/RS product class shipments 

and 7 percent of the PS product class 

shipments would meet the efficiency 

levels contained in TSL 3A or higher in 

the base case. 

At TSL 3A, product conversion costs 

increase to $46 million because far more 

product lines within the IS/RS, and PS 

product classes would need to be 

redesigned at TSL 3A than TSL 2. 

Capital conversion costs rise to $28 

million at TSL 3A because 

manufacturers would need to invest in 

equipment such as surface-mount 

device placement machinery and solder 

machines to convert production lines 

for the manufacturing of more efficient 

ballasts. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, INPV decreases 

by 6.1 percent at TSL 3A compared to 

the base case. The shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases by 17 percent, 

but manufacturers are not able to pass 

on the full amount of these higher costs 

to consumers. This MPC increase is 

outweighed by the $74 million in 

conversion costs at TSL 3A. 

Under the two-tier markup scenario, 

at TSL 3A, products are commoditized 

to a lower markup to an even greater 

extent than under the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario. The 

impact of this lower average markup of 

1.33 outweighs the impact of a 15 

percent increase in shipment-weighted 

average MPC, resulting in a negative 

change in INPV at TSL 3A compared to 

TSL 2. Profitability is further reduced by 

the $74 million in conversion costs and 

the lower base-case INPV over which 

change in INPV is compared under the 

emerging technologies scenario. 

TSL 3B represents EL1 for the sign 

ballast product class, EL2 for the 

residential IS/RS product class, and EL3 

for the IS/RS, PS, and 8-foot HO IS/RS 

product classes. At TSL 3B, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$77.6 million to ¥$301.2 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥6.4 

percent to ¥41.1 percent. At this level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 50 percent to 

$24.7 million, compared to the basecase value of $49.3 million in the year 

leading up to the energy conservation 

standards. 

Because the sign ballast product class 

remains at EL1 and the IS/RS and PS 

product classes remain at EL3 for TSL 

3B, the additional impacts at TSL 3B 

relative to TSL 3A result only from 

increasing the 8-foot HO IS/RS product 

class to EL3 and the residential IS/RS 

product class to EL2. At TSL 3B, DOE 

estimates that 2 percent of the 8-foot HO 

IS/RS product class shipments and 23 

percent of the residential IS/RS product 

class shipments would meet the 

efficiency levels contained in TSL 3B in 

the base case. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70611 

At TSL 3B, conversion costs are 

slightly greater compared to TSL 3A. 

Product and capital conversion costs 

increase to $48 million and $29 million, 

respectively, because more product 

lines would need to be redesigned and 

upgraded at TSL 3B. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, INPV decreases 

by 6.4 percent at TSL 3B compared to 

the base case, which is slightly greater 

than the percentage impact at TSL 3A. 

The shipment-weighted average MPC 

increases by over 17 percent, but 

manufacturers are not able to pass on 

the full amount of these higher costs to 

consumers. This slight MPC increase is 

outweighed by the $78 million in 

conversion costs at TSL 3B. 

Under the two-tier markup scenario, 

at TSL 3B, products are commoditized 

to a lower markup to the greatest extent 

of any TSL analyzed. The impact of this 

lower average markup of 1.33 outweighs 

the impact of a 17 percent increase in 

shipment-weighted average MPC, 

resulting in a negative change in INPV 

at TSL 3B compared to TSL 3A. 

Profitability is further reduced by the 

$78 million in conversion costs and the 

lower base-case INPV over which 

change in INPV is compared under the 

emerging technologies scenario. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

DOE typically presents modeled 

quantitative estimates of the potential 

changes in production employment that 

could result from new and amended 

energy conservation standards. 

However, for this rulemaking, DOE 

determined that none of the major 

manufacturers, which comprise more 

than 90 percent of the market, have 

domestic fluorescent lamp ballast 

production. Although a few niche 

manufacturers have relatively limited 

domestic production, based on 

interviews, DOE has identified very few 

domestic production employees in the 

United States. Because many niche 

manufacturers did not respond to 

interview requests or submit comments 

on domestic employment impacts, DOE 

is unable to fully quantify domestic 

production employment impacts. 

Therefore, while DOE qualitatively 

discusses potential employment impacts 

below, DOE did not model direct 

employment impacts explicitly because 

the results would not be meaningful 

given the very low number of domestic 

production employees. 

Based on interviews, DOE projects 

that significant direct employment 

impacts would occur only in the event 

that one or more businesses exit the 

market due to new standards. 

Discussions with manufacturers 

indicated that, at the highest efficiency 

levels (TSL 3A and TSL 3B), some small 

manufacturers will be faced with the 

decision of whether or not to make the 

investments necessary to remain in the 

market based on their current technical 

capabilities. In general, however, DOE 

projects that TSL 3A, the level adopted 

in today’s final rule, will not have 

significant adverse impacts on domestic 

employment because achieving these 

levels is within the expertise of most 

manufacturers, including small 

manufacturers, due to the lack of 

intellectual property restrictions and 

similarity of products among 

manufacturers. 

In summary, given the low number of 

production employees and the low 

likelihood that manufacturers would 

exit the market at the efficiency levels 

adopted in today’s final rule, DOE does 

not expect a significant impact on direct 

employment following new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

DOE notes that the direct employment 

impacts discussed here are independent 

of the indirect employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 15, 

Employment Impact Analysis, of the 

TSD. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Manufacturers stated that new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

could harm manufacturing capacity due 

to the current component shortage 

discussed in the April 2011 NOPR (76 

FR 20090, 20139 (April 11, 2011)). At 

present, manufacturers are struggling to 

produce enough fluorescent lamp 

ballasts to meet demand because of a 

worldwide shortage of electrical 

components. The components most 

affected by this shortage are premium 

high-efficiency parts, for which demand 

would increase even more following 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. In the near term this 

increased demand might exacerbate the 

component shortage, thereby impacting 

manufacturing capacity. While DOE 

recognizes that the component shortage 

is currently a significant issue for 

manufacturers, DOE projects it to be a 

relatively short-term phenomenon to 

which component suppliers will 

ultimately adjust. According to 

manufacturers, suppliers have the 

ability to ramp up production to meet 

ballast component demand by the 

compliance date of new and amended 

standards, but those suppliers have 

hesitated to invest in additional 

capacity due to economic uncertainty 

and skepticism about the sustainability 

of demand. The state of the 

macroeconomic environment through 

2014 will likely affect the duration of 

the component shortage. Mandatory 

standards, however, could create more 

certainty for suppliers about the 

eventual demand for these components. 

Additionally, the components at issue 

are not new technologies; rather, they 

have simply not historically been 

demanded in large quantities by ballast 

manufacturers. DOE received no 

comments or additional information 

indicating that its conclusions related to 

the component shortage issue were 

incorrect and therefore reiterates these 

conclusions for today’s final rule. 

d. Impacts on Sub-Groups of 

Manufacturers 

As discussed in the April 2011 NOPR 

(76 FR 20090, 20135 (April 11, 2011)), 

using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

may be inadequate to assess differential 

impacts among manufacturer subgroups. DOE used the results of the 

industry characterization to group 

ballast manufacturers exhibiting similar 

characteristics. DOE identified two subgroups that would experience 

differential impacts: Small 

manufacturers and sign ballast 

manufacturers, many of whom are also 

small manufacturers. For a discussion of 

the impacts on the small manufacturer 

sub-group, see the Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis in section VIII.B and chapter 

13 of the TSD. 

DOE is not presenting results under 

the two-tier markup scenario for sign 

ballasts because it did not observe a 

two-tier effect in the sign ballast market. 

Electronic ballasts at EL1 command 

neither a higher price nor a higher 

markup in the base case. Additionally, 

roll-up and shift scenarios do not have 

separate impacts for sign ballasts 

because there are no higher ELs above 

the new baseline to which products 

could potentially shift in the standards 

case. As such, Table VII.29 and Table 

VII.30 present the cash-flow analysis 

results under the preservation of 

operating profit markup and roll-up 

shipment scenarios with existing or 

emerging technologies for sign ballast 

manufacturers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70612 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.29—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR SIGN BALLASTS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP, 

EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES, AND ROLL-UP SHIPMENT SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3A 3B 

INPV ...................................... (2010$ millions) ................ 142 138 138 138 138 

Change in INPV .................... (2010$ millions) ................ ........................ (4.2) (4.2) (4.2) (4.2) 

(%) .................................... ........................ ¥2.9% ¥2.9% ¥2.9% ¥2.9% 

Product Conversion Costs .... (2010$ millions) ................ ........................ 2 2 2 2 

Capital Conversion Costs ..... (2010$ millions) ................ ........................ 6 6 6 6 

Total Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) ................ ........................ 8 8 8 8 

TABLE VII.30—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR SIGN BALLASTS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP, 

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, AND ROLL-UP SHIPMENT SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3A 3B 

INPV ...................................... (2010$ millions) ................ 116 111 111 111 111 

Change in INPV .................... (2010$ millions) ................ ........................ (5.1) (5.1) (5.1) (5.1) 

(%) .................................... ........................ ¥4.4% ¥4.4% ¥4.4% ¥4.4% 

Product Conversion Costs .... (2010$ millions) ................ ........................ 2 2 2 2 

Capital Conversion Costs ..... (2010$ millions) ................ ........................ 6 6 6 6 

Total Conversion Costs (2010$ millions) ................ ........................ 8 8 8 8 

For the sign ballast product class, 

DOE analyzed only one efficiency level; 

thus, the results are the same at each 

TSL. TSLs 1 through 3B represent EL1 

for the sign ballast product class. At 

TSLs 1 through 3B, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV to range from ¥$4.2 

million to ¥$5.1 million, or a change in 

INPV of ¥2.9 percent to ¥4.4 percent. 

