Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 27 February 10, 2014 

Part II 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Metal 

Halide Lamp Fixtures; Final Rule 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7746 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2009–BT–STD– 

0018] 

RIN 1904–AC00 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Metal 

Halide Lamp Fixtures 

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 metal halide lamp fixtures 

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

Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine whether more-stringent 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would save a significant amount of 

energy. In this final rule, DOE is 

adopting more-stringent energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs. It 

has determined that the new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for this equipment would result in 

significant conservation of energy, and 

are technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

April 11, 2014. Compliance with the 

new and amended standards established 

for MHLFs in today’s final rule is 

required by February 10, 2017. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on April 11, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

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

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/16. The 

regulations.gov Web page will contain 

simple 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: Ms. 

Lucy deButts, 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) 287–1604. Email: 

metal_halide_lamp_fixtures@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: 

ari.altman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits 

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

MHLFs 

3. Compliance Date 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional MHLFs for Which DOE Is 

Setting Standards 

1. EISA 2007 Exempted MHLFs 

a. MHLFs With Regulated-Lag Ballasts 

b. MHLFs With 480 V Electronic Ballasts 

c. Exempted 150 W MHLFs 

2. Additional Wattages 

3. General Lighting 

4. High-Frequency Electronic Ballasts 

5. Outdoor Fixtures 

6. Hazardous Locations 

7. Summary of MHLFs for Which DOE Is 

Setting Standards 

B. Alternative Approaches to Energy 

Conservation Standards: System 

Approaches 

C. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy 

Consumption 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

1. Current Test Procedures 

2. Test Input Voltage 

a. Average of Tested Efficiency at All 

Possible Voltages 

b. Posting the Highest and Lowest 

Efficiencies 

c. Test at Single Manufacturer-Declared 

Voltage 

d. Test at Highest Rated Voltage 

e. Test on Input Voltage Based on Wattage 

and Available Voltages 

3. Testing High-Frequency Electronic 

Ballasts 

4. Rounding Requirements 

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 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Customers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

V. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

2. Equipment Classes 

a. Input Voltage 

b. Lamp Wattage 

c. Fixture Application 

d. Electronic Configuration 

e. Circuit Type 

f. Summary 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Approach 

2. Representative Equipment Classes 

3. Representative Wattages 

4. Representative Fixture Types 

5. Ballast Efficiency Testing 

6. Input Power Representations 

7. Baseline Ballast Models 

a. 70 W Baseline Ballast 

b. 1000 W Baseline Ballast 

c. 1500 W Baseline Ballast 

d. Summary of Baseline Ballasts 

8. Selection of More-Efficient Units 

a. Higher-Efficiency Magnetic Ballasts 

b. Electronic Ballasts 

9. Efficiency Levels 

10. Design Standard 

11. Scaling to Equipment Classes Not 

Analyzed 

12. Manufacturer Selling Prices 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

b. Empty Fixture Costs 

c. Incremental Costs for Electronically 

Ballasted MHLFs 

d. Costs Associated With the Design 

Standard 

e. Manufacturer Markups 

D. Markups to Determine Equipment Price 

1. Distribution Channels 

2. Estimation of Markups 

3. Summary of Markups 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Equipment Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Use 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Energy Price Projections 

6. Replacement Costs 

7. Equipment Lifetime 

8. Discount Rates 

9. Analysis Period Fixture Purchasing 

Events 

G. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. Shipments 

a. Historical Shipments 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7747 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

3The scope of this rulemaking encompasses 

entire MHLFs, including the metal halide lamps 

and metal halide ballasts the fixtures contain. 

Therefore, the ratings of individual components are 

often discussed at a system level. For example, 

when referring to the rated wattages or available 

input voltages of the lamps and ballasts a fixture is 

designed to operate with, this final rule frequently 

uses shorthand such as ‘‘100 W ballast’’ for a ballast 

operating a lamp rated at 100 watts or ‘‘480 V 

fixture’’ for a fixture housing a ballast with a 

dedicated input voltage of 480 volts. 

4 DOE is proposing to continue using a ballast 

efficiency metric for regulation of MHLFs, rather 

than a system or other approach. See section 0 for 

further discussion. 

b. Fixture Stock Projections 

c. Base Case Shipment Scenarios 

d. Standards-Case Efficiency Scenarios 

2. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

H. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Manufacturer Production Costs 

2. Shipment Projections 

3. Markup Scenarios 

4. Production and Capital Conversion Costs 

5. Other Comments From Interested Parties 

a. Compliance Period 

b. Alternative Technologies 

c. Opportunity Cost of Investments 

d. Replacement Ballast Market 

e. Potential Impact on Metal Halide Lamp 

Manufacturers 

6. Manufacturer Interviews 

J. Employment Impact Analysis 

K. Utility Impact Analysis 

L. Emissions Analysis 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

VI. Other Issues for Discussion 

A. Proposed Standard Levels in August 

2013 NOPR 

B. Reported Value 

C. Three-Year Compliance Date 

VII. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and 

Benefits 

c. Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy 

C. Conclusions 

1. Trial Standard Level 5 

2. Trial Standard Level 4 

3. Trial Standard Level 3 

4. Trial Standard Level 2 

D. Final Standard Equations 

E. Backsliding 

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the Number 

of Small Entities 

b. Manufacturer Participation 

c. Metal Halide Ballast and Fixture 

Industry Structure 

d. Comparison Between Large and Small 

Entities 

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its 

Benefits 

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.2 Pursuant to EPCA, 

any new or amended energy conservation 

standard that DOE prescribes for certain 

equipment, such as metal halide lamp 

fixtures (MHLFs or ‘‘fixtures’’ 3), shall be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that DOE 

determines is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must result in significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and 

other statutory provisions discussed in this 

notice, DOE is adopting new and amended 

energy conservation standards for MHLFs. 

The new and amended standards, which are 

the minimum allowable ballast efficiencies 4

based on fixture location, ballast type, and 

rated lamp wattage, are shown in Table I.1. 

These new and amended standards apply to 

all equipment listed in Table I.1 and 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States on or after the compliance date 

in the DATES section of this notice 

(additionally, see section II.B.3 of this notice 

for more information on the compliance date 

determination). 

TABLE I.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MHLFS

Designed to be operated with 

lamps of the following rated lamp 

wattage 

Indoor/outdoor Test input voltage † Minimum standard equation ‡ 

% 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ....................... Indoor .................. 480 V ...................... (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.0200. 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ....................... Indoor .................. All others ................. 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)). 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ....................... Outdoor ............... 480 V ...................... (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.0200. 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ....................... Outdoor ............... All others ................. 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)). 

>100 W and <150 W * ................... Indoor .................. 480 V ...................... (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.0200. 

>100 W and <150 W * ................... Indoor .................. All others ................. 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)). 

>100 W and <150 W * ................... Outdoor ............... 480 V ...................... (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.0200. 

>100 W and <150 W * ................... Outdoor ............... All others ................. 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)). 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W .................. Indoor .................. 480 V ...................... 0.880. 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W .................. Indoor .................. All others ................. For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 0.880. 

For >200 W and ≤250 W: 

1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)). 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W .................. Outdoor ............... 480 V ...................... 0.880. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7748 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE I.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MHLFS—Continued 

Designed to be operated with 

lamps of the following rated lamp 

wattage 

Indoor/outdoor Test input voltage † Minimum standard equation ‡ 

% 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W .................. Outdoor ............... All others ................. For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 0.88. 

For >200 W and ≤250 W: 

1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)). 

>250 W and ≤500 W ..................... Indoor .................. 480 V ...................... For >250 W and <265 W: 0.880. 

For ≥265 W and ≤500 W: (1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.0100. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ..................... Indoor .................. All others ................. 1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)). 

>250 W and ≤500 W ..................... Outdoor ............... 480 V ...................... For >250 W and <265 W: 0.880. 

For ≥265 W and ≤500 W: (1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.0100. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ..................... Outdoor ............... All others ................. 1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)). 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ................... Indoor .................. 480 V ...................... >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.900. 

>750 W and ≤1000 W: 

0.000104×P + 0.822. 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ................... Indoor .................. All others ................. For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910. 

For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 0.000104×P+0.832. 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ................... Outdoor ............... 480 V ...................... >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.900. 

>750 W and ≤1000 W: 

0.000104×P + 0.822. 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ................... Outdoor ............... All others ................. For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910. 

For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 0.000104×P+0.832. 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

* Includes 150 W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 

50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007. 

** Excludes 150 W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 

50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007. 

† Tested input voltage is specified in 10 CFR 431.324. 

‡P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers 

Table I.2 presents DOE’s evaluation of the 

economic impacts of today’s standards on 

customers of MHLFs, as measured by the 

average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the 

median payback period. The average LCC 

savings are positive for a majority of users for 

all equipment classes. 

TABLE I.2—IMPACTS OF TODAY’S STANDARDS ON CUSTOMERS OF MHLFS *

Representative equipment class Representative 

wattage 

Average LCC 

savings 

2012$ 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

≥50 W and ≤100 W (indoor, magnetic baseline) ............................... 70 W ....................................................... 27.00 4.5 

≥50 W and ≤100 W (outdoor, magnetic baseline) ............................. 70 W ....................................................... 34.88 4.5 

>100 W and <150 W ** (indoor) ......................................................... 150 W ..................................................... 24.63 7.3 

>100 W and <150 W ** (outdoor) ....................................................... 150 W ..................................................... 30.70 8.1 

≥150 W † and ≤250 W (indoor) .......................................................... 250 W ..................................................... 4.51 14.2 

≥150 W † and ≤250 W (outdoor) ........................................................ 250 W ..................................................... 6.74 17.4 

>250 W and ≤500 W (indoor) ............................................................ 400 W ..................................................... 7.95 15.0 

>250 W and ≤500 W (outdoor) .......................................................... 400 W ..................................................... 13.15 18.4 

>500 W and ≤1000 W (indoor) .......................................................... 1000 W ................................................... 1221.54 0.8 

>500 W and ≤1000 W (outdoor) ........................................................ 1000 W ................................................... 1631.94 0.8 

* On average, indoor and outdoor fixtures have 20- and 25-year lifetimes, respectively. 

** Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the National Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, 

as specified by UL 1029–2001. 

† Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the National Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, 

as specified by UL 1029–2001. 

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 2046). Using 

a real discount rate of 8.9 percent, DOE 

estimates that the base case INPV for 

manufacturers of MH ballasts ranges from 

$67 million in the low-shipment scenario to 

$74 million in the high-shipment scenario in 

2012$. Under today’s standards, DOE expects 

that ballast manufacturers may lose up to 

26.7 percent of their INPV, which is 

approximately $17.9 million, in the lowshipment, preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. 

For MHLF, using a real discount rate of 9.5 

percent, DOE estimates that the base case 

INPV for manufacturers of MHLFs ranges 

from $346 million in the low-shipment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7749 

5All monetary values in this section are 

expressed in 2012 dollars and are discounted to 

2013. Value ranges correspond with estimates for 

the low and high shipment scenarios. 6A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for NOX and Hg are presented in short tons. 

3 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to 

the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference 

case, which generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations for which 

implementing regulations were available as of 

December 31, 2012. 

7Technical Support Document: Technical Update 

of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government. May 2013 (Revised November 

2013). www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/ 

assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-ofcarbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf. 

8 DOE is currently investigating valuation of 

avoided Hg and SO2 emissions. 

scenario to $379 million in the highshipment scenario in 2012$. Under today’s 

standards, DOE expects that MHLF 

manufacturers may lose up to 1.0 percent of 

their INPV, which is approximately $3.6 

million, in the low-shipment, preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario. 

When adding these two MH industries 

together (MHLF and MH ballast), DOE 

estimates that the combined base case INPV 

for manufacturers of MHLFs and MH ballasts 

ranges from $413 million in the lowshipment scenario to $453 million in the 

high-shipment scenario in 2012$. Under 

today’s standards, DOE expects that all MH 

manufacturers (MHLF and MH ballast 

manufacturers) may lose up to 5.2 percent of 

their INPV, which is approximately $21.5 

million, in the low-shipment, preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario. 

Additionally, based on DOE’s interviews 

with manufacturers of MHLFs and ballasts, 

DOE does not expect any plant closings or 

significant loss of employment. 

C. National Benefits 5

DOE’s analyses indicate that today’s 

standards would save a significant amount of 

energy. The lifetime savings for MHLFs 

purchased in the 30-year period that begins 

in the year of compliance with new and 

amended standards (2017–2046) amount to 

0.39–0.49 quads. 

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of 

total customer costs and savings of today’s 

standards for MHLFs ranges from $0.29 

billion (at a 7-percent discount rate, low 

shipments scenario) to $1.1 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate, high shipments 

scenario). This NPV expresses the estimated 

total value of future operating cost savings 

minus the estimated increased equipment 

costs for equipment purchased in 2017–2046. 

In addition, today’s standards would have 

significant environmental benefits. The 

energy savings would result in cumulative 

greenhouse gas emission reductions of 

approximately 22.5–27.8 million metric tons 

(Mt) 6 of carbon dioxide (CO2), 105.9–132.4 

thousand tons of methane, 0.5–0.6 thousand 

tons of nitrous oxide (N2O), 37.5–47.2 

thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), 28.2– 

35.0 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 0.05– 

0.06 tons of mercury (Hg).3 Through 2030, 

the estimated energy savings would result in 

cumulative emissions reductions of 6.3–6.8 

Mt of CO2. 

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.7 The derivation of the 

SCC values is discussed in section V.M. 