At these levels, industry free cash flow 

is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 38 percent to $4.9 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $7.9 million in the year leading 

up to the energy conservation standards. 

As shown by the results, DOE expects 

sign ballast manufacturers overall to 

face small negative impacts under TSLs 

1 through 3B. DOE estimates that 64 

percent of the sign ballast product class 

shipments would meet EL1 in the base 

case. Many manufacturers already 

produce electronic sign ballasts, which 

is the design option represented by EL1. 

Many other manufacturers, however, 

produce only magnetic T12 sign ballasts 

and therefore would face significant 

capital exposure in moving from 

magnetic to electronic ballasts to meet 

TSLs 1 through 3B. For that reason, DOE 

estimates relatively high capital 

conversion costs of $6 million for sign 

ballast manufacturers. Product redesign 

and testing costs are expected to total $2 

million for sign ballasts. DOE notes that 

small sign ballast manufacturers, 

particularly those who would be 

required to move from magnetic to 

electronic sign ballasts as a result of 

today’s standards, may apply to DOE for 

an exemption from the standard 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(t). The 

process applicants must follow to 

request an exemption and DOE’s 

process for making a decision on a 

particular request are set forth in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 430 Subpart E. 

Unlike most product classes, sign 

ballasts are expected to decrease rather 

than increase in price moving from 

baseline to EL1 by a shipment-weighted 

average decrease in MPC of over 4 

percent. This is because electronic 

ballasts are a cheaper alternative to 

magnetic ballasts, even though the 

industry has not yet fully moved toward 

electronic production. During 

interviews, manufacturers stated that 

consumers were reluctant to convert to 

electronic ballasts even though there 

were no technical barriers to doing so. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, however, 

manufacturers are able to maintain the 

base-case operating profit for the year 

following the compliance date of new 

and amended standards despite lower 

production costs, so the average markup 

increases slightly to 1.41 to account for 

the decrease in MPC. Despite this 

markup increase, revenue is lower at 

TSLs 1 through 3B than in the base case 

because of the lower average unit price 

and the $8 million in conversion costs. 

When the preservation of operating 

profit markup is combined with the 

existing technologies scenario rather 

than the emerging technologies 

scenario, the impact of this maximized 

revenue per unit is greatest because it is 

applied to a larger total quantity of 

shipments. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing products. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis 

of cumulative regulatory burden as part 

of its rulemakings pertaining to 

appliance efficiency. 

During previous stages of this 

rulemaking, DOE identified a number of 

requirements, in addition to new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for ballasts, that manufacturers of these 

products will face for products and 

equipment they manufacture within 

approximately 3 years prior to and 3 

years after the anticipated compliance 

date of the new and amended standards. 

DOE discusses these and other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70613 

requirements, including the energy 

conservation standards for lamps that 

take effect beginning in 2012 (74 FR 

34080 (July 14, 2009) and U.S.C. 6295 

(i)(1)(A)), in its full cumulative 

regulatory burden analysis in chapter 13 

of the TSD. 

In written comments on the NOPR, 

NEMA expressed concern that DOE has 

not accounted for other legislation that 

would increase costs. (NEMA, No. 47 at 

p. 9) While it is not clear to which other 

legislation NEMA is referring, DOE does 

take into account the cost of compliance 

with other published Federal energy 

conservation standards, such as the 

2009 lamps rule. DOE does not include 

the impacts of standards that have not 

yet been finalized, however, because 

any impacts of such standards would be 

speculative. The cumulative regulatory 

impact analysis is discussed in more 

detail in chapter 13 of the TSD. In 

response to the September 2011 NODA, 

NEMA also noted that President Obama 

stated an objective in a September 8, 

2011 speech of reducing regulatory 

burden on manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges the 

President’s objective of reducing 

regulatory burden and, as required by 

EPCA, ensures that each of its energy 

conservation standards is economically 

justified. DOE has analyzed the various 

TSLs considered in this rulemaking and 

believes that the burdens of today’s 

rulemaking are outweighed and justified 

by the benefits of the rule, as described 

in section VII.C.2. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through 2043 attributable to potential 

energy conservation standards for 

ballasts, DOE compared the energy 

consumption of these products under 

the base case to their anticipated energy 

use under each TSL. Table VII.31 

presents DOE’s forecasts of the national 

energy savings for each TSL, for the 

existing and emerging technologies 

shipment scenarios that represent the 

maximum and minimum energy savings 

resulting from all the scenarios 

analyzed. Chapter 11 of the final rule 

TSD describes these estimates in more 

detail. 

TABLE VII.31—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR BALLASTS

[2014–2043] 

Trial 

standard 

level 

Product class 

National energy savings quads 

Existing 

technologies, 

shift 

Emerging 

technologies, 

roll-up 

1 .................. IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 1.19 0.001 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0 0 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ............................................................................................... 0 0 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.27 0.13 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.27 0.10 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ......................................................................................... 0.43 0.16 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ......................................................................................... 0.25 0.23 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ...................................................................................................... 0.04 0.04 

Sign ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps ..................................................................................................... 0.92 0.69 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.13 0.01 

Total (TSL1) ............................................................................................................. 3.50 1.36 

2 .................. IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 1.19 0.42 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0 0 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ............................................................................................... 0.02 0.001 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.27 0.13 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.33 0.13 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ......................................................................................... 0.78 0.25 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ......................................................................................... 0.43 0.39 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ...................................................................................................... 0.04 0.04 

Sign ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps ..................................................................................................... 0.92 0.69 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.13 0.01 

Total (TSL2) ............................................................................................................. 4.10 2.05 

3A ................ IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 1.44 0.55 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.31 0.12 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ............................................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.30 0.14 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.33 0.13 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ......................................................................................... 1.51 0.51 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ......................................................................................... 0.56 0.52 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70614 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.31—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR BALLASTS—Continued 

[2014–2043] 

Trial 

standard 

level 

Product class 

National energy savings quads 

Existing 

technologies, 

shift 

Emerging 

technologies, 

roll-up 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ...................................................................................................... 0.04 0.04 

Sign ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps ..................................................................................................... 0.92 0.69 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.13 0.01 

Total (TSL3A) .......................................................................................................... 5.55 2.74 

3B ................ IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 1.44 0.55 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.31 0.12 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ............................................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.30 0.14 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.33 0.13 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ......................................................................................... 1.51 0.51 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ......................................................................................... 0.56 0.52 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate: 

Two 8-foot HO lamps ...................................................................................................... 0.04 0.04 

Sign ballasts that operate: 

Four 8-foot HO lamps ..................................................................................................... 0.92 0.69 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ................................................................................................... 0.13 0.12 

Total (TSL3B) .......................................................................................................... 5.56 2.86 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to 

the nation of the total costs and savings 

for consumers that would result from 

particular standard levels for ballasts. In 

accordance with the OMB’s guidelines 

on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular 

A–4, section E, September 17, 2003), 

DOE calculated NPV using both a 7- 

percent and a 3-percent real discount 

rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of 

the average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and 

reflects the returns to real estate and 

small business capital as well as 

corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector, because recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return to 

capital to be near this rate. In addition, 

DOE used the 3-percent rate to capture 

the potential effects of standards on 

private consumption (e.g., through 

higher prices for products and the 

purchase of reduced amounts of energy). 

This rate represents the rate at which 

society discounts future consumption 

flows to their present value. This rate 

can be approximated by the real rate of 

return on long-term government debt 

(i.e., yield on Treasury notes minus 

annual rate of change in the Consumer 

Price Index), which has averaged about 

3 percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 

30 years. 

Table VII.32 shows the consumer NPV 

results for each TSL DOE considered for 

ballasts, using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent discount rate. This table 

presents the results of the two shipment 

scenarios that represent the maximum 

and minimum NPV resulting from all 

the scenarios analyzed. Zero values 

indicate product types with zero energy 

savings at a particular TSL, i.e., the 

corresponding efficiency level is a 

baseline design. See chapter 11 of the 

final rule TSD for more detailed NPV 

results. 

TABLE VII.32—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR BALLASTS (2014–2043) 

Trial standard 

level Product class 

Net present value 

billion 2010$ 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, roll-up 

7 Percent 

discount rate 

3 Percent 

discount rate 

7 Percent 

discount rate 

3 Percent 

discount rate 

1 ................... IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that 

operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................... 2.33 5.20 0.01 0.01 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0 0 0 0 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ....................................... 0 0 0 0 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................... 0.77 1.40 0.51 0.78 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0.61 1.35 0.30 0.58 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70615 

TABLE VII.32—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR BALLASTS (2014–2043)—Continued 

Trial standard 

level Product class 

Net present value 

billion 2010$ 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, roll-up 

7 Percent 

discount rate 

3 Percent 

discount rate 

7 Percent 

discount rate 

3 Percent 

discount rate 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ................................. 1.11 2.45 0.57 1.02 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ................................. 0.42 0.88 0.42 0.88 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that 

operate two 8-foot HO lamps.