Using discount rates appropriate for each set 

of SCC values, DOE estimates that the net 

present monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions is between $0.15 billion and $2.55 

billion. DOE also estimates that the net 

present monetary value of the NOX emissions 

reductions is $17.34 million at a 7-percent 

discount rate, and $44.20 million at a 3- 

percent discount rate.8

Table I.3 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from today’s standards for MHLFs. 

TABLE I.3—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF MHLF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS * 

Category Present value 

million 2012$ 

Discount rate 

(%) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................... 754 7 

1,636 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($11.8/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 146 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($39.7/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 682 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($61.2/t case) ** ...................................................................................... 1,088 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($117/t case) ** ....................................................................................... 2,106 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2639/ton) ** ..................................................................................... 17 7 

37 3 

Total Benefits † ..................................................................................................................................... 1,453 7 

2,355 3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ......................................................................................................................... 465 7 

721 3 

Net Benefits 

Including CO2 and NOX † Reduction Monetized Value ............................................................................... 988 7 

1,634 3 

* This table presents the primary (low shipments scenario) estimate of costs and benefits associated with fixtures shipped in 2017–2046. These 

results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2047 from the equipment purchased in 2017–2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with a 3-percent discount rate. 

The benefits and costs of today’s standards, 

for equipment sold in 2017–2046, can also be 

expressed in terms of annualized values. The 

annualized monetary values are the sum of 

(1) the annualized national economic value 

of the benefits from operating the equipment 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7750 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

9 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 2013, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total customer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of 3 and 7 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 (2017 through 2046) that yields the same 

present value. 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. 

installation costs, which is another way of 

representing customer NPV), plus (2) the 

annualized monetary value of the benefits of 

emission reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.9

Although adding the value of customer 

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. 

customer monetary savings that occur as a 

result of market transactions, while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global value. 

Second, the assessments of operating cost 

savings and CO2 savings are performed with 

different methods that use different time 

frames for analysis. The national operating 

cost savings is measured for the lifetime of 

MHLFs shipped in 2017–2046. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the present 

value of all future climate-related impacts 

resulting from the emission of one metric ton 

of carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and costs 

of today’s standards are shown in Table I.4. 

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 average SCC series that uses 

a 3-percent discount rate, the cost of the 

standards in today’s rule is $46 million per 

year in increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $74 million per year in reduced 

equipment operating costs, $38 million in 

CO2 reductions, and $1.71 million in reduced 

NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $68 million per year. Using a 3- 

percent discount rate for all benefits and 

costs and the average SCC series, the cost of 

the standards in today’s rule is $40 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, while 

the benefits are $91 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $38 million in CO2

reductions, and $2.07 million in reduced 

NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 

amounts to $91 million per year. 

TABLE I.4—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF NEW AND AMENDED STANDARDS FOR MHLFS

Discount rate 

Primary (low) net 

benefits estimate * 

Million 2012$/year 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

Million 2012$/year 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ........................................................................... 7% ............................. 74 .............................. 92 

3% ............................. 91 .............................. 119 

CO2 Reduction at ($11.8 case) ** ............................................................ 5% ............................. 11 .............................. 13 

CO2 Reduction at ($39.7/t case) ** .......................................................... 3% ............................. 38 .............................. 46 

CO2 Reduction at ($61.2/t case) ** .......................................................... 2.5% .......................... 56 .............................. 68 

CO2 Reduction at ($117.0/t case) ** ........................................................ 3% ............................. 117 ............................ 142 

NOX Reduction at ($2639/ton) ** ............................................................. 7% ............................. 1.71 ........................... 1.95 

3% ............................. 2.07 ........................... 2.46 

Total Benefits† .................................................................................. 7% plus CO2 range ... 87 to 194 ................... 107 to 236 

7% ............................. 114 ............................ 140 

3% ............................. 131 ............................ 168 

3% plus CO2 range ... 104 to 211 ................. 135 to 264 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ...................................................................... 7% ............................. 46 .............................. 52 

3% ............................. 40 .............................. 48 

Net Benefits 

Total † ............................................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ... 41 to 148 ................... 54 to 184 

7% ............................. 68 .............................. 87 

3% ............................. 91 .............................. 120 

3% plus CO2 range ... 64 to 171 ................... 87 to 216 

* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with fixtures shipped in 2017–2046. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2046 from the fixtures purchased from 2017–2046. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary (Low) and High Benefits 

Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2013 Reference case and High Estimate, respectively. The Primary (Low) and High 

Benefits Estimates are also based on projected fixture shipments in the Low Shipments, Roll-up and High Shipments, Roll-up scenarios, respectively. In addition, the Primary (Low) estimate uses incremental equipment costs that assume fixed equipment prices throughout the analysis period. The High estimate uses incremental equipment costs that reflect a declining trend for equipment prices, using AEO price trends (deflators). 

The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section V.F.1. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2012$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The 

first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The 

fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The SCC time series used by DOE 

incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX 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 series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled ‘‘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, 

customer LCC savings, positive NPV of 

customer benefit, and emission reductions) 

outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV and LCC 

increases for some users of this equipment). 

DOE has concluded that the standards in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7751 

10For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

11All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

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. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly discusses the 

statutory authority underlying today’s final 

rule, as well as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment of 

standards for MHLFs. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B10 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, a program covering 

most major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

equipment’’),11 which includes the types of 

MHLFs that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) EPCA, as 

amended by the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) prescribes 

energy conservation standards for this 

equipment (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)), and 

directs DOE to conduct a rulemaking to 

determine whether to amend these standards. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A)) DOE notes that 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A), the agency 

must conduct a second review of energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs and 

publish a final rule no later than January 1, 

2019. 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered equipment 

consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; 

(2) labeling; (3) the establishment of federal 

energy conservation standards; and (4) 

certification and enforcement procedures. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is 

primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE 

implements the remainder of the program. 

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 covered 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers 

of covered equipment must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis 

for certifying to DOE that their equipment 

complies with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted under EPCA 

and when making representations to the 

public regarding the energy use or efficiency 

of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 

6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with standards adopted 

pursuant to EPCA. Id. DOE test procedures 

for MHLFs currently appear at title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 

431.324. 

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria 

for prescribing new or amended standards for 

covered equipment. As indicated above, any 

new or amended standard for covered 

equipment 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 

equipment, including MHLFs, if no test 

procedure has been established for the 

equipment, 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 customers of the 

equipment subject to the standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the 

covered equipment in the type (or class) 

compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for the 

covered equipment 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 equipment likely 

to result from the imposition of the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result from 

the imposition of the standard; 

6. The need for national energy and water 

conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy 

(Secretary) considers relevant. 

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

EPCA, 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 covered 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended or 

new standard if interested persons have 

established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the standard is likely to result 

in the unavailability in the United States of 

any covered equipment 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 customer of 

purchasing equipment 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 

customer 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 equipment that 

has two or more subcategories. DOE must 

specify a different standard level than that 

which applies generally to such type or class 

of equipment for any group of covered 

equipment that has the same function or 

intended use if DOE determines that 

equipment within such group (A) consumes 

a different kind of energy from that 

consumed by other covered equipment 

within such type (or class); or (B) has a 

capacity or other performance-related feature 

that other equipment within such type (or 

class) does not have and such feature justifies 

a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of equipment, 

DOE must consider such factors as the utility 

to the customer 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)). 

Finally, pursuant to the amendments 

contained in section 310(3) of EISA 2007, any 

final rule for new or amended energy 

conservation standards promulgated after 

July 1, 2010, are required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a 

standard for covered equipment 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 equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test 

procedures and standards for MHLFs address 

standby mode and off mode energy use. 

However, in this rulemaking, DOE only 

addresses active mode energy consumption 

as the equipment included in the scope of 

coverage only consumes energy in active 

mode. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

EISA 2007 prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs 

manufactured on or after January 1, 2009. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) The current standards are 

set forth in Table II.1. EISA 2007 excludes 

from the standards: MHLFs with regulatedlag ballasts, MHLFs with electronic ballasts 

that operate at 480 volts (V); and MHLFs that 

(1) are rated only for 150 watt (W) lamps; (2) 

are rated for use in wet locations; and (3) 

contain a ballast that is rated to operate at 

ambient air temperatures higher than 50 °C. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7752 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

12All the spreadsheets models developed for this 

rulemaking proceeding are available at: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/16. 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR MHLFS * 

Ballast type Operated lamp rated wattage range 

Minimum ballast 

efficiency 

% 

Pulse-start ........................................................................................................ ≥150 and ≤500 W ........................................... 88 

Magnetic Probe-start ........................................................................................ ≥150 and ≤500 W ........................................... 94 

Nonpulse-start Electronic ................................................................................. ≥150 and ≤250 W ........................................... 90 

Nonpulse-start Electronic ................................................................................. ≥250 and ≤500 W ........................................... 92 

* (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)). 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

MHLFs 

DOE is conducting this rulemaking to 

review and consider amendments to the 

energy conservation standards in effect for 

MHLFs, as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(hh)(2) and (4). On December 30, 2009, 

DOE published a notice announcing the 

availability of the framework document, 

‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Framework Document for Metal Halide Lamp 

Fixtures,’’ and a public meeting to discuss 

the proposed analytical framework for the 

rulemaking. 74 FR 69036. DOE also posted 

the framework document on its Web site; this 

document is available at http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/16. The 

framework document described the 

procedural and analytical approaches that 

DOE anticipated using to evaluate energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs, and 

identified various issues to be resolved in 

conducting this rulemaking. 

DOE held a public meeting on January 26, 

2010, during which 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. At the meeting and during the 

period for commenting on the framework 

document, DOE received comments that 

helped identify and resolve issues involved 

in this rulemaking. 

DOE then gathered additional information 

and performed preliminary analyses to help 

develop potential energy conservation 

standards for MHLFs. On April 1, 2011, DOE 

published in the Federal Register an 

announcement (the preliminary analysis 

notice) of the availability of the preliminary 

technical support document (the preliminary 

TSD) and of another public meeting to 

discuss and receive comments on the 

following matters: (1) The equipment classes 

DOE planned to analyze; (2) the analytical 

framework, models, and tools that DOE was 

using to evaluate standards; (3) the results of 

the preliminary analyses performed by DOE; 

and (4) potential standard levels that DOE 

could consider. 76 FR 1812 (April 1, 2011). 

In the preliminary analysis notice, DOE 

requested comment on these issues. The 

preliminary TSD is available at http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/16. 

The preliminary TSD summarized the 

activities DOE undertook in developing 

standards for MHLFs, and discussed the 

comments DOE received in response to the 

framework document. It also described the 

analytical framework that DOE uses in this 

rulemaking, including a description of the 

methodology, the analytical tools, and the 

relationships among the various analyses that 

are part of the rulemaking. The preliminary 

TSD presented and described in detail each 

analysis DOE performed up to that point, 

including descriptions of inputs, sources, 

methodologies, and results. 

The public meeting announced in the 

preliminary analysis notice took place on 

April 18, 2011. At this meeting, DOE 

presented the methodologies and results of 

the analyses set forth in the preliminary TSD. 

Interested parties discussed the following 

major issues at the public meeting: (1) 

Alternative approaches to performance 

requirements and the various related 

efficiency metrics; (2) the possibility of 

including design standards; (3) amendments 

to the test procedures for metal halide (MH) 

ballasts to account for multiple input 

voltages; (4) the cost and feasibility of 

utilizing electronic ballasts in MHLFs; (5) 

equipment class divisions; (6) overall pricing 

methodology; (7) lamp lifetimes; (8) 

cumulative regulatory burden; (9) shipments; 

and (10) the possibility of merging the MHLF 

and the high-intensity discharge (HID) lamp 

rulemakings. 

In August 2013, DOE published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal 

Register proposing new and amended energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs. 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 NOPR 

TSD was accompanied by 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.12 The proposed 

standards were as shown in Table II.2.78 FR 

51463 (August 20, 2013). 

TABLE II.2—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE NOPR 

Designed to be operated with lamps of 

the following rated lamp wattage Indoor/outdoor † Test input voltage †† Minimum standard equation ‡ 

% 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................. Indoor ............................ 480 V ............................. 99.4/(1+2.5×P∧(¥0.55)).‡ 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................. Indoor ............................ All others ....................... 100/(1+2.5×P∧(¥0.55)). 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................. Outdoor .......................... 480 V ............................. 99.4/(1+2.5×P∧(¥0.55)). 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................. Outdoor .......................... All others ....................... 100/(1+2.5×P∧(¥0.55)). 

>100 W and <150 W * ......................... Indoor ............................ 480 V ............................. 99.4/(1+0.36×P∧(¥0.30)). 

>100 W and <150 W * ......................... Indoor ............................ All others ....................... 100/(1+0.36×P∧(¥0.30)). 

>100 W and <150 W * ......................... Outdoor .......................... 480 V ............................. 99.4/(1+0.36×P∧(¥0.30)). 

>100 W and <150 W * ......................... Outdoor .......................... All others ....................... 100/(1+0.36×P∧(¥0.30)). 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ........................ Indoor ............................ 480 V ............................. For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 88.0. 

For >200 W and ≤250 W: 0.06×P + 76.0. 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ........................ Indoor ............................ All others ....................... For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 88.0. 

For >200 W and ≤250 W: 0.07×P + 74.0. 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ........................ Outdoor .......................... 480 V ............................. For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 88.0 

For >200 W and ≤250 W: 0.06×P + 76.0. 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ........................ Outdoor .......................... All others ....................... For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 88.0. 

For >200 W and ≤250 W: 0.07×P + 74.0. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7753 

13As a point of reference, 50 °C is equivalent to 

122 °F. 