0.11 0.12 0.10 0.12 

Sign ballasts that operate four 8-foot HO lamps ........... 2.94 5.55 2.52 4.62 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate two 4-foot 

MBP lamps.

0.22 0.49 0.16 0.27 

Total (TSL1) ..................................................... 8.52 17.43 4.59 8.28 

2 ................... IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that 

operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................... 2.33 5.20 1.08 2.15 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0 0 0 0 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ....................................... 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.01 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................... 0.77 1.40 0.51 0.78 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0.73 1.61 0.37 0.72 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ................................. 1.33 3.09 0.68 1.31 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ................................. 0.42 0.94 0.43 0.94 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that 

operate two 8-foot HO lamps.

0.11 0.13 0.11 0.13 

Sign ballasts that operate four 8-foot HO lamps ........... 2.94 5.55 2.52 4.62 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate two 4-foot 

MBP lamps.

0.22 0.49 0.16 0.27 

Total (TSL2) ..................................................... 8.91 18.50 5.85 10.92 

3A ................ IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that 

operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................... 2.83 6.31 1.44 2.86 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0.46 1.06 0.25 0.52 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ....................................... 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................... 0.84 1.54 0.56 0.87 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0.73 1.61 0.37 0.72 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ................................. 1.52 3.89 0.85 1.87 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ................................. 0.36 0.87 0.36 0.87 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that 

operate two 8-foot HO lamps.

0.11 0.13 0.11 0.13 

Sign ballasts that operate four 8-foot HO lamps ........... 2.94 5.55 2.52 4.62 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate two 4-foot 

MBP lamps.

0.22 0.49 0.16 0.27 

Total (TSL3A) .................................................. 10.06 21.55 6.67 12.84 

3B ................ IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that 

operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................... 2.83 6.31 1.44 2.86 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0.46 1.06 0.25 0.52 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps ....................................... 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps ........................................... 0.84 1.54 0.56 0.87 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps .......................................... 0.73 1.61 0.37 0.72 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps ................................. 1.52 3.89 0.85 1.87 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps ................................. 0.36 0.87 0.36 0.87 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that 

operate two 8-foot HO lamps.

0.11 0.13 0.11 0.13 

Sign ballasts that operate four 8-foot HO lamps ........... 2.94 5.55 2.52 4.62 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate two 4-foot 

MBP lamps.

0.23 0.50 0.23 0.50 

Total (TSL3B) ......................................................... 10.06 21.56 6.73 13.07 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70616 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

c. Impacts on Employment 

DOE estimated the indirect 

employment impacts of potential 

standards on the economy in general, 

assuming that energy conservation 

standards for ballasts would reduce 

energy bills for ballast users and the 

resulting net savings would be 

redirected to other forms of economic 

activity. DOE used an I–O model of the 

U.S. economy to estimate these effects 

including the demand for labor as 

described in section V.I . 

The I–O model results suggest that 

today’s adopted standards are likely to 

increase the net labor demand. The 

gains, however, would most likely be 

small relative to total national 

employment, and neither the BLS data 

nor the input/output model DOE uses 

includes the quality or wage level of the 

jobs. As discussed in section VII.B.2.b, 

the major manufacturers interviewed for 

this rulemaking indicate they have no 

domestic ballast production. New and 

amended standards for ballasts therefore 

will not have a significant impact on the 

limited number of production workers 

directly employed by ballast 

manufacturers in the U.S. 

Table VII.33—presents the estimated 

net indirect employment impacts from 

the TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. See chapter 15 of the final 

rule TSD for more detailed results. 

TABLE VII.33–NET CHANGE IN JOBS FROM INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS UNDER BALLAST TSLS

Analysis period year Trial standard level 

Net national change in jobs 

(thousands) 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, roll-up 

2020 .......................................................................... 1 ................................................................................ 2.5 1.9 

2 ................................................................................ 2.3 2.1 

3A ............................................................................. 2.2 2.1 

3B ............................................................................. 2.2 2.2 

2043 .......................................................................... 1 ................................................................................ 52.2 17.2 

2 ................................................................................ 57.1 24.2 

3A ............................................................................. 73.8 30.7 

3B ............................................................................. 73.9 34.3 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As presented in section IV.D.1.d of 

this final rule, DOE concluded that none 

of the TSLs considered in this final rule 

would reduce the utility or performance 

of the products under consideration in 

this rulemaking. Furthermore, 

manufacturers of these products 

currently offer ballasts that meet or 

exceed the adopted standards. (42 

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

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

As discussed in the April 2011 NOPR, 

and in section IV.D.1.e of this final rule, 

DOE considers any lessening of 

competition likely to result from 

standards; the Attorney General 

determines the impact, if any, of any 

such lessening of competition. 

DOJ concluded that the standards 

contained in the proposed rule could 

possibly impact competition. Depending 

on the investment required and the 

opportunity for business expansion, DOJ 

found it is not clear how quickly current 

manufacturers could comply with new 

standards. DOE considered these 

comments and notes that TSL 3A, the 

level adopted in today’s rule, would 

impact manufacturers to a lesser extent 

than the TSL 3 proposed in the April 

2011 NOPR. Specifically, TSL 3A 

contains lower standards for residential 

and 8-foot HO product classes than the 

previously proposed TSL 3. Therefore, 

DOE does not expect that TSL 3A will 

raise competitive issues. For all product 

classes analyzed, DOE found that 

multiple manufacturers offered products 

at TSL 3A and any product 

modifications needed to reach TSL 3A 

do not require proprietary technology. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

An improvement in the energy 

efficiency of the products subject to this 

final rule is likely to improve the 

security of the nation’s energy system by 

reducing overall demand for energy. 

Reduced electricity demand may also 

improve the reliability of the electricity 

system. As a measure of this reduced 

demand, Table VII.34 presents the 

estimated reduction in generating 

capacity in 2043 for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. 

TABLE VII.34—ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN ELECTRICITY GENERATING CAPACITY IN 2043 UNDER BALLAST TSLS

Trial standard level 

Reduction in electric generating 

capacity 

Gigawatts 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, roll-up 

1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3.8 1.4 

2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4.6 2.2 

3A ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6.4 3.0 

3B ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6.4 3.1 

Energy savings from new and 

amended standards for ballasts could 

also produce environmental benefits in 

the form of reduced emissions of air 

pollutants and GHGs associated with 

electricity production. Table VII.35 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions 

projected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. DOE 

reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70617 

the environmental assessment of in 

chapter 16 the final rule TSD. 

TABLE VII.35—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR BALLAST TSLS (CUMULATIVE FOR 2014 THROUGH

2043) 

Trial standard level 

Cumulative reduction in emissions (2014 through 2043) 

Existing technologies, shift Emerging technologies, roll-up 

CO2

Mt 

NOX

kt 

Hg 

t 

CO2

Mt 

NOX

kt 

Hg 

t 

1 ....................................... 64 23 0.88 13 10 0.18 

2 ....................................... 76 28 1.05 20 16 0.29 

3A ..................................... 106 39 1.47 27 22 0.40 

3B ..................................... 106 39 1.47 29 23 0.42 

As discussed in section V.K, DOE did 

not report SO2 emissions reductions 

from power plants because there is 

uncertainty about the effect of energy 

conservation standards on the overall 

level of SO2 emissions in the United 

States due to SO2 emissions caps. DOE 

also did not include NOX emissions 

reduction from power plants in States 

subject to CAIR because an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of NOX emissions in 

those States due to the emissions caps 

mandated by CAIR. 

As part of the analysis for this final 

rule, DOE estimated monetary benefits 

likely to result from the reduced 

emissions of CO2 and NOX that DOE 

estimated for each of the TSLs 

considered. As discussed in section 

V.L.1, DOE used values for the SCC 

developed by an interagency process. 

The four values for CO2 emissions 

reductions resulting from that process 

(for emissions in 2010, expressed in 

2010$) are $4.9/ton (the average value 

from a distribution that uses a 5-percent 

discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$67.6/ton (the 95th-percentile value 

from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate). These values correspond 

to the value of emission reductions in 

2010; the values for later years are 

higher due to increasing damages as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. 

For each TSL, DOE calculated the global 

present values of CO2 emissions 

reductions, using the same discount rate 

as was used in the studies upon which 

the dollar-per-ton values are based. DOE 

calculated domestic values as a range 

from 7 percent to 23 percent of the 

global values. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this rulemaking on 

reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 

change. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this final rule the most recent values 

and analyses resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

and Hg emissions reductions 

anticipated to result from amended 

ballast standards. Estimated monetary 

benefits for CO2, NOX and Hg emission 

reductions are detailed in chapter 17 of 

the final rule TSD. 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table VII.36 shows an 

example of the calculation of the 

combined NPV including benefits from 

emissions reductions for the case of TSL 

3A for ballasts. The CO2 values used in 

the table correspond to the four 

scenarios for the valuation of CO2

emission reductions presented in 

section V.L.1. 