14A notation in the form ‘‘EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 14–15, 67–69’’ identifies 

a comment that DOE has received and included in 

the docket of this rulemaking. This particular 

notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by EEI; 

(2) in the transcript of the MHLF NOPR public 

meeting, document number 48 in the docket of this 

rulemaking; and (3) appearing on pages 14–15 and 

67–69 of that transcript. 

TABLE II.2—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE NOPR—Continued 

Designed to be operated with lamps of 

the following rated lamp wattage Indoor/outdoor † Test input voltage †† Minimum standard equation ‡ % 

>250 W and ≤500 W ........................... Indoor ............................ 480 V ............................. 91.0. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ........................... Indoor ............................ All others ....................... 91.5. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ........................... Outdoor .......................... 480 V ............................. 91.0. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ........................... Outdoor .......................... All others ....................... 91.5. 

>500 W and ≤2000 W ......................... Indoor ............................ 480 V ............................. For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.994×(0.0032×P + 

89.9). 

For ≥1000 W to ≤2000 W: 92.5 and may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

>500 W and ≤2000 W ......................... Indoor ............................ All others ....................... For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.0032×P + 89.9. 

For ≥1000 W to ≤2000 W: 93.1 and may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

>500 W and ≤2000 W ......................... Outdoor .......................... 480 V ............................. For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.994×(0.0032×P + 

89.9). 

For ≥1000 W to ≤2000 W: 92.5 and may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

>500 W and ≤2000 W ......................... Outdoor .......................... All others ....................... For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.0032×P + 89.9. 

For ≥1000 W to ≤2000 W: 93.1 and may not utilize a probe-start ballast. 

* Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. **Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

† DOE’s proposed definitions for ‘‘indoor’’ and ‘‘outdoor’’ MHLFs are described in section V.A.2. 

†† Input voltage for testing would be specified by the test procedures. Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W would be tested at 120 

V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps ≥150 W would be tested at 277 V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages would be 

tested at the highest voltage for which the ballast is designed to operate. 

‡P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp that the MHLF is designed to operate. 

In the NOPR DOE invited comment, 

particularly on the following issues: (1) The 

expanded scope of coverage, (2) the proposed 

amendments to the test procedure, (3) 

equipment class divisions, (4) the efficiency 

levels (ELs) analyzed, (5) the method of 

estimating magnetically ballasted system 

input power, (6) the determination to include 

a design standard that would prohibit the 

sale of probe-start ballasts in newly sold 

MHLFs for certain wattages, (7) the derived 

manufacturer selling prices (MSPs), (8) the 

equipment class scaling factor for tested 

input voltage, and (9) the proposed trial 

standard level (TSL 3). 78 FR 51463 (August 

20, 2013). 

DOE held a NOPR public meeting on 

September 27, 2013, to hear oral comments 

on and solicit information relevant to the 

proposed rule (hereafter the NOPR public 

meeting). Interested parties in attendance 

discussed the following major issues: (1) The 

compliance date, (2) amendments to the test 

procedure, (3) scope of the rulemaking, (4) 

equipment class divisions, (5) impacts on the 

magnetic ballast footprint, (6) impacts on 

fixture design, (7) testing and manufacturing 

variation, and (8) impacts of solid-state 

lighting market penetration on MHLF 

shipments. 

DOE considered the comments received in 

response to the NOPR after its publication 

and at the NOPR public meeting when 

developing this final rule, and responds to 

these comments in this notice. 

3. Compliance Date 

EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, contains 

guidelines for the compliance date of the 

standards amended by this rulemaking. 

EPCA requires DOE to determine whether to 

amend the standards in effect for MHLFs and 

whether any amended standards should 

apply to additional MHLFs. The Secretary 

was directed to publish a final rule no later 

than January 1, 2012 to determine whether 

the energy conservation standards 

established by EISA 2007 for MHLFs should 

be amended, with any amendment applicable 

to equipment manufactured after January 1, 

2015. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(B)) As discussed 

in section VI.C, DOE has determined it will 

maintain the three-year interval between the 

publication date of the final rule in the 

Federal Register and the compliance date. 

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This 

Rulemaking 

A. Additional MHLFs for Which DOE Is 

Setting Standards 

The existing energy conservation standards 

for MHLFs are established in EPCA through 

amendments made by EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(hh)(1)(A)) The statute excludes from 

coverage MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts; 

electronic ballasts that operate at 480 V; and 

ballasts that are rated only for (1) use with 

150 W lamps, (2) use in wet locations, and 

(3) operation in ambient air temperatures 

higher than 50 °C.13 DOE considered 

expanding the coverage of its energy 

conservation standards to include these 

exempted MHLF types and additional rated 

lamp wattages. For each previously exempted 

MHLF type and for all expansions of the 

covered wattage range, DOE considered 

potential energy savings, technological 

feasibility, and economic justification when 

determining whether to include them in the 

scope of coverage. 

Some stakeholders expressed confusion at 

the NOPR public meeting, stating that they 

interpreted this rulemaking as establishing 

efficiency standards for all metal halide 

ballasts rather than just ballasts in new metal 

halide lamp fixtures. The Edison Electric 

Institute (EEI) contended that the rule is 

misleading because the title indicates it is a 

rule for metal halide lamp fixtures when it 

actually establishes standards for all metal 

halide ballasts, including replacement 

ballasts. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at pp. 14–15, 67–69) 14 DOE clarifies that 

the scope of this rulemaking affects all new 

MHLFs. Ballasts sold with new fixtures after 

the compliance date must meet or exceed the 

standards promulgated by this rulemaking. 

Any ballasts sold on the replacement market 

do not need to comply with these standards. 

Regarding the additional fixtures that DOE 

proposed including in the scope of coverage, 

the California Energy Commission (CEC) 

generally supported the expanded scope for 

MHLFs DOE proposed in the NOPR. (CEC, 

No. 52 at p. 3) DOE received no other 

comment regarding the general approach to 

expand the scope of coverage and considers 

specific scope comments in the following 

sections. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7754 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1. EISA 2007 Exempted MHLFs 

a. MHLFs With Regulated-Lag Ballasts 

Regulated-lag ballasts are mainly used for 

specialty applications where line voltage 

variation is large. Regulated-lag ballasts are 

designed to withstand significant line voltage 

variation with minimum wattage variation to 

the lamp, which results in an efficiency 

penalty compared to ballasts whose output 

changes more significantly with line voltage 

variation. The power regulation provided by 

regulated-lag ballasts is higher than any other 

magnetic ballast. To be able to withstand 

large variations, regulated-lag ballasts are 

designed to be significantly larger than 

standard ballasts. Through manufacturer 

interviews and market research, DOE 

determined that the size and weight of 

regulated-lag ballasts limit their use as 

substitutes in traditional applications. 

Manufacturers and market research 

confirmed that their exemption did not lead 

to a significant market shift to regulated-lag 

ballasts. Furthermore, DOE’s market research 

found none of this equipment available in 

major manufacturers’ catalogs. The absence 

of regulated-lag ballasts from catalogs 

indicates a very small market share and 

therefore limited potential for significant 

energy savings. Thus, in the NOPR DOE 

proposed continuing to exempt MHLFs with 

regulated-lag ballasts from energy 

conservation standards. 

Universal Lighting Technologies (ULT) and 

the National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) agreed with DOE’s 

proposal to continue exempting regulated-lag 

ballasts from the scope of this rulemaking. 

NEMA further added that this higher cost 

technology is used in limited and specific 

applications, such as heavy industrial, 

security, and street and tunnel lighting, in 

order to avoid lamp failures caused by severe 

voltage dips. (ULT, No. 50 at p. 2; NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 5; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 48 at p. 48) Agreeing with this 

description of a limited, niche market and 

receiving no comments to the contrary, in 

this final rule DOE exempts regulated-lag 

ballasts from energy conservation standards. 

b. MHLFs With 480 V Electronic Ballasts 

In the NOPR, DOE concluded that 480 V 

electronic ballasts have a very small market 

share as they are only manufactured by one 

company and have limited availability from 

distributors. As a result, DOE determined 

that there is limited potential for significant 

energy savings, and in the NOPR proposed 

continuing to exempt MHLFs with 480 V 

electronic ballasts from energy conservation 

standards. 

Philips Lighting (Philips), ULT, and NEMA 

agreed with DOE’s decision to exclude 480 V 

electronic ballasts in the scope of this 

rulemaking. ULT noted that very few 480 V 

electronic ballasts are in the market, while 

Philips commented that 480 V electronic 

ballasts do not exist at any wattage. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 130; 

ULT, No. 50 at p. 2; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 5) 

Having received no comments in 

disagreement, DOE continues to exempt 480 

V electronic ballasts from energy 

conservation standards in this final rule. 

c. Exempted 150 W MHLFs 

After receiving exemption from energy 

conservation standards in EISA 2007, 

shipments of 150 W outdoor MHLFs rated for 

wet and high-temperature locations 

increased. Further, some indoor applications 

use the exempted outdoor MHLFs, negating 

possible energy savings for indoor 150 W 

MHLFs. Therefore, in the NOPR DOE 

concluded that including the currently 

exempt 150 W MHLFs in the scope of 

coverage has the potential for significant 

energy savings. Additionally, as a range of 

ballast efficiencies exists in commercially 

available ballasts, DOE found that improving 

the efficiencies of the ballasts included in 

these fixtures is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Accordingly, in the 

NOPR DOE proposed including 150 W 

MHLFs in wet locations and ambient 

temperatures greater than 50 °C in the scope 

of this rulemaking. 

NEMA, ULT, CEC, and the Southern 

Company disagreed with DOE’s decision to 

include all 150 W ballasts in the scope of this 

rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 5, 12; 

ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–3; CEC, No. 52 at p. 3; 

Southern Company, No. 64 at p. 2; No. 64 at 

p. 2) NEMA commented that while DOE does 

have the authority to include this equipment, 

it must be done in a technologically and 

economically feasible manner. NEMA stated 

that the efficiencies adopted in the final rule 

must be substantially lowered from those 

proposed in the NOPR to be technologically 

feasible. (NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 5, 24) In 

support of this point, ULT and NEMA noted 

that the industry has not yet been able to 

create a 150 W MHLF with a magnetic ballast 

that achieves 88 percent efficiency, which is 

the minimum efficiency requirement 

proposed in the NOPR for previously exempt 

150 W MHLFs. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 108–109; ULT, No. 

50 at pp. 5–6, 23–24; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 13) 

In contrast, in a joint comment the Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company, Southern 

California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and 

Electric, and Southern California Edison 

(hereafter referred to as the California 

investor-owned utilities or the ‘‘CA IOUs’’) 

supported DOE’s proposal to include 

previously exempt 150 W MHLFs in the 

scope of coverage. CA IOUs were unaware of 

any specific attributes that limit 150 W 

ballasts from reaching greater efficiency, and 

believe the lower efficiencies of these ballasts 

are more likely due to their prior exemption 

from standards, as there is significant room 

for improvement. Therefore, CA IOUs 

supported the inclusion of these ballasts. (CA 

IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 1–2) Also, in a joint 

comment the Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project, American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy, National 

Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘Joint Comment’’) supported 

including 150 W MHLFs previously 

exempted by EISA 2007 in the scope of this 

final rule. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at p. 9) 

DOE agrees that commercially available 

magnetic ballasts cannot meet the EISA 2007 

specified 88 percent efficiency. However, the 

150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007 have 

a range of magnetic ballast efficiencies 

available below 88 percent and therefore 

energy conservation standards are 

technologically feasible. These fixtures can 

be considered separately from those 150 W 

fixtures covered by EISA 2007 by separating 

them into different equipment classes and 

DOE therefore finds no reason the previously 

exempt 150 W fixtures should not be covered 

by this rulemaking. Therefore in this final 

rule, DOE has included 150 W fixtures rated 

for use in wet locations and ambient 

temperatures greater than 50 °C in the scope 

of coverage. 

NEMA, ULT, and Southern Company 

commented that the inclusion of 150 W 

ballast efficiency requirements would 

practically prohibit usage of 150 W magnetic 

ballasts, thereby forcing the usage of 

electronic ballasts in new fixtures. (NEMA, 

No. 56 at p. 6; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–3; 

Southern Company, No. 64 at p. 2) ULT and 

Southern Company expressed concerns that 

electronic ballasts for MH lamps are not 

proven in outdoor applications and are 

vulnerable to failures due to moisture, 

temperatures higher than 50 °C, and voltage 

variations and surges caused by lightning and 

other natural events. (ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2– 

3; Southern Company, No. 64 at p. 2) 

DOE considered both more efficient 

magnetic and more efficient electronic 

ballasts as replacements for ballasts in the 

previously exempt 150 W fixtures. DOE has 

determined that, with the proper fixture 

adjustments, electronic ballasts can be used 

in the same applications as magnetic ballasts. 

For detailed discussion of this decision, see 

section V.A. DOE has concluded that the 

standard levels adopted in this final rule are 

economically justified. 

General Electric (GE) commented that 

energy conservation standards for previously 

exempt 150 W MHLFs could actually 

increase rather than decrease national energy 

consumption. GE noted that the purpose of 

the 150 W exemption from EISA 2007 was to 

shift the market from 175 W fixtures to 150 

W fixtures, thereby saving energy. Thus, GE 

disagreed with the way DOE analyzed 150 W 

fixtures and noted that the previously exempt 

fixtures should not be subject to standards 

higher than max tech. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 135–136) 

CA IOUs acknowledged that 150 W ballasts 

can be a low-wattage replacement for 175 W 

applications. Accordingly, CA IOUs 

encouraged increasing efficiency standards 

for both wattage levels equally, so as not to 

inadvertently push customers to the higherwattage alternatives. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 

1–2) CEC agreed, stating that by incentivizing 

150 W fixtures through minimal efficiency 

standards, the market would be driven 

toward purchasing these lower-wattage 

fixtures instead of 175 W or 200 W fixtures. 