TABLE VII.36—ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TSL 3A FOR BALLASTS

[Existing Technologies, Shift] 

Category Present value 

billion 2010$ Discount rate % 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................... 15 .1 7 

31 .5 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $4.9/Metric Ton)* .............................................................................. 0 .40 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.3/Metric Ton)* ............................................................................ 2 .01 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.5/Metric Ton)* ............................................................................ 3 .38 2 .5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.6/Metric Ton)* ............................................................................ 6 .12 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,537/Ton)* ..................................................................................... 0 .03 7 

0 .06 3 

Total Monetary Benefits ** ........................................................................................................................... 17 .1 7 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70618 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.36—ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TSL 3A FOR BALLASTS—Continued 

[Existing Technologies, Shift] 

Category Present value 

billion 2010$ Discount rate % 

33 .5 3 

Costs 

Total Incremental Installed Costs ................................................................................................................ 5 .05 7 

9 .91 3 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Including CO2 and NOX** ............................................................................................................................ 12 .1 7 

23 .6 3 

*The CO2 values represent global monetized values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per metric ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. 

The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. See section V.L.2 for details. **Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is 

$22.3/t in 2010 (in 2010$). 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions would provide a 

valuable perspective, the following 

should be considered: (1) the national 

consumer savings are domestic U.S. 

consumer monetary savings found in 

market transactions, while the values of 

emissions reductions are based on 

estimates of marginal social costs, 

which, in the case of CO2, are based on 

a global value; and (2) the assessments 

of consumer savings and emissionrelated benefits are performed with 

different computer models, leading to 

different timeframes for analysis. For 

ballasts, the present value of national 

consumer savings is measured for the 

period in which units shipped (2014– 

2043) continue to operate. However, the 

time frames of the benefits associated 

with the emission reductions differ. For 

example, the value of CO2 emissions 

reductions reflects the present value of 

all future climate-related impacts due to 

emitting a ton of CO2 in that year, out 

to 2300. Chapter 17 of the final rule TSD 

presents calculations of the combined 

NPV including benefits from emissions 

reductions for each TSL. 

C. Conclusions 

EPCA requires that any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens after considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the seven statutory 

factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended 

standard must also result in a significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) 

DOE considered the impacts of 

standards at each trial standard level, 

beginning with the maximum 

technologically feasible level, to 

determine whether that level met the 

evaluation criteria. If the max tech level 

was not justified, DOE then considered 

the next most efficient level and 

undertook the same evaluation until it 

reached the highest efficiency level that 

is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

DOE discusses the benefits and/or 

burdens of each trial standard level in 

the following sections. DOE bases its 

discussion on quantitative analytical 

results for each trial standard level 

(presented in section VII.A) such as 

national energy savings, net present 

value (discounted at 7 and 3 percent), 

emissions reductions, industry net 

present value, life-cycle cost, and 

consumers’ installed price increases. 

Beyond the quantitative results, DOE 

also considers other burdens and 

benefits that affect economic 

justification, including how 

technological feasibility, manufacturer 

costs, and impacts on competition may 

affect the economic results presented. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and burdens of each trial 

standard level, DOE has included the 

following tables that present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. These include the 

impacts on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers, specifically low-income 

households, institutions of religious 

worship, and institutions that serve lowincome populations, who may be 

disproportionately affected by an 

amended national standard. Section 

VII.B.1 presents the estimated impacts 

of each TSL for these subgroups. 

TABLE VII.37—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BALLASTS

[Existing Technologies, Shift] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3A TSL 3B 

National Energy Savings (quads) ........................................................ 3.50 .................. 4.10 .................. 5.55 .................. 5.56 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2010$ billion) 

3% discount rate .................................................................................. 17.43 ................ 18.50 ................ 21.55 ................ 21.56 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70619 

TABLE VII.37—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BALLASTS—Continued 

[Existing Technologies, Shift] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3A TSL 3B 

7% discount rate .................................................................................. 8.52 .................. 8.91 .................. 10.06 ................ 10.06 

Industry Impacts 

Industry NPV (2010$ million) ............................................................... 1,199 ................ 1,176 ................ 1,144 ................ 1,141 

Industry NPV (% change) .................................................................... ¥1.6% .............. ¥3.5% .............. ¥6.1% .............. ¥6.4% 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) ............................................................................................... 64 ..................... 76 ..................... 106 ................... 106 

NOX (kt) ............................................................................................... 23 ..................... 28 ..................... 39 ..................... 39 

Hg (t) .................................................................................................... 0.88 .................. 1.05 .................. 1.47 .................. 1.47 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2010$ billion)* ............................................................................. 0.24 to 3.68 ...... 0.29 to 4.40 ...... 0.40 to 6.12 ...... 0.40 to 6.13 

NOX—3% discount rate (2010$ million) .............................................. 35 ..................... 41 ..................... 58 ..................... 58 

NOX—7% discount rate (2010$ million) .............................................. 18 ..................... 22 ..................... 31 ..................... 31 

Mean LCC Savings (replacement event, per ballast)** (2010$) 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: .......... 29 ..................... 5 to 34 .............. 7 to 37 .............. 7 to 37 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps. 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: ...................... ¥2 to 26: .......... 6 to 32 .............. 6 to 28 .............. 6 to 28 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps. 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps. 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate two 

8-foot HO lamps 

65 ..................... 230 ................... 230 ................... 3 to 233 

Sign ballasts that operate four 8-foot HO lamps 403 ................... 403 ................... 403 ................... 403 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate two 4-foot MBP lamps .... 21 ..................... 21 ..................... 21 ..................... ¥2 to 19 

Median PBP (replacement event)*** (years) 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: .......... ¥3.35 ............... ¥1.66 to 3.62 .. ¥1.30 to 2.86 ... ¥1.30 to 2.86 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps. 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate: ...................... 0.05 to 20.52 .... 0.55 to 6.00 ...... 1.25 to 6.00 ...... 1.25 to 6.00 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps. 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps. 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate two 

8-foot HO lamps.

¥0.66 ............... ¥0.69 ............... ¥0.69 ............... ¥0.53 to 4.57 

Sign ballasts that operate four 8-foot HO lamps ................................. ¥0.16 ............... ¥0.16 ............... ¥0.16 ............... ¥0.16 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate two 4-foot MBP lamps .... ¥5.46 ............... ¥5.46 ............... ¥5.46 ............... ¥4.92 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts (see Table VII.16 through Table VII.23) 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW)† ............................................... 3.82 .................. 4.56 .................. 6.35 .................. 6.35 

Employment Impacts 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † .................................................. 52 ..................... 57 ..................... 74 ..................... 74 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

*** For PBPs, negative values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs; ‘‘N/A’’ indicates standard levels that do not 

reduce operating costs. 

† Changes in 2043. 

TABLE VII.38—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BALLASTS

[Emerging Technologies, Roll-up] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3A TSL 3B 

National Energy Savings (quads) ........................................................ 1.36 .................. 2.05 .................. 2.74 .................. 2.86 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70620 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.38—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BALLASTS—Continued 

[Emerging Technologies, Roll-up] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3A TSL 3B 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2010$ billion) 

3% discount rate .................................................................................. 8.28 .................. 10.92 ................ 12.84 ................ 13.07 

7% discount rate .................................................................................. 4.59 .................. 5.85 .................. 6.67 .................. 6.73 

Industry Impacts 

Industry NPV (2010$ million) ............................................................... 616 ................... 545 ................... 464 ................... 431 

Industry NPV (% change) .................................................................... ¥15.9% ............ ¥25.7% ............ ¥36.7% ............ ¥41.1% 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) ............................................................................................... 13 ..................... 20 ..................... 27 ..................... 29 

NOX (kt) ............................................................................................... 10 ..................... 16 ..................... 22 ..................... 23 

Hg (t) .................................................................................................... 0.18 .................. 0.29 .................. 0.40 .................. 0.42 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2010$ billion) * ............................................................................ 0.06 to 0.80 ...... 0.09 to 1.27 ...... 0.12 to 1.75 ...... 0.13 to 1.84 

NOX–3% discount rate (2010$ million) ................................................ 13 ..................... 21 ..................... 29 ..................... 30 

NOX–7% discount rate (2010$ million) ................................................ 6 ....................... 10 ..................... 13 ..................... 14 

Mean LCC Savings (replacement event, per ballast) ** (2010$) 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ........... 29 ..................... 5 to 34 .............. 7 to 37 .............. 7 to 37 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps. 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ....................... ¥2 to 26 ........... 6 to 32 .............. 6 to 28 .............. 6 to 28 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps. 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps. 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate Two 

8-foot HO lamps.

65 ..................... 230 ................... 230 ................... 3 to 233 

Sign ballasts that operate Four 8-foot HO lamps ................................ 403 ................... 403 ................... 403 ................... 403 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate Two 4-foot MBP lamps ... 21 ..................... 21 ..................... 21 ..................... ¥2 to 19 

Median PBP (replacement event)*** (years) 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ........... ¥3.35 ............... ¥1.66 to 3.62 ... ¥1.30 to 2.86 .. ¥1.30 to 2.86 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Two 8-foot slimline lamps. 

PS ballasts (not classified as residential) that operate ....................... 0.05 to 20.52 .... 0.55 to 6.00 ...... 1.25 to 6.00 ...... 1.25 to 6.00 

Two 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Four 4-foot MBP lamps. 

Two 4-foot MiniBP SO lamps. 

Two 4-foot MiniBP HO lamps. 

IS and RS ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that operate Two 

8-foot HO lamps.