(CEC, No. 52 at p. 3) 

The Joint Comment noted that while 

customers may choose to shift between 

different wattage MHLFs, continuing to 

exempt 150 W MHLFs is not the best 

solution. For example, a continued 

exemption might create market distortions 

and hinder the transitions to more efficient 

light-emitting diode (LED) lamps in this 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7755 

15 DOE uses this shorthand to refer to MHLFs 

with ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 

greater than or equal to 50 W and less than 150 W, 

MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate lamps 

rated greater than 500 W and less than or equal to 

2000 W, and MHLFs with ballasts designed to 

operate lamps rated greater than or equal to 150 W 

and less than or equal to 500 W, respectively. 

16U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2010 U.S. 

Lighting Market Characterization. 2010. Available 

at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf. 

wattage category. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at 

p. 9) The Joint Comment also stated that even 

if the inclusion of 150 W fixtures leads to the 

use of more 175 W or 200 W fixtures, it might 

not result in more energy consumption as 

switching to higher-wattage fixtures could 

also reduce the number of fixtures installed. 

In situations where the number of fixtures 

installed is not reduced, additional energy 

use could be offset by increased ballast 

efficiency in this wattage bin. In addition, the 

increased price of the 175 W fixtures 

provides more disincentive to purchase them 

over 150 W fixtures. Finally, the Joint 

Comment argued that if the standards apply 

to all wattage ranges from 50 W to 500 W, 

switching from 150 W to a higher-wattage 

fixture would not be a concern because all 

fixtures would be subject to the same 

standards. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at p. 9) 

DOE notes that the exemption of certain 

150 W fixtures from EISA 2007 resulted in 

a shift from 175 W to the exempted 150 W 

fixtures, which resulted in energy savings. In 

the shipments analysis, DOE considers how 

different standards for 150 W and 175 W 

MHLFs may impact customer choices. For 

example, when the initial first cost for 150 

W fixtures exceeds that of 175 W fixtures, the 

shipments analysis models a shift to 175 W 

MHLFs. Even with some customers shifting 

to higher wattage MHLFs, energy 

conservation standards for 150 W fixtures 

still result in energy savings due to increased 

ballast efficiency. In this final rule, DOE has 

determined that standards for previously 

exempt 150 W MHLFs are technologically 

feasible, economically justified, and would 

result in significant energy savings (see 

section VII.C for details). Therefore, DOE has 

included previously exempt 150 W fixtures 

in the scope of coverage of this rulemaking. 

2. Additional Wattages 

Based on equipment testing and market 

research, DOE found in the NOPR that energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs rated for 

wattages greater than 50 W and less than 150 

W, and MHLFs rated for wattages greater 

than 500 W, are technologically feasible, 

economically justified, and would result in 

significant energy savings. DOE determined 

that MHLFs rated for wattages greater than 

2000 W only served small-market-share 

applications like graphic arts, ultraviolet 

(UV) curing, and scanners. Therefore, in the 

NOPR DOE proposed to include in the scope 

of coverage 50 W–150 W MHLFs and 501 W– 

2000 W MHLFs, in addition to the 150 W– 

500 W MHLFs 15 covered by EISA 2007. 

NEMA and ULT opposed the expansion of 

coverage of this rulemaking to include 50 W– 

150 W MHLFs. They further commented that 

coverage of 50 W–100 W MHLFs would 

require redesign of all magnetic ballasts in 

that range, which would be nearly equivalent 

to banning magnetic ballasts. (NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 6; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE has found MHLFs with a variety of 

ballast efficiencies in the 50 W–150 W range, 

including the 50 W–100 W range specifically 

cited by NEMA and ULT. Therefore, DOE 

believes energy conservation standards for 50 

W–150 W MHLFs are technologically 

feasible. DOE considered both more efficient 

magnetic and more efficient electronic 

ballasts as replacements for ballasts in this 

rulemaking. DOE has determined that, with 

the proper fixture adjustments, electronic 

ballasts can be used in the same applications 

as magnetic ballasts. For detailed discussion 

of this decision, see section V.A. Economic 

impacts of standard levels on individual 

customers, manufacturers, and the nation are 

discussed in section VII.B. DOE has 

concluded that the standard levels adopted 

in this final rule for 50 W–150 W MHLFs are 

economically justified and would result in 

significant energy savings. Therefore, DOE 

has included 50 W–150 W MHLFs in the 

scope of coverage for this final rule. 

DOE received several comments regarding 

the inclusion of MHLFs greater than 500 W 

in the scope of coverage. CA IOUs and 

Earthjustice supported the expansion of the 

scope of coverage to include 50 W–2000 W 

fixtures. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 1–2; 

Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 171) CA IOUs commented that 

because 18 percent of MH ballasts are 

designed to operate lamps greater than 500 

W, there exists an opportunity for significant 

energy savings. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 1– 

2) 

In contrast, NEMA and ULT disagreed with 

the inclusion of MHLFs greater than 500 W, 

noting that coverage of the 501 W–2000 W 

range would require redesign of the 750 W 

fixture family and this would come with 

significant cost increase. (NEMA, No. 56 at 

pp. 6–7; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE believes that standards for 500 W– 

1000 W MHLFs are technologically feasible 

because MHLFs in this wattage range contain 

ballasts that exhibit a range of efficiencies, 

indicating it is possible for a standard to 

improve the efficiency of ballasts already on 

the market. Specifically, DOE has found 750 

W MHLFs with ballasts at multiple 

efficiencies that span both EL1 and EL2. 

Furthermore, DOE has analyzed MHLFs in 

this wattage range and concluded that 

standards for these MHLFs are economically 

justified and result in significant energy 

savings (see section VII.B of this notice for 

more details). Therefore, DOE includes 500 

W–1000 W MHLFs in the scope of coverage 

for this rulemaking. 

NEMA, GE, ULT, Musco Sports Lighting, 

LLC (Musco Lighting), Venture Lighting 

International, Inc. (Venture), and OSRAM 

SYLVANIA Inc. (OSI) all asserted that 

fixtures greater than 1000 W should not be 

covered by this rulemaking, as they are only 

operated in ‘‘specialty lighting’’ applications. 

They stated that the lamps’ limited 

applications and low hours of operation do 

not result in appreciable savings 

opportunities, provide little energy gains at a 

significant cost, and pose an unjustified 

burden on manufacturers. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 114; NEMA, 

No. 56 at pp. 6–7; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 115, 172; ULT, No. 

50 at pp. 2–3; Musco Lighting, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 118, 180; 

Musco Lighting, No. 55 at pp. 3–4; Venture, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 170; 

OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

172) Further, NEMA cited the 2010 U.S. 

Lighting Market Characterization (2010 

LMC),16 as evidence that stadium and sports 

lighting, the most common application for 

fixtures greater than 1000 W, is a niche 

market, unsuitable for energy savings 

exploration. Specifically, NEMA noted that 

in the 2010 LMC, the 839,000 MH lamps in 

stadium applications represent 2.8 percent of 

outdoor MH lamps (0.4 percent of all outdoor 

lamps) and only 1.2 percent of all installed 

MH lamps (see Table 4.1 in the 2010 LMC). 

For MH lamps in stadium applications, the 

average wattage is 1554 W (see Table 4.28 in 

the 2010 LMC) with an average usage of just 

1 hour per day (see Table 4.29 in the 2010 

LMC). NEMA agreed with the 2010 LMC that 

this is a reasonable average usage profile for 

MH lamps greater than 1000 W. In contrast, 

typical outdoor MH lamps average 12.1 hours 

per day ranging from 8.8 hours on building 

exteriors to 15 hours in parking areas. 

(NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 6–7) 

Musco Lighting pointed out that DOE’s 

decision to not directly analyze 480 V 

magnetic ballasts due to low shipment 

volume supported their assertion that 1500 

W fixtures should be exempt from energy 

conservation standards. Musco Lighting 

specified that as more than 50 percent of 

their shipments of 1500 W MHLFs contained 

a 480 V ballast, both MHLF types should be 

exempt. (Musco Lighting, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 129) 

DOE determined that sports lighting, 

which is the predominant application for 

lamps above 1000 W, fits the definition of 

general lighting and is therefore included in 

the scope of this rulemaking (see the 

following section III.A.3 for additional 

discussion). Although these higher wattage 

MHLFs do not comprise a large percentage of 

the market, their high wattage could 

potentially result in significant energy 

savings. DOE notes that MHLFs greater than 

1000 W exist in a variety of efficiencies and 

therefore standards for these MHLFs are 

technologically feasible. DOE acknowledges, 

however, that MHLFs greater than 1000 W 

have a different cost-efficiency relationship 

than 501 W to 1000 W MHLFs. Therefore, in 

this final rule, DOE created a separate 

equipment class to analyze these MHLFs. See 

section V.A.2 for additional detail. After 

considering the economic impacts of 

standards for MHLFs greater than 1000 W on 

individual customers, manufacturers, and the 

nation, DOE has concluded that standards for 

these MHLFs are not economically justified. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE has not 

included MHLFs greater than 1000 W in the 

scope of coverage and has not adopted energy 

conservation standards for these MHLFs. See 

section VII for a discussion of the economic 

impacts. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7756 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

17The general lighting application definition 

prescribed by EISA 2007 was previously 

incorporated into the consumer products section 

(10 CFR Part 430), but has not yet been added to 

the commercial and industrial equipment section 

(10 CFR Part 431). 

3. General Lighting 

EISA 2007 defines the scope of this 

rulemaking as applying to MHLFs used in 

general lighting applications. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(64)) In section 2 of 10 CFR Part 430, 

Subpart A, a general lighting application is 

defined as lighting that provides an interior 

or exterior area with overall illumination. In 

the NOPR, DOE proposed to add this 

definition to 10 CFR Part 431.2,17 the section 

of the CFR that relates to commercial and 

industrial equipment, such as MHLFs. DOE’s 

research indicated that there are a number of 

applications, such as outdoor sports lighting 

and airfield lighting, which commonly use 

MH ballasts of 1000 W to 2000 W and 

provide general illumination to an exterior 

area. In the NOPR, DOE proposed that such 

applications are general lighting applications 

and are covered by this rulemaking. 

ULT, NEMA, GE, Musco Lighting stated 

that all MHLFs above 1000 W have limited 

operating hours and are for specialty 

applications, not general lighting. (ULT, No. 

50 at pp. 2–3; NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 6–7; GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 115; 

Musco Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 48 at p. 118) Earthjustice commented that 

the definition of ‘‘general lighting’’ refers to 

overall illumination of an interior or exterior 

area, not to the hours of use of an 

application. Therefore, Earthjustice stated 

that these higher-wattage lamps that serve 

applications such as sports lighting, parks, 

and airfields that provide overall 

illumination to exterior areas should not be 

considered niche equipment. (Earthjustice, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 171, 

174) 

DOE agrees that the higher wattages fall 

under the CFR definition of general lighting. 

As mentioned previously, DOE also 

acknowledges that these lamps have limited 

operating hours and used these hours of use 

to calculate their energy savings potential. 

However, DOE does not believe that low 

operating hours impacts whether high 

wattage MHLFs are used in general lighting 

applications. DOE has determined that sports 

lighting is a general lighting application 

because it is ‘‘lighting that provides an 

interior or exterior area with overall 

illumination.’’ In this final rule, DOE adopts 

this definition for general lighting 

application in 10 CFR 431.2. 

4. High-Frequency Electronic Ballasts 

Electronic ballasts can be separated into 

two main types, low-frequency electronic 

(LFE) and high-frequency electronic (HFE). 

HFE ballasts are electronic ballasts with 

frequencies greater than or equal to 1000 

hertz (Hz). DOE received comment that HFE 

ballasts should not be included in the scope 

of coverage based on compatibility issues and 

the lack of test procedure (DOE’s proposed 

test procedure is discussed in section IV.A). 

Venture and NEMA commented that there 

are no ANSI standards for the HFE ballasts 

that may be required to meet the analyzed 

standard levels, and therefore there will be 

limited MH lamps for use with these ballasts 

for a substantial period of time. (Venture, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 29; 

NEMA, No. 56 at p. 9) NEMA elaborated that 

many MH lamps are not compatible with 

existing HFE ballasts because of variation in 

arc tube size and shape. Due to this variation, 

HFE acoustic resonances can cause arc 

instability or even lamp failure. (NEMA, No. 

44 at p. 6) NEMA specifically noted that 

high-frequency electronic ballasts are 

incompatible with the most efficacious lamps 

(ceramic metal halide). A standard that 

requires high frequency electronic ballasts 

could reduce overall energy savings because 

these ballasts are not compatible with the 

most efficacious MH lamps. (NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 9) Furthermore, a standard that 

eliminates ballasts capable of operating 

ceramic metal halide lamps would be a 

violation of EPCA section 325(o)(4) which 

prohibits DOE from adopting a standard that 

interested parties have demonstrated results 

in the elimination of product features from 

the market. (NEMA, No. 44 at pp. 6–7) NEMA 

stated that industry standards for high 

frequency ballasts and lamps have only just 

begun to be developed and without these 

standards there will continue to be limited 

compatibility between high frequency 

ballasts and lamps (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 7). 

Even when acceptable frequency ranges are 

found, NEMA commented that HFE ballasts 

can also cause electrode back arcing, leading 

to shortened lamp life. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 

6) 

As in the NOPR, DOE recognizes there are 

compatibility issues associated with HFE 

ballasts and some MH lamps, in particular 

ceramic metal halide (CMH) lamps. A 

standard that requires HFE ballasts could 

result in a full or partial elimination of CMH 

lamps from the market due to these 

compatibility issues. The elimination of CMH 

lamps could increase energy usage, as CMH 

lamps are some of the most efficacious MH 

lamps on the market. In the NOPR, DOE 

indicated it would take compatibility issues 

with HFE ballasts into account when 

selecting the eventual adopted standard of 

today’s final rule. However, as detailed in 

section IV.A of this notice, DOE has not 

adopted a test procedure for HFE ballast, 

based on the lack of an industry consensus 

test method for this ballast type. DOE has 

found that in the absence of an applicable 

test method for these lamps, HFE ballasts 

cannot be subject to energy conservation 

standards. Therefore, DOE has not included 

HFE ballasts in the scope of coverage of this 

rulemaking. 

5. Outdoor Fixtures 

In the NOPR, DOE included both indoor 

and outdoor MHLFs in the scope of coverage 

because DOE determined that standards for 

both types of fixtures were technologically 

feasible, economically justified, and would 

result in significant energy savings. Because 

DOE concluded that indoor and outdoor 

fixtures had different cost-efficiency 

relationships, DOE analyzed them in separate 

equipment classes. 

The American Public Power Association 

(APPA) noted that separating the outdoor and 

indoor lamps or exempting outdoor lamps is 

necessary because the usage patterns of 

outdoor lamps differ immensely from indoor. 

As the circumstances are different when 

considering both classes, APPA furthered, it 

is difficult to understand the effects of 

proposed efficiency standards on each group. 

APPA also noted that it may make sense to 

exempt outdoor fixtures from energy 

conservation standards because the 

electronic ballasts will have difficulty in 

extreme weather conditions. APPA, No. 51 at 

p. 4; APPA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 103) 

As mentioned previously, in the NOPR 

DOE determined that standards for both 

types of fixtures were technologically 

feasible, economically justified, and would 

result in significant energy savings. This 

conclusion is reaffirmed by the analysis in 

the final rule and DOE therefore includes 

both indoor and outdoor fixtures in the scope 

of coverage for this rulemaking. DOE agrees 

with analyzing outdoor and indoor fixtures 

separately by placing indoor and outdoor 

MHLFs into separate equipment classes. 

While the efficiencies achievable by indoor 

and outdoor fixtures are the same, the 

different costs affect the resultant costefficiency curves. See section V.A.2 of this 

notice for details on the equipment classes. 

6. Hazardous Locations 

Although DOE did not consider exempting 

fixtures designed for use in hazardous 

locations in the NOPR, NEMA commented 

that these fixtures need to be exempt from 

energy conservation standards. As these 

fixtures are used in potentially explosive 

atmospheres and listed to Underwriters 

Laboratories Inc. standard (UL) 844, any 

change in ballast size would require the 

fixture to be redesigned and re-tested, 

creating a tremendous burden on 

manufacturers. This is because the redesign, 

retesting, and relisting of these MHLFs would 

take significantly longer than three years, and 

leave this equipment type unavailable for an 

extended period of time. This would result 

in serious safety concerns until these fixture 

types were available again. NEMA also finds 

it would be very difficult for manufacturers 

to recoup the investment in standardsinduced efficiency improvement for these 

types of MHLFs due to their limited market. 

Therefore, NEMA suggested that hazardous 

location fixtures should be granted an 

exemption from the rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 14) 

As discussed in section V.C.8, the standard 

levels analyzed in this rulemaking do not 

require an increase in ballast size. Therefore, 

DOE does not believe hazardous location 

fixtures would need to be modified due to a 

change in ballast size. DOE notes that the 

vast majority of hazardous location fixtures 

are specified for use with magnetic ballasts. 

Therefore, DOE investigated existing fixtures, 

and the requirements of UL 844, to determine 

whether higher standards for ballasts, 

specifically those that require electronic 

ballast technology, would cause existing 

hazardous location fixtures to be redesigned 

and/or retested. After reviewing the UL 844 

requirements, DOE found no constraints that 

would specifically or effectively preclude the 

use of electronic ballasts. Instead, UL 844 

contains explosion protection requirements 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7757 

18While not comprehensive, DOE identified 

hazardous location fixtures certified for use with 

magnetic ballasts that operate lamps with rated 

wattages between 150 W and 750 W. 

for a luminaire, including requirements that 

no part of the fixture reach the thermal 

ignition temperature of a particulate or gas in 

the environment. DOE’s survey of existing 

hazardous location fixtures found that these 

fixtures are commonly rated for use with a 

type of MH ballast and specific wattage. For 

example, a hazardous location fixture may be 

rated for use with a magnetic MH ballast of 

a given wattage (e.g., a 750 W magnetic MH 

ballast). Most hazardous location fixtures that 

are currently available are certified for use 

with magnetic ballasts, with offerings at a 

variety of wattages.18 DOE only identified 

one hazardous location fixture that was rated 

for use with electronic ballasts (in this case, 

a 150 W electronic ballast). DOE was unable 

to confirm that hazardous location fixtures 

compatible with electronic ballasts were 

available at the same wattages as hazardous 

location fixtures compatible with magnetic 

ballasts that are currently offered on the 

market. However, as discussed in section 

VII.C, DOE is not adopting standards that are 

expected to require the use of electronic 

ballast technology. Therefore, DOE does not 

believe the adopted standards in this 

rulemaking will require hazardous location 

fixtures to be redesigned and retested and 

does not exempt them from the standards 

adopted in this final rule. 

7. Summary of MHLFs for Which DOE Is 

Setting Standards 

EISA 2007 established energy conservation 

standards for MHLFs with ballasts designed 

to operate lamps with rated wattages between 

150 W and 500 W. As previously discussed, 

EISA 2007 also exempted three types of 

fixtures within the covered wattage range 

from energy conservation standards. In this 

final rule, DOE extends coverage to MHLFs 

with ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 

50 W–150 W and 501 W–1000 W. DOE also 

includes one type of previously exempt 

fixture in the scope of coverage: 150 W 

MHLFs rated for use in wet locations and 

containing a ballast that is rated to operate 

at ambient air temperatures greater than 50 

°C. DOE continues to exempt regulated-lag 

ballasts and 480 V electronic ballasts. For all 

ballasts included in the scope of coverage, 

DOE has determined that energy 

conservation standards are technologically 

feasible, economically justified, and would 

result in significant energy savings. As such, 

DOE adopts standards for these MHLFs in 

this final rule. 

B. Alternative Approaches to Energy 

Conservation Standards: System Approaches 

As discussed in the NOPR, DOE 

considered several alternatives to 

establishing energy conservation standards 

for MHLFs by regulating the efficiency of the 

ballast contained within the fixture. 

Specifically, DOE considered a lamp-andballast system metric, fixture-level metrics, 

and the compliance paths specified in 

California’s Title 20 regulations (which are 

now preempted by federal energy 

conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.326, 74 

FR 12058; March 23, 2009). DOE concluded 

that, after considering all of these alternate 

approaches, maintaining the EISA 2007 

approach of regulating MHLFs by specifying 

a minimum ballast efficiency was the most 

widely accepted, least burdensome approach 

that would ensure energy conservation 

standards resulted in energy savings. 

Therefore, in the NOPR DOE proposed 

standards for MHLFs by requiring that 

MHLFs contain ballasts that comply with 

minimum specified efficiencies. NEMA 

agreed, citing the increased testing burden 

associated with testing every combination of 

lamp and ballast sold in a fixture, and 

recognizing that the majority of MHLFs are 

not shipped with a lamp. (NEMA, No. 56 at 

p. 8) Receiving no comment to the contrary, 

DOE maintains this approach in this final 

rule. 

C. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy 

Consumption 

EPCA requires energy conservation 

standards adopted for covered equipment 

after July 1, 2010 to address standby mode 

and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)) The requirement to incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use into 

the energy conservation standards analysis is 

therefore applicable in this rulemaking. 

DOE determined that it is not possible for 

MHLFs to meet off mode criteria because 

there is no condition in which the 

components of an MHLF are connected to the 

main power source and are not already in a 

mode accounted for in either active or 

standby mode. DOE recognizes that MHLFs 

could be designed with auxiliary control 

devices that could consume energy in 

standby mode. However, DOE has yet to 

encounter such a control device design, or 

other type of MHLF that uses energy in 

standby mode, on the market. Therefore, in 

the NOPR DOE concluded that it cannot 

establish a standard that incorporates 

standby mode or off mode energy 

consumption. Receiving no comment to the 

contrary, DOE maintains this conclusion in 

the final rule and does not include standby 

mode or off mode energy consumption in the 

standards adopted in this final rule. 

IV. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

1. Current Test Procedures 

The current test procedures for MH ballasts 

and MHLFs are outlined in Subpart S of 10 

CFR Part 431. The test conditions, setup, and 

methodology generally follow the guidance 

of ANSI C82.6–2005. Testing requires the use 

of a reference lamp, which is to be driven by 

the ballast under test conditions until the 

ballast reaches operational stability. Ballast 

efficiency for the fixture is then calculated as 

the measured ballast output power divided 

by the ballast input power. In the NOPR, 

DOE considered changes to the test 

procedure regarding input voltage, the testing 

of HFE ballasts, and rounding requirements. 

2. Test Input Voltage 

MH ballasts can be operated at a variety of 

voltages. The most common voltages are 120 

V, 208 V, 240 V, 277 V, and 480 V. Ballasts 

will also commonly be rated for more than 

one voltage, such as dual-input-voltage 

ballasts that can be operated at 120 V or 277 

V, or quad-input-voltage ballasts that can be 

operated at 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, or 277 V. 

Through manufacturer feedback and testing, 

DOE found that the specific design of a 

ballast and the voltage of the lamp operated 

by the ballast can affect the trend between 

input voltage and efficiency. 

The existing test procedures do not specify 

the voltage at which a ballast is to be tested, 

and the majority of ballasts sold are capable 

of operating at multiple input voltages. 

Therefore, to ensure consistency among 

testing and reported efficiencies, DOE 

considered methods of standardizing this 

aspect of testing in the NOPR. 

a. Average of Tested Efficiency at All 

Possible Voltages 

One method analyzed in the NOPR was 

testing ballasts at each input voltage at which 

they are able to operate, and then having a 

standard for the average of these efficiencies. 

As averaging the efficiencies could 

misrepresent the performance of the ballast 

in its common uses and could increase the 

testing burden, in the NOPR, DOE did not 

propose this method. Having received no 

comments to the contrary, DOE continues to 

reject using the average of tested efficiency at 

all possible voltages in this final rule. 

b. Posting the Highest and Lowest 

Efficiencies 

A second approach considered in the 

NOPR was requiring testing at each input 

voltage and listing the best and worst 

efficiencies on the MHLF label. DOE found 

that, similar to averaging efficiencies, this 

approach would increase the compliance 

testing burden for manufacturers compared 

to a requirement to test ballasts only at a 

single voltage. Therefore, DOE did not 

propose this method. Having received no 

comments to the contrary, DOE continues to 

reject the posting of the highest and lowest 

efficiencies on an MHLF label in this final 

rule. 

c. Test at Single Manufacturer-Declared 

Voltage 

A third approach considered in the NOPR 

was that the test procedures should allow 

testing at a single voltage determined by the 

manufacturer and declared in the test report. 

DOE concluded that this approach would not 

be favorable as the efficiency at the 

manufacturer-declared voltage and the 

efficiency at the more commonly used 

voltages may not be the same, and as such 

could potentially reduce the energy savings 

of this rulemaking. Thus, DOE did not 

propose to test ballast efficiency at a single 

manufacturer-declared voltage. 

GE agreed that a multi-tap ballast should 

be tested at just one input voltage. Rather 

than testing at the designated highest voltage, 

GE stated that it should be up to the 

manufacturer to choose the voltage at which 

the ballast was optimally designed for 

purposes of reporting efficiencies. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 83) 

DOE agrees with testing multi-tap ballasts 

at a single voltage. DOE’s position against 

allowing manufacturers to declare their 

testing input voltage stems from concerns 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7758 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

that manufacturers could optimize efficiency 

at a voltage that is most convenient or least 

expensive, rather than the voltage most 

commonly used by customers. If optimal 

efficiency is achieved at a less commonly 

used voltage, the reported ballast efficiency 

would not be representative of the ballast 

efficiency in the ballast’s more common 

applications. If the efficiency at the tested 

voltage and at the most commonly used 

voltage are not directly correlated, energy 

savings could potentially be reduced. For 

these reasons, DOE rejects the proposal to 

allow manufacturers to select the voltage at 

which ballasts are tested in this final rule. 

d. Test at Highest Rated Voltage 

Another input voltage specification that 

DOE considered was testing the ballast at the 

highest voltage possible. However, DOE 

concluded that a ballast’s highest rated 

voltage is not always its most common input 

voltage, and therefore testing and enforcing 

standards at the highest voltage could reduce 

the potential energy savings of this 

rulemaking. Accordingly, in the NOPR DOE 

did not propose to test ballast efficiency at 

the highest rated voltage. Having received no 

comments to the contrary, DOE continues to 

reject testing at the highest rated voltage in 

this final rule. 

e. Test on Input Voltage Based on Wattage 

and Available Voltages 

The final approach analyzed was testing 

the most common input voltages for each 

wattage range. This meant, when possible, 

ballasts less than 150 W are tested at 120 V, 

ballasts greater than or equal to 150 W are 

tested at 277 V, and if those specified 

voltages are unavailable, the ballast is tested 

at the highest available voltage. DOE 

concluded that because this proposal only 

requires testing at one input voltage, it 

minimizes testing burden. In addition, 

because the input voltage specification 

matches the most commonly used voltage, 

the requirement encourages optimization of 

efficiency around an input voltage commonly 

used in practice. 