¥0.66 ............... ¥0.69 ............... ¥0.69 ............... ¥0.53 to 4.57 

Sign ballasts that operate Four 8-foot HO lamps ................................ ¥0.16 ............... ¥0.16 ............... ¥0.16 ............... ¥0.16 

IS and RS residential ballasts that operate Two 4-foot MBP lamps ... ¥5.46 ............... ¥5.46 ............... ¥5.46 ............... ¥4.92 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts (see Table VII.16 through Table VII.23) 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) † .............................................. 1.37 .................. 2.18 .................. 2.99 .................. 3.14 

Employment Impacts 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands)† .................................................. 17 ..................... 24 ..................... 31 ..................... 34 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

*** For PBPs, negative values indicate standards that reduce operating costs and installed costs; ‘‘N/A’’ indicates standard levels that do not 

reduce operating costs. 

† Changes in 2043. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70621 

62Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

2010. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf. 

explain why consumers undervalue 

energy efficiency improvements. This 

undervaluation suggests that regulation 

that promotes energy efficiency can 

produce significant net private gains (as 

well as producing social gains by, for 

example, reducing pollution). There is 

evidence that consumers undervalue 

future energy savings as a result of: (1) 

A lack of information, (2) a lack of 

sufficient salience of the long-term or 

aggregate benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient 

savings to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases (e.g., an inefficient 

ventilation fan in a new building or the 

delayed replacement of a water pump), 

(4) excessive focus on the short term, in 

the form of inconsistent weighting of 

future energy cost savings relative to 

available returns on other investments, 

(5) computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of 

relevant tradeoffs, and (6) a divergence 

in incentives (e.g., renter versus owner; 

builder versus purchaser). Other 

literature indicates that with less than 

perfect foresight and a high degree of 

uncertainty about the future, consumers 

may trade off investments in efficiency 

at a higher than expected rate between 

current consumption and uncertain 

future energy cost savings. 

In its current regulatory analysis, DOE 

includes potential changes in the 

benefits and costs of a regulation due to 

changes in consumer purchase 

decisions in two ways. First, if 

consumers forego a purchase of a 

product in the standards case, it 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers and the cost to 

manufacturers is included in the MIA. 

Second, DOE accounts for energy 

savings attributable only to products 

used by consumers in the standards 

case; if a regulatory option decreases the 

number of products used by consumers, 

this decreases the potential energy 

savings from an energy conservation 

standard. DOE provides detailed 

estimates of shipments and changes in 

the volume of product purchases under 

standards in chapter 10 of the TSD. 

However, DOE’s current analysis does 

not explicitly control for differences in 

consumer preferences, preferences 

across subcategories of products or 

specific features, or consumer price 

sensitivity varying with household 

income (Reiss and White 2004). 

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE has posted 

a paper that discusses the issue of 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

energy efficiency standards, and 

potential enhancements to the 

methodology by which these impacts 

are defined and estimated in the 

regulatory process.62 DOE is committed 

to developing a framework that can 

support empirical quantitative tools for 

improved assessment of the consumer 

welfare impacts of appliance standards. 

DOE welcomes comments on how to 

more fully assess the potential impact of 

energy conservation standards on 

consumer choice and how to quantify 

this impact in its regulatory analysis in 

future rulemakings. 

1. Trial Standard Level 3B 

DOE first considered the most 

efficient level, TSL 3B, which would 

save an estimated 2.9 to 5.6 quads of 

energy through 2043. For the nation as 

a whole, TSL 3B would have a net 

savings of $6.7 billion–$10.1 billion at 

a 7-percent discount rate, and $13.1 

billion–$21.6 billion at a 3-percent 

discount rate. The emissions reductions 

at TSL 3B are estimated at 29–106 

million metric tons (Mt) of CO2, 23–39 

kilotons (kt) of NOX, and 0.42–1.47 tons 

of Hg. Total generating capacity in 2043 

is estimated to decrease compared to the 

reference case by 3.14–6.35 gigawatts 

under TSL 3B. As seen in section 

VII.B.1, while consumers of most 

representative ballast types have 

available ballast designs which result in 

positive LCC savings, ranging from 

$2.77–$402.86, some consumers 

experience negative LCC savings at TSL 

3B. Consumers that experience negative 

LCC savings, ranging from ¥$1 to ¥$2, 

are those that currently have a 2-lamp 

8-foot HO T8 ballast (for the new 

construction/renovation event) or a 2- 

lamp 4-foot MBP T8 ballast in the 

residential sector (for the replacement 

event). The projected change in industry 

value would range from a decrease of 

$77.6 million to a decrease of $301.2 

million, or a net loss of 6.4 percent to 

a net loss of 41.1 percent in INPV. 

DOE based TSL 3B on the most 

efficient commercially available 

products for each representative ballast 

type analyzed. This TSL represents the 

highest efficiency level that is 

technologically feasible for a diversity of 

products (spanning several ballast 

factors, number of lamps per ballast, 

and types of lamps operated) within 

each product class. 

After carefully considering the 

analysis and weighing the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 3B, the Secretary has 

reached the following conclusion: At 

TSL 3B, the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions), and the positive net 

economic savings to the nation would 

be outweighed by the economic burden 

on consumers (of residential T8 ballasts 

and 8-foot HO T8 ballasts) and the large 

product and capital conversion costs 

that could result in a large reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers. Consequently, 

the Secretary has concluded that trial 

standard level 3B is not economically 

justified. 

2. Trial Standard Level 3A 

DOE next considered TSL 3A, which 

would save an estimated 2.7 to 5.6 

quads of energy through 2043—a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

nation as a whole, TSL 3A would have 

a net savings of $6.7 billion–$10.1 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate, and 

$12.8 billion–$21.6 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate. The emissions 

reductions at TSL 3A are estimated at 

27–106 Mt of CO2, 22–39 kt of NOX, and 

0.40–1.47 tons of Hg. Total generating 

capacity in 2043 is estimated to 

decrease compared to the reference case 

by 2.99–6.35 gigawatts under TSL 3A. 

As seen in section VII.B.1, TSL 3A 

results in positive LCC savings for all 

representative ballast types, ranging 

from $6–$403. The projected change in 

industry value would range from a 

decrease of $74.5 million to a decrease 

of $268.6 million, or a net loss of 6.1 

percent to a net loss of 36.7 percent in 

INPV. 

DOE based TSL 3A on the most 

efficient commercially available 

products for each representative ballast 

type analyzed except for IS/RS ballasts 

in the residential sector and 8-foot HO 

ballasts. This TSL represents the highest 

efficiency level for a diversity of 

products (spanning several ballast 

factors, number of lamps per ballast, 

and types of lamps operated) at which 

consumers of all ballasts types, 

including those consumers with T8 

residential or 8-foot HO systems, 

experience positive LCC savings. 

After considering the analysis, 

comments on the analysis, and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 3A, the 

Secretary has reached the following 

conclusion: TSL 3A offers the maximum 

improvement in efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

The Secretary has reached the 

conclusion that the benefits of energy 

savings, emissions reductions (both in 

physical reductions and the monetized 

value of those reductions), the positive 

net economic savings to the nation, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70622 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

positive life-cycle cost savings would 

outweigh the reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. Therefore, DOE adopts 

the energy conservation standards for 

ballasts at TSL 3A. 

D. Backsliding 

As discussed in section II.A, EPCA 

contains what is commonly known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

mandates that the Secretary not 

prescribe any amended standard that 

either increases the maximum allowable 

energy use or decreases the minimum 

required energy efficiency of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Because 

DOE is evaluating amended standards in 

terms of ballast luminous efficiency, 

DOE converted the existing BEF 

standards to BLE to verify that the 

adopted standards did not constitute 

backsliding. The following describes 

how DOE completed this comparison. 

Ballast efficacy factor is defined as 

ballast factor divided by input power 

times 100. Ballast factor, in turn, is 

currently defined as the test system light 

output divided by a reference system 

light output. As mentioned in section 

IV.A, the active mode test procedure 

SNOPR proposed a new method for 

calculating ballast factor. 75 FR 71570, 

71577–8 (November 24, 2010). The new 

methodology entails measuring the 

lamp arc power of the test system and 

dividing it by the lamp arc power of the 

reference system. Because this new 

method calculates a ballast factor 

equivalent to the existing method, DOE 

finds that this definition can be 

incorporated into the equation for BEF. 

After this substitution, BEF can be 

converted to BLE by dividing by 100 

and multiplying by the appropriate 

reference arc power. Table VII.39 

contains the existing standard in terms 

of BEF, the existing standard in terms of 

BLE, and the adopted standard in terms 

of BLE. 

TABLE VII.39—EXISTING FEDERAL BEF STANDARDS AND THE CORRESPONDING BLE 

Application for operation of BEF Standard 

Equivalent BLE Adopted BLE 

Low freq High freq Standard* 

One F40T12 lamp ............................................................................................ 2.29 0.831 0.832 0.875 

Two F40T12 lamps .......................................................................................... 1.17 0.849 0.850 0.899 

Two F96T12 lamps .......................................................................................... 0.63 0.888 0.897 0.918 

Two F96T12/HO lamps ................................................................................... 0.39 0.777 0.780 0.886 

One F34T12 lamp ............................................................................................ 2.61 0.777 0.778 0.809 

Two F34T12 lamps .......................................................................................... 1.35 0.804 0.805 0.841 

Two F96T12/ES lamps .................................................................................... 0.77 0.876 0.884 0.913 

Two F96T12/HO/ES lamps .............................................................................. 0.42 0.711 0.713 0.881 

*For ballast types that could be in more than one product class, this table presents the lowest standard the ballast would be required to meet. 