NEMA and ULT agreed with DOE’s NOPR 

proposals regarding the input voltage for 

testing. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 8; ULT, No. 50 

at p. 4) Having received no comments to the 

contrary, in this final rule, DOE amends the 

test procedure to require that ballasts be 

tested at the following input voltages: 

• For ballasts less than 150 W with an 

available voltage of 120 V, ballasts will be 

tested at 120 V. 

• For ballasts less than 150 W that lack 120 

V as an available voltage, ballasts will be 

tested at the highest available input voltage. 

• For ballasts operated at 150 W–2000 W 

that also have 277 V as an available input 

voltage, ballasts will be tested at 277 V. 

• For ballasts operated at 150 W–2000 W 

that lack 277 V as an available input voltage, 

ballasts will be tested at the highest available 

input voltage. 

3. Testing High-frequency Electronic Ballasts 

MHLF test procedures reference the 2005 

version of ANSI C82.6 for testing both 

electronic and magnetic MH ballasts. 

However, ANSI C82.6–2005 does not provide 

a method for testing HFE ballasts. In the 

NOPR, DOE found that the instrumentation 

commonly used for HFE MH ballast testing 

is the same instrumentation used for 

electronic fluorescent lamp ballast testing. 

Therefore, DOE proposed the same 

instrumentation used in electronic 

fluorescent lamp ballast testing be used for 

testing HFE MH ballasts. These proposed 

requirements specified that once the output 

frequency of a MH ballast is determined to 

be greater than or equal to 1000 Hz (the 

frequency at which DOE defines HFE 

ballasts) the test procedure instrumentation 

would be required to include a power 

analyzer that conforms to ANSI C82.6–2005 

with a maximum of 100 picofarads (pF) 

capacitance to ground and a frequency 

response between 40 Hz and 1 MHz. The test 

procedures would also require a current 

probe compliant with ANSI C82.6–2005 that 

is galvanically isolated and has a frequency 

response between 40 Hz and 20 MHz, and 

lamp current measurement where the full 

transducer ratio is set in the power analyzer 

to match the current to the analyzer. The full 

transducer ratio would be required to satisfy 

the following equation: 

Where: 

Iin is current through the current transducer; 

Vout is the voltage out of the transducer; 

Rin is the power analyzer impedance; and 

Rs is the current probe output impedance. 

DOE received comment on the lack of 

compatibility standards between HFE 

ballasts and MH lamps. NEMA 

commented that no work has begun on 

the ANSI C82.6 test procedure standard 

for HFE ballasts. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 7) 

Philips noted that as HFE ballasts do not 

have testing standards, measurement 

errors and testing differences could lead 

to false efficiency values. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

70) Similarly, NEMA stated that lack of 

industry testing standard meant 

efficiencies are computed using internal 

test procedures. Therefore, using catalog 

data gathered from more than one 

manufacturer combines different test 

procedures. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 31; NEMA, No. 

44 at p. 8) NEMA also noted that labs 

cannot be accredited by the National 

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 

Program (NVLAP) to submit HFE ballast 

testing to DOE without a test procedure 

to accredit to. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 9) 

Further, NEMA noted that it is difficult 

to precisely measure the power of these 

HFE ballasts at frequencies over 100 

kHz, which experience a 2–5 percent 

measurement uncertainty. With a tenth 

of a percentage precision on ballast 

efficiency, it will be very difficult to 

attain these levels of measurement. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 30; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 8) 

DOE agrees that there are no industry 

test procedures for HFE ballasts. While 

the addition of instrumentation 

requirements addresses some concerns, 

specifications for lamps to be paired 

with the ballast during testing and a 

complete test method specific to HFE 

ballasts (an equivalent document to 

ANSI C82.6—which covers magnetic 

ballasts and LFE ballasts, but not HFE 

ballasts) are not currently available. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not 

adopting any changes to the test 

procedure for HFE ballasts. As 

discussed in section III.A.4 of this 

notice, DOE is not considering 

standards for HFE ballasts because a test 

procedure for HFE ballasts does not 

exist. 

4. Rounding Requirements 

Through testing, DOE found that 

testing multiple samples of the same 

ballast yielded a range of ballast 

efficiencies typically differing by less 

than one percent. Because this data 

introduces both test measurement and 

sample to sample variation, the test 

measurement itself should be at least 

this accurate. Therefore, DOE came to 

the conclusion that test procedures can 

resolve differences of less than one 

percent and rounding to the tenths of a 

percent would be reasonable. In the 

NOPR, DOE proposed amending the MH 

ballast test procedure for measuring and 

recording input wattage and output 

wattage to require rounding to the 

nearest tenth of a watt, and the resulting 

calculation of efficiency to the nearest 

tenth of a percent. 

ULT, EEI, and NEMA commented that 

most test equipment for MHLFs is not 

calibrated to the proposed level of 

precision. ANSI standards require 

wattmeters to have 0.5 percent accuracy. 

(ULT, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 

at p. 82; EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 48 at p. 85; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 13). 

Further, NEMA noted that white paper 

NEMA LSD–63–2012 on variability 

estimated the tolerance for a sample of 

four magnetic ballasts to be 4.7 percent 

when 99 percent confidence factor is 

required. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 8) On the 

contrary, CA IOUs commented that 

efficiency measurement equipment 

accurate to plus or minus 0.5 percent is 

already capable of measuring efficiency 

to the nearest watt for lamps of 100 W 

and above, and the nearest tenth of a 

watt for lamps below 100 W. CA IOUs 

argued this supports tenths place 

rounding of an efficiency figure and 

setting of standards to the tenth of a 

percent. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 2–3). 

Finally, EEI commented that if the 

difference between EL1 and EL2 is 0.6 

percent, and there is a testing tolerance 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2ER10FE14.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7759 

19The American Iron and Steel Institute type 

numbers and AK Steel designations for electrical 

steel grades consist of the letter M followed by a 

number. The M stands for magnetic material; the 

number is representative of the core loss of that 

grade. 

20 In the past DOE presented energy savings 

results for only the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance. In the calculation of economic 

impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost 

savings measured over the entire lifetime of 

equipment purchased in the 30-year period. DOE 

has chosen to modify its presentation of national 

energy savings to be consistent with the approach 

used for its national economic analysis. 

of plus or minus 1 percent, there could 

be a classing issue. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 159). 

DOE reviewed ANSI C82.6–2005 and 

found that the instrumentation 

requirements stipulate that watts be 

measured with 3.5 digits of resolution, 

with basic accuracy of 0.5 percent. For 

an efficiency calculation that involves 

output power divided by input power, 

3.5 digits of resolution allows for 

rounding efficiency to three significant 

figures (e.g., 0.895 or 89.5 percent) using 

only three digits. DOE also notes that 

some manufacturers have submitted 

compliance data to DOE’s certification, 

compliance, and enforcement (CCE) 

database rounded to three significant 

figures and, in response to the NOPR, 

manufacturers had responded to certain 

issues using efficiency data rounded to 

three significant figures. Both of these 

suggest that manufacturers already have 

the capability to accomplish these 

measurements. DOE also considered 

LSD–63, as suggested by NEMA, but 

found that it details the population 

distribution from all sources of variation 

and did not find that it provides any 

information regarding the ability to 

measure the efficiency of an individual 

ballast to three significant figures. For 

these reasons, this final rule amends the 

test procedure to require measuring and 

calculating ballast efficiency to three 

significant figures. DOE also adopts 

energy conservation standards that are 

specified to three significant figures. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each standards rulemaking, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the 

efficiency of the equipment that is the 

subject of the rulemaking. As the first 

step in such an analysis, DOE develops 

a list of technology options for 

consideration in consultation with 

manufacturers, design engineers, and 

other interested parties. DOE then 

determines which of those means for 

improving efficiency are technologically 

feasible. DOE considers technologies 

incorporated in commercially available 

equipment or in working prototypes to 

be technologically feasible. 10 CFR 430, 

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

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on equipment utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. Section V.B of this 

notice discusses the results of the 

screening analysis for MHLFs, 

particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the TSLs in 

this rulemaking. 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 adopts a new or amended 

standard for a type or class of covered 

equipment, it must determine the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency or maximum reduction in 

energy use that is technologically 

feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for MHLFs, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

equipment available on the market or in 

working prototypes. For MHLFs from 

50–500 W, the max-tech fixtures use 

high-grade electronic ballasts. For 

MHLFs from 501–2000 W, the max-tech 

fixtures use magnetic ballasts that 

incorporate high-grade, grain-oriented 

steel (M6 19). (See chapter 5 of the final 

rule TSD for additional detail.) The 

max-tech levels that DOE determined 

for this rulemaking are listed in Table 

IV.1. 

TABLE IV.1—MAX-TECH LEVELS

Equipment class wattage range Efficiency level * Efficiency-level equation † 

% 

≥50 and ≤100 ............................................................ EL4 .......................................................... 1/(1+0.360×P∧(¥0.297)) 

>100 and <150 * ........................................................ EL4 .......................................................... 1/(1+0.360×P∧(¥0.297)) 

≥150 ** and ≤250 ....................................................... EL4 .......................................................... 1/(1+0.360×P∧(¥0.297)) 

>250 and ≤500 .......................................................... EL4 .......................................................... 1/(1+0.360×P∧(¥0.297)) 

>500 and ≤1000 ........................................................ EL2 .......................................................... For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910 

For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 0.000104×P+0.832 

>1000 and ≤2000 ...................................................... EL2 .......................................................... 0.936 

* Includes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

** Excludes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007. 

† P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp that the fixture is designed to operate. 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings from the products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of compliance with new and 

amended standards (2017–2046). The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of equipment purchased in the 

30-year period.20 DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption in the 

absence of new or amended mandatory 

efficiency standards, and considers 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7760 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

21 ‘‘Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-FuelCycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE 

Building ApplianceEnergy-Efficiency Standards,’’ 

(Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and 

included five recommendations. A copy of the 

study can be downloaded at: www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=12670. 

22 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that 

considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year 

period. 

market forces and policies that affect 

demand for more efficient equipment. 

For example, in the base case, DOE 

models a migration from covered metal 

halide lamp fixtures to higher efficiency 

technologies such as high-intensity 

fluorescent (HIF), induction lights, and 

LEDs. DOE also models a move to other 

HID fixtures such as high-pressure 

sodium, based on data given by 

manufacturers during the 2010 

Framework public meeting. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 8 at p. 

91) 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model 

to estimate energy savings from new and 

amended standards for the metal halide 

lamp fixtures that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model 

(described in section V.G of this notice) 

calculates energy savings in site energy, 

which is the energy directly consumed 

by products at the locations where they 

are used. For electricity, DOE reports 

national energy savings in terms of the 

savings in the energy that is used to 

generate and transmit the site 

electricity. To calculate this quantity, 

DOE derives annual conversion factors 

from the model used to prepare the 

Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2013 

(AEO2013). 

DOE has begun to also estimate fullfuel-cycle energy savings. 76 FR 51282 

(August 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 

49701 (August 17, 2012). The full-fuelcycle (FFC) metric includes the energy 

consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels, and thus 

presents a more complete picture of the 

impacts of energy efficiency standards. 

DOE’s evaluation of FFC savings is 

driven in part by the National Academy 

of Science’s (NAS) report on FFC 

measurement approaches for DOE’s 

Appliance Standards Program.21 The 

NAS report discusses that FFC was 

primarily intended for energy efficiency 

standards rulemakings where multiple 

fuels may be used by a particular 

product. In the case of this rulemaking 

pertaining to metal halide lamp fixtures, 

only a single fuel—electricity—is 

consumed by the equipment. DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered equipment. 

Although the addition of FFC energy 

savings in the rulemakings is consistent 

with the recommendations, the 

methodology for estimating FFC does 

not project how fuel markets would 

respond to this particular standards 

rulemaking. The FFC methodology 

simply estimates how much additional 

energy, and in turn how many tons of 

emissions, may be displaced if the 

estimated fuel were not consumed by 

the equipment covered in this 

rulemaking. It is also important to note 

that inclusion of FFC savings does not 

affect DOE’s choice of adopted 

standards. 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from 

adopting a standard for covered 

equipment unless such standard would 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

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

Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense 

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

1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), indicated that 

Congress intended ‘‘significant’’ energy 

savings in this context to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy 

savings for all of the TSLs considered in 

this rulemaking (presented in section 

VII.B.3.a) are nontrivial, and, therefore, 

DOE considers them ‘‘significant’’ 

within the meaning of section 325 of 

EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

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 has addressed each of 

those seven factors in this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Customers 

In determining the impacts of an 

amended standard on manufacturers, 

DOE first uses an annual cash-flow 

approach to determine the quantitative 

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

capital requirements during the period 

between when a regulation is issued and 

when entities must comply with the 

regulation—and a long-term assessment 

over a 30-year period.22 The industrywide impacts analyzed include INPV, 

which values the industry on the basis 

of expected future cash flows; cash 

flows by year; changes in revenue and 

income; and other measures of impact, 

as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes 

and reports the impacts on different 

types of manufacturers, including 

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. Finally, DOE takes into 

account cumulative impacts of various 

DOE regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual customers, measures of 

economic impact include the changes in 

LCC and payback period (PBP) 

associated with new or amended 

standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For customers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the economic impacts 

applicable to a particular rulemaking. 

DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of 

potential standards on identifiable 

subgroups of customers that may be 

affected disproportionately by a national 

standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

equipment compared to any increase in 

the price of the covered equipment that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this 

comparison in its LCC and PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of equipment (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the equipment. To 

account for uncertainty and variability 

in specific inputs, such as equipment 

lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 

distribution of values, with probabilities 

attached to each value. For its analysis, 

DOE assumes that consumers will 

purchase the covered products in the 

first year of compliance with amended 

standards. 

The LCC savings and the PBP for the 

considered ELs are calculated relative to 

a base case that reflects projected market 

trends in the absence of amended 

standards. DOE identifies the percentage 

of customers estimated to receive LCC 

savings or experience an LCC increase, 

in addition to the average LCC savings 

associated with a particular standard 

level. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7761 

23The EIA does not approve use of the name 

‘‘NEMS’’ unless it describes 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. 

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)) 

As discussed in section V.G, DOE uses 

the NIA spreadsheet to project national 

site energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

In establishing classes of equipment, 

and in evaluating design options and 

the impact of potential standard levels, 

DOE evaluates standards that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of the 

considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

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

adopted in today’s final rule will not 

reduce the utility or performance of the 

equipment under consideration in this 

rulemaking. One piece of evidence for 

this claim includes that magnetic ballast 

ELs are allowed for every covered 

MHLF wattage and application, 

meaning that manufacturers are not 

required to change the electronic 

configuration of their current offerings. 

A second piece of evidence is that 

commercially available stack height and 

footprint is being maintained for all 

ballasts, resulting in no required change 

from current MHLF size. Another piece 

of evidence is that no standards were 

adopted for MHLFs greater than 1000 

W, so that all commercially available 

MHLFs at such wattages are subjected to 

no mandatory adjustments. Overall, the 

adopted standards were selected to 

protect the interest of customers and do 

not lessen MHLF performance or utility. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from the imposition of a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs 

the Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE 

transmitted a copy of its proposed rule 

to the Attorney General with a request 

that the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE addresses the Attorney General’s 

determination in this final rule. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

The energy savings from new and 

amended standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. 

The new and amended standards also 

are likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with energy 

production. DOE reports the emissions 

impacts from today’s standards, and 

from each TSL it considered, in section 

VII.B.6 of this notice. DOE also reports 

estimates of the economic value of 

emissions reductions resulting from the 

considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

customer of equipment that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the effect potential amended 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

customers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to customers, manufacturers, 

the nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttablepresumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section VII.B.1 of this final 

rule. 

V. Methodology and Discussion 

DOE used two spreadsheets to 

estimate the impact of the adopted 

standards. The first spreadsheet 

calculates LCCs and PBPs 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. The Department 

also assessed manufacturer impacts, 

largely through use of the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM). 

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 (BT stands 

for DOE’s Building Technologies 

Program), and is based on the AEO2013 

version of NEMS with minor 

modifications.23 The NEMS–BT 

accounts for the interactions between 

the various energy supply and demand 

sectors and the economy as a whole. 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. 

As a basis for this final rule, DOE has 

continued to use the approaches 

explained in the 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. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

When completing an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE develops information that provides 

an overall picture of the market for the 

equipment concerned, including the 

purpose of the equipment, the industry 

structure, and the market 

characteristics. This activity includes 

both quantitative and qualitative 

assessments based on publicly available 

information. The subjects addressed in 

the market and technology assessment 

for this rulemaking include: equipment 

classes and manufacturers; historical 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7762 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

24 DOE uses this shorthand to refer to MHLFs 

designed to operate lamps rated at equal to or 

greater than 50 W and equal to or less than 100 W, 

greater than 100 W and less than 150 W (however, 

including MHLFs designed to operate lamps rated 

at 150 W and exempted from EISA 2007), equal to 

or greater than 150 W and less than or equal to 250 

W, greater than 250 W and less than or equal to 500 

W, and greater than 500 W and less than or equal 

to 2000 W, respectively. 

shipments; market trends; regulatory 

and non-regulatory programs; and 

technologies or design options that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

the equipment under examination. See 

chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for 

further discussion of the market and 

technology assessment. 

2. Equipment Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered equipment into 

equipment classes by the type of energy 

used or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that 

justifies a different standard. In making 

a determination whether a performancerelated feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the customer of 

the feature and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) DOE then considers separate 

standard levels for each equipment class 

based on the criteria set forth in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). In the NOPR, DOE 

proposed to divide equipment classes 

by input voltage, rated lamp wattage, 

and designation for indoor versus 

outdoor applications. 

a. Input Voltage 

MHLFs are available in a variety of 

input voltages (most commonly 120 V, 

208 V, 240 V, 277 V, and 480 V), and 

the majority of fixtures are equipped 

with ballasts that are capable of 

operating at multiple input voltages (for 

example, quad-input-voltage ballasts are 

able to operate at 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, 

and 277 V). DOE determined that input 

voltage represents a feature affecting 

consumer utility as certain applications 

demand specific input voltages. DOE’s 

ballast testing did not indicate a 

prevailing relationship (e.g., higher 

voltages are not always more efficient) 

between discrete input voltages and 

ballast efficiencies, with one exception. 

In the NOPR, DOE found that ballasts 

tested at 480 V were less efficient on 

average than ballasts tested at 120 V or 

277 V. 

As discussed in section IV.A of this 

final rule, MH ballasts will be tested at 

a single input voltage based on the lamp 

wattage operated by the ballast. Ballasts 

that operate lamps less than 150 W shall 

be tested at 120 V, and all others shall 

be tested at 277 V, unless the ballast is 

incapable of operating at the specified 

input voltage; in that case, the ballast 

shall be tested at the highest input 

voltage possible. Because dedicated 480 

V ballasts have a distinct utility in that 

certain applications require 480 V 

operation and a difference in efficiency 

relative to ballasts tested at 120 V and 

277 V, in the NOPR DOE proposed 

separate equipment classes for ballasts 

tested at 480 V (in accordance with the 

test procedure). 

Philips noted that when 

manufacturing multi-tap magnetic 

ballasts, each tap must be precisely 

placed. The voltage variation in each tap 

makes it more difficult for multi-tap 

ballasts to meet efficiency requirements 

than ballasts with dedicated voltage. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 99) NEMA, ULT, and Southern 

Company supported a separate 

equipment class for dedicated 480 V 

ballasts. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 12; ULT, 

No. 50 at p. 5; Southern Company, No. 

64 at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges that the existence 

of multiple voltage taps could cause 

multi-tap ballasts to be less efficient 

than dedicated voltage ballasts. 

However, DOE’s testing of commercially 

available ballasts did not identify this 

trend. Rather, DOE’s test results 

indicated that the only obvious 

relationship between input voltage and 

ballast efficiency is that ballasts tested 

at 480 V were less efficient on average 

than ballasts tested at 120 V or 277 V. 

As stated above, DOE believes that input 

voltage offers unique utility because 

certain applications require specific 

input voltages. Therefore, in this final 

rule, DOE creates a separate equipment 

class for ballasts that are tested at 480 

V. 

b. Lamp Wattage 

As lamp wattage increases, lamp-andballast systems generally produce 

increasing amounts of light (lumens). 

Because certain applications require 

more light than others, wattage often 

varies by application. For example, lowwattage (less than 150 W) lamps are 

typically used in commercial 

applications for general lighting. 

Medium-wattage (150 W–500 W) lamps 

are commonly used in warehouse, 

street, and general commercial lighting. 

High-wattage (greater than 500 W) 

lamps are used in searchlights, 

stadiums, and other applications that 

require powerful white light. Because 

different applications require different 

amounts of light and the light output of 

lamp-and-ballast systems is typically 

reflected by the wattage, wattage affects 

consumer utility. Additionally, the 

wattage of a lamp operated by a ballast 

is correlated with the ballast efficiency; 

ballast efficiency generally increases as 

lamp wattage increase. Because wattage 

affects consumer utility and has a strong 

correlation to efficiency, DOE 

determined in the NOPR that separate 

equipment classes based on wattage 

were warranted. 

DOE found that even within a 

designated wattage range (such as 101 

W–150 W), the potential efficiencies 

ballasts can achieve is not constant, but 

rather varies with wattage. Thus for 

certain wattage bins, instead of setting a 

constant efficiency standard, DOE used 

an equation-based energy conservation 

standard (see section V.C). DOE 

combined the wattage bins and 

equations rather than using a single 

equation spanning all covered wattages 

for two reasons. First, the range of 

ballast efficiencies considered can differ 

significantly by lamp wattage, making it 

difficult to construct a single continuous 

equation for ballast efficiency from 50 

W to 2000 W. This efficiency difference 

can be attributed to the varying cost of 

increasing ballast efficiency for different 

wattages and the impact of legislated 

(EISA 2007) standards that affect only 

some wattage ranges. Second, different 

wattages often serve different 

applications and have unique costefficiency relationships. Analyzing 

certain wattage ranges as separate 

equipment classes allows DOE to 

establish the energy conservation 

standards that are cost-effective for 

every wattage. 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define 

MHLF equipment classes by the 

following rated lamp wattage ranges: 50 

W–100 W, 101 W–150 W, 150 W–250 

W, 251 W–500 W, and 501 W–2000 W.24

As discussed previously in section 

III.A.1, there is an existing EISA 2007 

exemption for ballasts rated for only 150 

W lamps, used in wet locations, and 

that operate in ambient air temperatures 

higher than 50 °C. This exemption has 

led to a difference in the commercially 

available efficiencies for ballasts that are 

contained within fixtures exempted 

versus not exempted from EISA 2007. 

The exempted fixtures have ballasts 

with a range of efficiencies similar to 

ballasts that operate lamps less than 150 

W. Fixtures not exempted by EISA 2007 

have ballasts that follow efficiency 

trends representative of ballasts greater 

than 150 W. As a result, DOE proposed 

that 150 W MHLFs previously exempted 

by EISA 2007 be included in the 101 W– 

150 W range, while 150 W MHLFs 

subject to EISA 2007 standards continue 

to be included in the 150 W–250 W 

range. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7763 

25 DOE uses this shorthand to refer to MHLFs 

designed to operate with lamps rated at greater than 

500 W and less than or equal to 1000 W, and greater 

than 1000 W and less than or equal to 2000 W, 

respectively. 

26The NFPA 70–2002 states that fixtures installed 

in wet or damp locations shall be installed such 

that water cannot enter or accumulate in wiring 

components, lampholders, or other electrical parts. 

All fixtures installed in wet locations shall be 

marked, ‘‘Suitable for Wet Locations.’’ All fixtures 

installed in damp locations shall be marked 

Continued 

ULT and NEMA stated that industry 

data shows ballast losses are 

significantly higher in 150 W ballasts 

relative to 175 W to 500 W ballasts due 

to the increased lamp current in 150 W 

MHLFs. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 108; ULT, No. 

50 at pp. 5–6, 23; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 

13) ULT explained that for 150 W–175 

W fixtures, the lower the wattage, the 

larger the ballast needed to maintain 

efficiency. ULT noted that this 

relationship is the net effect of three 

main factors: (1) Higher lamp current, 

(2) increased impedance, and (3) 

decreased wire cross-section. In 

conjunction, these factors make it 

impossible to have an 88 percent 

efficient 150 W ballast on a 3.25 inch by 

3.75 inch (commonly referred to as a 

‘‘3x4’’) frame. (ULT, No. 50 at pp. 23– 

24) ULT believed that 150 W fixtures 

could belong to the lower wattage bin; 

otherwise, the proposed standards 

would result in a ban of magnetic 

autotransformer 150 W ballasts. (ULT, 

No. 50 at p. 5) 

DOE agrees with ULT and NEMA that 

150 W ballasts have a lower maximum 

achievable efficiency relative to 175 W 

ballasts because of the resistive losses 

characteristic to ballasts at 150 W. 

Commercially, DOE also found that 150 

W ballasts have a range of efficiencies 

similar to wattages below 150 W. Both 

of these trends support 150 W fixtures 

being categorized in separate equipment 

classes than 175 W fixtures. While DOE 

continues to group 150 W fixtures 

covered by EISA 2007 in the 150 W–250 

W equipment class, in this final rule 

DOE maintains the NOPR approach to 

group 150 W fixtures previously exempt 

by EISA 2007 in the 101 W–150 W 

equipment class. 

NEMA proposed that DOE establish a 

separate equipment class for 575 W 

ballasts but did not provide supporting 

detail for this proposal. (NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 17) DOE examined the efficiency 

distribution of 575 W ballasts and found 

that efficiency varied in a manner 

similar to that of other ballasts within 

the 500 W to 1000 W wattage range. 

DOE is unaware of significant 

differences in the cost-efficiency 

relationship, consumer utility, or 

application of 575W fixtures relative to 

1000 W fixtures, and therefore is not 

establishing a separate equipment class 

for these MHLFs. DOE continues to 

group all 501 W–1000 W MHLFs in one 

wattage bin, using 1000 W fixtures as 

representative of the entire class. 

Musco Lighting disagreed with the 

grouping of fixtures in the 501 W–2000 

W range. Musco Lighting stated that 

there are significant differences between 

the markets and applications of 1500 W 

and 1000 W MHLFs, and, accordingly, 

they should not be grouped together. 

(Musco Lighting, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 107) Musco 

Lighting commented that 1500 W 

fixtures should not be in the same 

equipment class as 1000 W fixtures. 

Musco Lighting commented that a 

majority of 1500 W fixtures operate at 

480 V input, which distinguishes them 

from other equipment classes. (Musco 

Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 129) Musco Lighting further 

commented that annual operating hours 

should be taken into account so that 

MHLFs used in applications with very 

different operating hours would not be 

included in the same equipment class. 