For example, 8-foot HO ballasts can have a PS starting method in addition to IS or RS. Therefore, DOE presents the standard for the PS product class as it is the lowest. 

As seen in Table VII.39, the standards 

adopted in this final rule are higher than 

the existing standards, regardless of low 

or high frequency operation. As such, 

the adopted standards do not decrease 

the minimum required energy efficiency 

of the covered products and therefore do 

not violate the anti-backsliding 

provision in EPCA. 

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that today’s 

standards address are as follows: 

(1) There is a lack of consumer 

information and/or information 

processing capability about energy 

efficiency opportunities in lighting 

market. 

(2) There is asymmetric information 

(one party to a transaction has more and 

better information than the other) and/ 

or high transactions costs (costs of 

gathering information and effecting 

exchanges of goods and services). 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of fluorescent lamp ballasts 

that are not captured by the users of 

such equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to environmental 

protection and energy security that are 

not reflected in energy prices, such as 

reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

requires that DOE prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule 

and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB 

review this rule. DOE presented to OIRA 

for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the technical 

support document for this rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms 

the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70623 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

‘‘to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible.’’ In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include ‘‘identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE finds that 

today’s final rule is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, agencies adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs and select, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 

adopts as a final rule, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by Executive Order 

13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small 

Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 

53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 

published procedures and policies on 

February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 

potential impacts of its rules on small 

entities are properly considered during 

the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. 

DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site (http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov). DOE reviewed the 

April 2011 NOPR and today’s final rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. 

As presented and discussed in the 

following sections, the FRFA describes 

potential impacts on small 

manufacturers associated with the 

required product and capital conversion 

costs at each TSL and discusses 

alternatives that could minimize these 

impacts. Chapter 13 of the TSD contains 

more information about the impact of 

this rulemaking on manufacturers. 

1. Statement of the Need for, and 

Objectives of, the Rule 

The reasons why DOE is establishing 

the standards in today’s final rule and 

the objectives of these standards are 

provided elsewhere in the preamble and 

not repeated here. 

2. Summary of and Responses to the 

Significant Issues Raised by the Public 

Comments, and a Statement of Any 

Changes Made as a Result of Such 

Comments 

This FRFA incorporates the IRFA and 

public comments received on the IRFA 

and the economic impacts of the rule. 

DOE provides responses to these 

comments in the discussion below on 

the compliance impacts of the rule and 

elsewhere in the preamble. DOE 

modified the standards adopted in 

today’s final rule in response to 

comments received, including those 

from small businesses, as described in 

the preamble. 

3. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the 

Number of Small Entities 

For manufacturers of fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 

2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 

13 CFR part 121. The size standards are 

listed by NAICS code and industry 

description and are available at http:// 

www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/

documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_

tablepdf.pdf. Fluorescent lamp ballast 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 335311, ‘‘Power, Distribution 

and Specialty Transformer 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 750 employees or less for 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE 

identified approximately 10 small 

businesses that produce covered 

products and can be considered small 

business manufacturers. 76 FR 20090, 

20171 (April 11, 2011). Radionic 

disagreed with this estimate, stating that 

they are the only domestic ballast 

manufacturer, and noted that they were 

not contacted by DOE. (Radionic, No. 36 

at p. 1) During its analysis for the NOPR, 

DOE identified Radionic as a small 

business manufacturer that could 

potentially be affected by new or 

amended standards. Radionic was 

included in DOE’s estimate of ten small 

manufacturers, which also includes U.S. 

manufacturers with foreign production. 

DOE contacted Radionic and received a 

survey response during the NOPR 

analysis period. Two other small 

businesses consented to being 

interviewed during the MIA interviews. 

DOE also obtained information about 

small business impacts while 

interviewing large manufacturers. 

b. Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Industry 

Structure 

Four major manufacturers with nondomestic production supply the vast 

majority of the marketplace. None of the 

four major manufacturers is considered 

a small business. The remaining market 

share is held by foreign manufacturers 

and several smaller domestic companies 

with very small market shares. Even for 

these U.S.-operated firms, most 

production is outsourced to overseas 

vendors or captive overseas 

manufacturing facilities. Some very 

limited production takes place in the 

United States—mostly magnetic ballasts 

for specialty applications. DOE is 

unaware of any fluorescent lamp ballast 

companies, small or large, that produce 

only domestically. See chapter 3 of the 

final rule TSD for further details on the 

fluorescent lamp ballast market. 

c. Comparison Between Large and Small 

Entities 

The four large manufacturers typically 

offer a much wider range of designs of 

covered ballasts than small 

manufacturers. Ballasts can be designed, 

or optimized, to operate different lamp 

lengths and numbers of lamps under 

various start methods, often in 

combination with various additional 

features. Large manufacturers typically 

offer many SKUs per product line to 

meet this wide range of potential 

specifications. Generally, one product 

family shares some fundamental 

characteristic (i.e., lamp diameter, 

number of lamps, etc.) and hosts a large 

number of SKUs that are manufactured 

with minor variations on the same 

product line. Some product lines, such 

as the 4-foot MBP IS ballast, are 

manufactured in high volumes, while 

other products may be produced in 

much lower volumes but can help 

manufacturers meet their customers’ 

specific needs and provide higher 

margin opportunities. For their part, 

small manufacturers generally do not 

have the volume to support as wide a 

range of products. 

Beyond variations in ballast types and 

features, the large manufacturers also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70624 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

offer multiple tiers of efficiency, 

typically including a baseline efficiency 

product and a high-efficiency product 

within the same family. On the other 

hand, some small manufacturers 

frequently only offer one efficiency level 

in a given product class to reduce the 

number of SKUs and parts they must 

maintain. This strategy is important to 

small-scale manufacturers because 

many product development costs (e.g., 

testing, certification, and marketing) are 

relatively fixed per product line. 

Small manufacturers are able to 

compete in the fluorescent lamp ballast 

industry despite the dominance of the 

four major manufacturers due, in large 

part, to the fragmented nature of the 

fixture industry. The largest four fixture 

manufacturers comprise about 60 

percent of the industry, while as many 

as 200 smaller fixture manufacturers 

have the remaining share. Many small 

ballast manufacturers have developed 

relationships with these small fixture 

manufacturers, whose production 

volumes may not be attractive to the 

larger players. The same structure 

applies to the electrical distributor 

market—while small ballast 

manufacturers often cannot compete for 

the business of the largest distributors, 

they are able to successfully target small 

distributors, often on a regional basis. 

Lastly, like the major manufacturers, 

small manufacturers usually offer 

products in addition to those 

fluorescent lamp ballasts covered by 

this rulemaking, such as dimming 

ballasts, LED drivers, and compact 

fluorescent ballasts. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

Several manufacturers commented on 

the potential impacts of energy 

conservation standards on small 

fluorescent lamp ballast manufacturers. 

Radionic noted that small 

manufacturers would be burdened 

because they have fewer engineering 

resources and less capital to deploy 

toward redesign and UL testing 

compared to large manufacturers and 

suggested that consideration for 

exemption be given to small 

manufacturers. (Radionic, No. 36 at p. 1) 

In contrast, Lutron stated that they 

believe that the impacts of new and 

amended standards for fluorescent lamp 

ballasts would be negligible for small 

manufacturers because small 

manufacturers would concentrate in 

areas such as emerging technologies— 

where there is potential for growth and 

high margins—rather than try to 

compete with large manufacturers in a 

high-volume, traditional ballast market. 

(Lutron, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

43 at p. 207) Philips agreed that small 

manufacturers do not have a significant 

presence in the traditional ballast 

market. Philips noted, however, that 

many sign ballast manufacturers, who 

are also small manufacturers, may be 

adversely affected by the switch from 

magnetic to electronic sign ballasts 

driven by proposed standards, which 

may force sign ballast manufacturers to 

source their ballasts. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 43 at pp. 208– 

9) 

Small manufacturers have the 

potential to be significantly affected by 

this rule for the reasons suggested by 

Radionic. Most small ballast 

manufacturers, however, would be able 

to remain viable by focusing on niche 

markets or emerging technologies. DOE 

details its conclusions on the impacts 

on and expected responses of small 

manufacturers below. 

Additionally, because sign ballast 

manufacturers may be differentially 

impacted by today’s standards, DOE 

analyzed sign ballasts as a manufacturer 

subgroup in section VII.B.2.d. DOE 

made several attempts to contact sign 

ballast manufacturers for interviews but 

was unable to speak directly to any of 

the manufacturers who specialize in 

sign ballasts. As such, DOE’s subgroup 

analysis was developed based on 

information obtained from interviews 

with large manufacturers and from 

manufacturer Web sites. 

At TSL3A, the level adopted in 

today’s final rule, DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $0.3 million and 

product conversion costs of $1.0 million 

for a typical small manufacturer, 

compared to capital and product 

conversion costs of $6.3 million and 

$9.7 million, respectively, for a typical 

large manufacturer. These costs and 

their impacts are described in detail in 

the following sections. 

a. Capital Conversion Costs 

Those small manufacturers DOE 

interviewed did not expect increased 

capital conversion costs to be a major 

concern because most of them source all 

or the majority of their products from 

Asia. Those that source their products 

would likely not make the direct capital 

investments themselves. Small 

manufacturers experience the impact of 

sourcing their products through a higher 

cost of goods sold, and thus a lower 

operating margin, as compared to large 

manufacturers. The capital costs 

estimated are largely associated with 

those small manufacturers producing 

magnetic ballasts. DOE estimates capital 

costs of approximately $0.3 million for 

a typical small manufacturer at TSL 3A, 

based on the cost of converting magnetic 

production lines, such as sign ballasts, 

to electronic production lines. 

Another challenge facing the industry 

is the component shortage discussed in 

the section V.H.4.d. As with large 

manufacturers, the component shortage 

is a significant issue for small 

manufacturers, but some small 

manufacturers stated that the shortage 

does not differentially impact them. At 

times, they actually can obtain 

components more easily than large 

manufacturers. Because their volumes 

are lower, they generally pay higher 

prices for parts than their larger 

competitors, which incentivizes 

suppliers to fill small manufacturers’ 

orders relatively quickly. The lowervolume orders also allow small 

manufacturers to piggyback off the 

orders for certain components that are 

used throughout the consumer 

electronics industry. 

b. Product Conversion Costs 

While capital conversion costs were 

not a large concern to the small 

manufacturers DOE interviewed, 

product conversion costs could 

adversely impact small manufacturers at 

TSL 3A, the level adopted in today’s 

final rule. To estimate the differential 

impacts of the adopted standard on 

small manufacturers, DOE compared 

their cost of compliance with that of the 

major manufacturers. First, DOE 

examined the number of basic models 

and SKUs available from each 

manufacturer to determine an estimate 

for overall compliance costs. The 

number of basic models and SKUs 

attributed to each manufacturer is based 

on information obtained during 

manufacturer interviews and an 

examination of the different models 

advertised by each on company Web 

sites. DOE assumed that the product 

conversion costs required to redesign 

basic models and test and certify all 

SKUs to meet the standard levels 

presented in today’s final rule would be 

lower per model and per SKU for small 

manufacturers, as detailed below. (A 

full description of DOE’s methodology 

for developing product conversion costs 

is found in section V.H.1.a and in 

chapter 13 of the final rule TSD.) Table 

VIII.1 compares the estimated product 

conversion costs of a typical small 

manufacturer as a percentage of their 

annual R&D expense to those of a 

typical large manufacturer. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70625 

TABLE VIII.1—COMPARISON OF A TYPICAL SMALL AND LARGE MANUFACTURER’S PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS TO

ANNUAL R&D EXPENSE

Large manufacturer Small manufacturer 

Product conversion 

costs for a typical 

large manufacturer 

(2010$ millions) 

Product conversion 

costs as a percentage of annual R&D 

expense 

Product Conversion 

costs for a typical 

small manufacturer 

(2010$ millions) 

Product Conversion 

costs as a percentage of annual R&D 

expense 

Baseline ........................................................................... $0.00 0 $0.00 0 

TSL 1 ............................................................................... 1.41 16 0.14 38 

TSL 2 ............................................................................... 6.15 71 0.63 163 

TSL 3A ............................................................................. 9.68 111 0.99 257 

TSL 3B ............................................................................. 12.53 144 1.28 333 

Based on discussions with 

manufacturers, DOE estimated that the 

cost to fully redesign every ballast 

model for large manufacturers is 

approximately $120,000 per model and 

the cost to test and certify every SKU is 

approximately $20,000 per SKU. A 

typical major manufacturer offers 

approximately 80 basic covered models 

and 300 SKUs. Based on DOE’s GRIM 

analysis, a typical major manufacturer 

has an annual R&D expense of $8.7 

million. Because not all products would 

need to be redesigned at TSL 3A, DOE 

estimates $9.7 million in product 

conversion costs for a typical major 

manufacturer at TSL 3A (compared to 

$15.6 million if all products had to be 

fully redesigned), which represents 111 

percent of its annual R&D expense. This 

means that a typical major manufacturer 

could redesign its products in just over 

a year if it were to devote its entire R&D 

budget for fluorescent lamp ballasts to 

product redesign and could retain the 

engineering resources. 

DOE’s research indicated that a 

typical small manufacturer offers 

approximately 50 basic covered models 

and 100 SKUs. However, based on 

manufacturer interviews, DOE does not 

believe that small manufacturers would 

incur the same level of costs per model 

and SKU as large manufacturers. Small 

manufacturers would not be as likely to 

redesign models in-house as large 

manufacturers. Instead, they would 

source and rebrand products from 

overseas manufacturers who supply 

their ballasts. As a result, DOE assumed 

a lower R&D investment, in absolute 

dollars, per model. Because their 

products are effectively sourced, DOE 

projects smaller manufacturers would 

face a higher level of cost of goods sold 

(i.e., a higher MPC). Therefore, in a 

competitive environment, small 

manufacturers would earn a lower 

markup than their larger peers and 

consequently operate at lower margins. 

Small manufacturers would also have to 

test and certify every SKU they offer, 

but they would not conduct the same 

extent of pilot runs and internal testing 

as large manufacturers because less 

production takes place in internal 

factories. As such, DOE estimates that 

small manufacturers’ testing and 

certification costs are expected to be 

$10,000 per SKU for UL and other 

certifications. Thus, the product 

conversion costs for a typical small 

manufacturer could total $1.6 million. 

Because not all products would need to 

be fully redesigned at TSL 3A, however, 

DOE estimates product conversion costs 

of $1.0 million at TSL 3A. Based on 

scaling GRIM results to an average 

small-manufacturer market share of 1.0 

percent, DOE assumed that a small 

manufacturer has an annual R&D 

expense of $0.4 million, so the 

estimated product conversion costs at 

TSL 3A would represent 257 percent of 

its annual R&D expense. This means 

that a typical small manufacturer could 

redesign its products within the three 

year compliance period if it were to 

devote its entire R&D budget for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts to product 

redesign and could retain the 

engineering resources. 

c. Summary of Compliance Impacts 

Although the conversion costs 

required can be considered substantial 

for all companies, the impacts could be 

relatively greater for a typical small 

manufacturer because of much lower 

production volumes and the relatively 

fixed nature of the R&D resources 

required per model. Table VIII.2 

compares the total conversion costs of a 

typical small manufacturer as a 

percentage of annual revenue and 

earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) 

to those of a typical large manufacturer. 

TABLE VIII.2—COMPARISON OF A TYPICAL SMALL AND LARGE MANUFACTURER’S TOTAL CONVERSION COSTS TO ANNUAL

REVENUE AND EBIT 

Large Manufacturer Small Manufacturer 

Total conversion 

costs for a typical 

large mfr. 

(2010$ millions) 

Total conversion 

costs as a 

percentage of 

annual revenue 

Total conversion 

costs as a 

percentage of 

annual EBIT 

Total conversion 

costs for a typical 

small mfr. 

(2010$ millions) 

Total conversion 

costs as a 

percentage of 

annual revenue 

Total conversion 

costs as a 

percentage of 

annual EBIT 

Baseline ... $0.00 0 0 $0.00 0 0 

TSL 1 ....... 3.99 2 21 0.26 2 37 

TSL 2 ....... 10.68 5 55 0.83 8 119 

TSL 3A ..... 16.02 7 82 1.27 12 182 

TSL 3B ..... 19.14 8 99 1.58 15 226 

As seen in Table VIII.2, the impacts 

for a typical small manufacturer are 

relatively greater than for a large 

manufacturer at TSL 3A. Total 

conversion costs represent 182 percent 

of annual EBIT for a typical small 

manufacturer compared to 82 percent of 

annual EBIT for a typical large 

manufacturer. DOE believes these 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

estimates reflect a worst-case scenario 

because they assume small 

manufacturers would redesign all 

proprietary models immediately, and 

not take advantage of the industry’s 

supply chain dynamics or take other 

steps to mitigate the impacts. DOE 

anticipates, however, that small 

manufacturers would take several steps 

to mitigate the costs required to meet 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. 

At TSL 3A, it is more likely that 

ballast manufacturers would 

temporarily reduce the number of SKUs 

they offer as in-house designs to keep 

their product conversion costs at 

manageable levels in the years 

preceding the compliance date. As 

noted previously, the typical small 

manufacturer business model is not 

predicated on the supply of a wide 

range of models and specifications. 

Small manufacturers frequently either 

focus on a few niche markets or on 

customers seeking only basic, low-cost 

solutions. They therefore can satisfy the 

needs of their customers with a smaller 

product portfolio than large 

manufacturers who often compete on 

brand reputation and the ability to offer 

a full product offering. As such, DOE 

believes that under the adopted 

standards small businesses would likely 

selectively upgrade existing product 

lines to offer products that are in high 

demand or offer strategic advantage. 

Small manufacturers could then spread 

out further investments over a longer 

time period by upgrading some product 

lines prior to the compliance date while 

sourcing others until resources allow— 

and the market supports—in-house 

design. Furthermore, while the initial 

redesign costs are relatively large, the 

estimates assume small manufacturers 

would bring compliant ballasts to 

market in concert with large 

manufacturers. There is a possibility 

some small manufacturers would 

conserve resources by waiting to 

upgrade certain products until new 

compliant baseline designs become 

available or their in-house development 

is less resource-intensive. The 

commonality of many consumer 

electronics components, designs, and 

products fosters considerable sharing of 

experience throughout the electronics 

supply chain, particularly when 

unrestricted by proprietary 

technologies. DOE did not find any 

intellectual property restrictions that 

would prevent small manufacturers 

from making the technologies necessary 

to meet today’s adopted levels. 

5. Steps Taken to Minimize Impacts on 

Small Entities and Reasons Why Other 

Significant Alternatives to Today’s Final 

Rule Were Rejected 

DOE modified the standards 

established in today’s final rule from 

those proposed in the April 2011 NOPR 

as discussed previously and based on 

comments and additional test data 

received from interested parties. These 

modifications include a separate 

product class for residential ballasts, 

which establishes less stringent 

standards for these ballasts than the 

NOPR, and new standard equations for 

all product classes. 

The previous discussion also analyzes 

impacts on small businesses that would 

result from the other TSLs DOE 

considered. Though TSLs lower than 

the adopted TSL are expected to reduce 

the impacts on small entities, DOE is 

required by EPCA to establish standards 

that achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that are technically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

result in a significant conservation of 

energy. Thus DOE rejected the lower 

TSLs. 

In addition to the other TSLs being 

considered, the TSD includes a 

regulatory impact analysis in chapter 

18. For fluorescent lamp ballasts, this 

report discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) No standard, (2) 

consumer rebates, (3) consumer tax 

credits, (4) manufacturer tax credits, and 

(5) early replacement. DOE does not 

intend to consider these alternatives 

further because they are either not 

feasible to implement, or not expected 

to result in energy savings as large as 

those that would be achieved by the 

standard levels under consideration. 

Thus, DOE rejected these alternatives 

and is adopting the standards set forth 

in this rulemaking. 

DOE notes that small manufacturers, 

particularly those small sign ballast 

manufacturers who would be required 

to move from magnetic to electronic 

sign ballasts as a result of today’s 

standards, may apply to DOE for an 

exemption from the standard pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. 6295(t). The process 

applicants must follow to request an 

exemption and DOE’s process for 

making a decision on a particular 

request are set forth in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 430 Subpart E. 

C. 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 

(March 7, 2011). The collection-ofinformation 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 20 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

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. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE prepared an EA of the impacts of 

the new and amended rule pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (10 

CFR part 1021). This assessment 

includes an examination of the potential 

effects of emission reductions likely to 

result from the rule in the context of 

global climate change, as well as other 

types of environmental impacts. The EA 

has been incorporated into the final rule 

TSD as chapter 16. Before issuing this 

final rule for fluorescent lamp ballasts, 

DOE considered public comments and 

issued a FONSI as part of a final EA. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70627 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of today’s final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

new or amended 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 small governments. 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:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE has concluded that this final rule 

would likely require expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Such expenditures may include: 

(1) Investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by fluorescent lamp 

ballasts manufacturers in the years 

between the final rule and the 

compliance date for the new standards, 

and (2) incremental additional 

expenditures by consumers to purchase 

higher-efficiency fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, starting at the compliance date 

for the applicable standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the notice of final rulemaking and the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

the TSD for this final rule respond to 

those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, DOE is 

obligated to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives before promulgating a rule 

for which a written statement under 

section 202 is required. 2 U.S.C. 1535(a). 

DOE is required to select from those 

alternatives the most cost-effective and 

least burdensome alternative that 

achieves the objectives of the rule 

unless DOE publishes an explanation 

for doing otherwise, or the selection of 

such an alternative is inconsistent with 

law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(g), 

today’s final rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for fluorescent 

lamp ballasts that are designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that DOE has 

determined to be both technologically 

feasible and economically justified. A 

full discussion of the alternatives 

considered by DOE is presented in the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

the TSD for today’s final rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under guidelines established 

by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

70628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

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. 

DOE has concluded that today’s 

regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts, is not a 

significant energy action because the 

new and amended standards are not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the final 

rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy, issued its Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 

14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that 

certain scientific information shall be 

peer reviewed by qualified specialists 

before it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have or does have a clear 

and substantial impact on important 

public policies or private sector 

decisions.’’ 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

IX. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 

2011. 

Henry Kelly, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, to read 

as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 430.2 is amended by adding 

the definition of ‘‘ballast luminous 

efficiency’’ in alphabetical order to read 

as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Ballast luminous efficiency means the 

total fluorescent lamp arc power 

divided by the fluorescent lamp ballast 

input power multiplied by the 

appropriate frequency adjustment 

factor, as defined in Appendix Q1 of 

subpart B of this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Appendix Q to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by adding introductory 

text after the heading to read as follows: 

Appendix Q to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Fluorescent 

Lamp Ballasts 

Comply with Appendix Q until November 

14, 2014. After this date, all fluorescent lamp 

ballasts shall be tested using the provisions 

of Appendix Q1. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Appendix Q1 to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by adding introductory 

text after the heading to read as follows: 

Appendix Q1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Fluorescent 

Lamp Ballasts 

Comply with Appendix Q1 beginning 

November 14, 2014. Prior to this date, all 

fluorescent lamp ballasts shall be tested 

using the provisions of Appendix Q. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 430.32 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (m)(1) 

introductory text. 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (m)(8), (m)(9), 

and m(10). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(m)(1) Fluorescent lamp ballasts 

(other than specialty application 

mercury vapor lamp ballasts). Except as 

provided in paragraphs (m)(2), (m)(3), 

(m)(4), (m)(5), (m)(6), (m)(7), (m)(8), 

(m)(9), and (m)(10) of this section, each 

fluorescent lamp ballast— 

* * * * * 

(8) Except as provided in paragraph 

(m)(9) of this section, each fluorescent 

lamp ballast— 

(i) Manufactured on or after 

November 14, 2014; 

(ii) Designed— 

(A) To operate at nominal input 

voltages at or between 120 and 277 

volts; 

(B) To operate with an input current 

frequency of 60 Hertz; and 

(C) For use in connection with 

fluorescent lamps (as defined in § 430.2) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 219 / Monday, November 14, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 70629 

(iii) Shall have— 

(A) A power factor of 0.9 or greater 

except for those ballasts defined in 

paragraph (m)(8)(iii)(B) of this section; 

(B) A power factor of 0.5 or greater for 

residential ballasts, which are defined 

in (m)(8)(vi) of this section; 

(C) A ballast luminous efficiency not 

less than the following: 

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 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 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 to 

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

Programmed start ballasts (not classified as sign ballasts) that are designed to operate 8- 

foot high output lamps. ...................................................................................................... 0.973 0.70 0.37 

Sign ballasts that operate 8-foot high output lamps ............................................................. 0.993 0.47 0.25

Instant start and rapid start residential ballasts that 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 to operate .................................... 0.973 0.71 0.37 

4-foot medium bipin lamps. 

2-foot U-shaped lamps. 

(iv) Instant start, rapid start, and 

programmed start are defined in 

Appendix Q1 of subpart B of this part. 

Average total lamp arc power is as 

defined and measured in accordance 

with Appendix Q1 of subpart B of this 

part. 

(v) Sign ballasts have an Underwriters 

Laboratories Inc. Type 2 rating and are 

designed, labeled, and marketed for use 

in outdoor signs. 

(vi) Residential ballasts meet FCC 

consumer limits as set forth in 47 CFR 

part 18 and are designed and labeled for 

use in residential applications. 

(9) The standards described in 

paragraph (m)(8) of this section do not 

apply to: 

(i) A ballast that is designed for 

dimming to 50 percent or less of the 

maximum output of the ballast except 

for those specified in m(10); and 

(ii) A low frequency ballast (as 

defined in Appendix Q1 to subpart of 

this part) that: 

(A) Is designed to operate T8 diameter 

lamps; 

(B) Is designed, labeled, and marketed 

for use in EMI-sensitive environments 

only; 

(C) Is shipped by the manufacturer in 

packages containing 10 or fewer 

ballasts; and 

(iii) A programmed start ballast that 

operates 4-foot medium bipin T8 lamps 

and delivers on average less than 140 

milliamperes to each lamp. 

(10) Each fluorescent lamp ballast— 

(i) Manufactured on or after 

November 14, 2014; 

(ii) Designed— 

(A) To operate at nominal input 

voltages of 120 or 277 volts; 

(B) To operate with an input current 

frequency of 60 Hertz; and 

(C) For use in connection with 

fluorescent lamps (as defined in 

§ 430.2); 

(D) For dimming to 50 percent or less 

of the maximum output of the ballast 

(iii) Shall have— 

(A) A power factor of 0.9 or greater 

except for those ballasts defined in 

paragraph (m)(8)(iii)(B) of this section; 

(B) A power factor of 0.5 or greater for 

residential ballasts, which meet FCC 

Part B consumer limits and are designed 

and labeled for use only in residential 

applications; 

(C) A ballast luminous efficiency of 

not less than the following: 

Designed for the operation of Ballast input 

voltage 

Total nominal 

lamp watts 

Ballast luminous efficiency 

Low frequency 

ballasts 

High frequency 

ballasts 

One F34T12 lamp ............................................................................ 120/277 34 0.777 0.778 

Two F34T12 lamps .......................................................................... 120/277 68 0.804 0.805 

Two F96T12/ES lamps .................................................................... 120/277 120 0.876 0.884 

Two F96T12HO/ES lamps ............................................................... 120/277 190 0.711 0.713 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–28451 Filed 11–10–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2