Musco Lighting gave the example of 

sports lighting having much fewer 

operating hours than indoor warehouse 

lighting. (Musco Lighting, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 161) 

Upon further review, DOE agrees that 

there are differences between 1500 W 

and 1000 W fixtures. DOE determined 

that the trend between increasing 

wattage and increasing efficiency found 

from 501 W–1000 W did not continue 

above 1000 W. DOE found that above 

1000 W, efficiency increased to a lesser 

extent with increased wattage. This is 

consistent with the NOPR analysis, in 

which different equations were used 

above and below 1000 W. DOE also 

found that lamp lifetime and annual 

operating hours are much shorter for 

1500 W fixtures relative to 1000 W 

fixtures because 1500 W fixtures are 

predominantly used in sports lighting. 

This causes 1500 W fixtures to have 

different cost-efficiency relationships 

relative to 1000 W fixtures. There is also 

a different cost-efficiency relationship 

based on the MSP of the fixtures 

themselves, representing a different 

portfolio of applications used from 501– 

1000 W and above 1000 W. Therefore, 

DOE determined that separate 

equipment classes should be established 

for 501 W–1000 W and 1001 W–2000 W 

fixtures.25

In summary, DOE established MHLF 

equipment classes by the following 

rated lamp wattage bins: 50 W–100 W, 

101 W–150 W, 150 W–250 W, 251 W– 

500 W, 501 W–1000 W, and 1001 W– 

2000 W. DOE maintained that 150 W 

fixtures previously exempted by EISA 

2007 are included in the 101 W–150 W 

range, while 150 W fixtures subject to 

EISA 2007 standards are included in the 

150 W–250 W range. 

c. Fixture Application 

MHLFs are used in a variety of 

applications such as parking lots, 

roadways, warehouses, big-box retail, 

and flood lighting. Although the fixture 

size, shape, and optics are often tailored 

to the application, generally the same 

type of ballast is utilized for most of the 

applications. DOE found in the NOPR, 

however, that indoor and outdoor 

MHLFs are subject to separate costefficiency relationships, specifically at 

the electronic ballast levels. 

As outdoor applications can be 

subject to large voltage transients, 

MHLFs in such applications require 10 

kV voltage transient protection. 

Magnetic MH ballasts are typically 

resistant to voltage variations of this 

magnitude, while electronic MH ballasts 

are generally not as resilient. Therefore, 

in order to meet this requirement, 

electronic ballasts in outdoor MHLFs 

would need either (1) an external surge 

protection device or (2) internal 

transient protection of the ballast using 

metal-oxide varistors (MOVs) in 

conjunction with other inductors and 

capacitors. 

DOE also noted that indoor fixtures 

can require the inclusion of a 120 V 

auxiliary tap. This output is used to 

operate an emergency incandescent 

lamp after a temporary loss of power 

while the MH lamp is still too hot to 

restart. These taps are generally required 

for only one out of every ten indoor 

lamp fixtures. A 120 V tap is easily 

incorporated into a magnetic ballast due 

to its traditional core and coil design, 

and incurs a negligible incremental cost. 

Electronic ballasts, though, require 

additional design to add this 120 V 

auxiliary power functionality. 

These added features impose an 

incremental cost to the ballast or fixture 

(further discussed in section V.C.12 of 

this notice). As these incremental costs 

could affect the cost-effectiveness of 

fixtures for indoor versus outdoor 

applications, in the NOPR DOE 

proposed separate equipment classes for 

indoor and outdoor fixtures. 

DOE proposed that outdoor fixtures 

be defined as those that (1) are rated for 

use in wet locations and (2) have 10 kV 

of voltage transient protection. DOE 

proposed to define the wet location 

rating as specified by the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) 70– 

2002,26 section 410.10(A) or UL 1598 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7764 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Suitable for Wet Locations’’ or ‘‘Suitable for Damp 

Locations.’’ 27UL Standard Publication 1598 defines a wet 

location is one in which water or other liquid can 

drip, splash, or flow on or against electrical 

equipment. A wet location fixture shall be 

constructed to prevent the accumulation of water 

on live parts, electrical components, or conductors 

not identified for use in contact with water. A 

fixture that permits water to enter the fixture shall 

be provided with a drain hole. 

Wet Location Listed.27 Providing two 

possible definitions will reduce the 

compliance burden as many 

manufacturers are already familiar with 

one or both of these ratings (the NFPA 

70–2002 definition was included in 

EISA 2007 and both are used in 

California energy efficiency regulations). 

For 10 kV voltage transient protection, 

DOE proposed to use the 10 kV voltage 

pulse withstand requirement from ANSI 

C136.2–2004. 

APPA agreed with separating 

equipment classes for indoor and 

outdoor fixtures, as they have separate 

uses that create differences in the 

frequency and length of use. APPA 

stated that because the circumstances 

are different when considering both 

classes, it is difficult to understand the 

effects of proposed efficiency standards 

on each group. (APPA, No. 51 at p. 4; 

APPA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 103) Conversely, NEMA noted 

that separate equipment classes for 

indoor and outdoor fixtures could be 

problematic as, at the ballast level, there 

is no way of knowing whether 

equipment will be used indoors or 

outdoors. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 14) 

Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. (Acuity) 

commented that fixture application 

should also take into account the 

probability of transient voltages and 

extreme conditions, even in indoor 

applications. (Acuity, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 162) NEMA and 

ULT suggested combining indoor and 

outdoor equipment classes, except for 

electronic ballasts, as fewer classes will 

mean fewer reporting requirements. 

NEMA acknowledged that this will 

conflict with DOE’s desire to encourage 

electronic ballasts in outdoor 

applications. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 9; 

ULT, No. 50 at p. 4) 

DOE believes that indoor and outdoor 

MHLFs should be placed into separate 

equipment classes. While the 

efficiencies achievable indoors and 

outdoors are the same, the different 

costs between indoor and outdoor 

fixtures result in different costefficiency curves. When electronic 

ballasts are used in outdoor 

applications, they require additional 

transient protection because of the 

potential for voltage surges in outdoor 

locations. Indoor fixtures with 

electronic ballasts also have an added 

cost to provide 120 V auxiliary power 

functionality for use in the event of a 

power outage. Both of these cost adders 

are discussed in more detail in section 

V.C.12. As these costs adders differ 

based on a fixture being used indoors or 

outdoors, the cost-efficiency 

relationships differ based on indoor or 

outdoor application, and therefore 

separate equipment classes are 

warranted. Thus, in this final rule DOE 

establishes separate equipment classes 

for indoor and outdoor fixtures. DOE 

defines outdoor fixtures as those that (1) 

are rated for use in wet locations and (2) 

have 10 kV of voltage transient 

protection. Conversely, fixtures that do 

not meet these requirements will be 

defined as indoor fixtures. DOE 

continues to use the wet location rating 

definition from the National Fire 

Protection Association 70–2002, section 

410.10(A) or UL 1598 Wet Location 

listing. 

d. Electronic Configuration 

Of the two MH ballast types 

(electronic and magnetic), magnetic 

ballasts are currently more common, 

making up more than 90 percent of MH 

ballast shipments. Magnetic ballasts 

typically use transformer-like copper or 

aluminum windings on a steel or iron 

core. The newer electronic ballasts, 

which are more efficient but less 

common, rely on integrated circuits, 

switches, and capacitors or inductors to 

control current and voltage to the lamp. 

Both electronic and magnetic ballasts 

are capable of producing the same light 

output and, with certain modifications 

(e.g., thermal management, transient 

protection, 120 V auxiliary power 

functionality), can be used 

interchangeably in all applications. In 

the NOPR, DOE concluded that 

electronic configuration and circuit type 

do not affect consumer utility. With the 

necessary design alterations, electronic 

ballasts can provide the same utility as 

any magnetic ballast circuit type. 

Because electronic ballasts are typically 

more efficient than magnetic ballasts, 

utility is not lost with increasing 

efficiency. Therefore, DOE did not 

propose to define equipment classes 

based on electronic configuration. 

ULT stated that electronic HID 

ballasts were originally intended for 

indoor, niche purposes. Therefore, 

automatically expecting that electronic 

MH ballasts would be able to perform in 

outdoor conditions, including 

applications subjected to wind, extreme 

temperature, and transient surges, is not 

reasonable. ULT noted that electronic 

ballasts’ vulnerability in outdoor 

applications is known throughout the 

industry. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 52) 

NEMA also disagreed with DOE not 

dividing equipment classes by 

electronic configuration. NEMA stated 

that performance requirements should 

be separated for electronic and magnetic 

ballasts to avoid an enormous burden on 

the industry. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 12, 

24) NEMA commented that they 

disagreed with DOE’s suggestion that an 

electronic ballast is a design option for 

a magnetic ballast, as they are 

completely different technologies. 

(NEMA, No. 56 at p. 14). 

DOE has determined that these 

electronic ballasts, when fitted in an 

appropriate fixture, can be used in the 

same applications as magnetic ballasts. 

As mentioned in the previous section, 

various protections will be required for 

electronic ballasts in these applications. 

See section V.C.8.b for more detail about 

the feasibility of electronic ballasts as 

more efficient replacements for 

magnetic ballasts. After adjusting 

outdoor fixture prices to account for the 

modifications necessary to incorporate 

electronic ballasts, DOE has found that 

electronic ballasts can be reliably used 

in the same outdoor applications as 

magnetic ballasts. Therefore, DOE did 

not find that magnetic ballasts provided 

a unique utility over electronic ballasts. 

Thus, in this final rule, DOE included 

electronic and magnetic ballasts in the 

same equipment class. 

e. Circuit Type 

NEMA disagreed with DOE not 

dividing equipment classes by circuit 

type, citing the fluorescent lamp ballast 

rule as precedent. (NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 

12, 24) ULT and NEMA proposed three 

different technology classes; magnetic 

series reactors, magnetic 

autotransformers, and electronic. (ULT, 

No. 50 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 17) 

NEMA explained the need for dividing 

equipment classes in this way by 

describing the technologies’ different 

utilities and relationships to efficiency. 

Specifically, NEMA stated that series 

reactors circuits are the most efficient, 

although they do not offer any power 

regulation. Power factor correction is 

weak with this ballast type, and high 

power factor increases total harmonic 

distortion. This circuit type only works 

for lamps that require an open circuit 

voltage lower than the mains. It results 

in an increased inrush and current, and 

reduced maximum number of lamps per 

circuit. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 18) 

Autotransformer ballasts may be used 

on various mains voltages, and the 

ballast open circuit voltage may be 

higher than the mains voltage. Constantwattage autotransformer (CWA) designs 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7765 

include a secondary coil and operate 

with lower harmonic distortion. They 

offer better power regulation than series 

reactors and are highly reliable. (NEMA, 

No. 44 at p. 19) Electronic circuits are 

typically less reliable than 

autotransformer circuits, but operate 

with similar energy efficiency to series 

reactors. (NEMA, No. 44 at p. 20) 

DOE agrees that within magnetic 

ballasts there are multiple circuit types, 

such as reactor and autotransformer. 

However, DOE has found that electronic 

ballasts can provide the same utility as 

any magnetic circuit type and can be 

substituted in all applications, while 

being generally more efficient than all 

magnetic ballasts. DOE also notes that 

all of the magnetic ELs in this final rule 

are determined by autotransformer 

magnetic ballasts, as autotransformer 

ballasts are the most common type on 

the market. Because reactor ballasts are 

typically more efficient than 

autotransformer ballasts, DOE found 

that setting a magnetic ballast EL based 

on autotransformer efficiency would not 

prohibit reactor ballasts. For these 

reasons, DOE did not find it necessary 

in this final rule to separate equipment 

classes by circuit type. 

f. Summary 

DOE developed equipment classes in 

this final rule using three class-setting 

factors: input voltage, rated lamp 

wattage, and fixture application. DOE 

presents the resulting equipment classes 

in Table V.1 

TABLE V.1—MHLF EQUIPMENT CLASSES TABLE

Designed to be operated with lamps of the following 

rated lamp wattage Indoor/outdoor † Input voltage type‡ 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... All others. 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... All others. 

>100 W and <150 W * ........................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

>100 W and <150 W * ........................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... All others. 

>100 W and <150 W * ........................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

>100 W and <150 W * ........................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... All others. 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W .......................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W .......................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... All others. 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W .......................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W .......................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... All others. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................. Indoor ....................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................. Indoor ....................................................................... All others. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................. Outdoor .................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................. Outdoor .................................................................... All others. 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ........................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ........................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... All others. 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ........................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ........................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... All others. 

>1000 W and ≤2000 W ......................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

>1000 W and ≤2000 W ......................................................................... Indoor ....................................................................... All others. 

>1000 W and ≤2000 W ......................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... Tested at 480 V. 

>1000 W and ≤2000 W ......................................................................... Outdoor .................................................................... All others. 

* Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A);); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

** Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A);); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

† DOE’s proposed definitions for ‘‘indoor’’ and ‘‘outdoor’’ MHLFs are described in section V.A.2.c. 

‡ Input voltage for testing would be specified by the test procedures. Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W would be tested at 120 

V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps ≥150 W would be tested at 277 V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages would be 

tested at the highest voltage the ballast is designed to operate. See section IV.A for further detail. 

B. Screening Analysis 

For the screening analysis, DOE 

consults with industry, technical 

experts, and other interested parties to 

determine which technology options to 

consider further and which to screen 

out. Appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR 

Part 430, ‘‘Procedures, Interpretations, 

and Policies for Consideration of New or 

Revised Energy Conservation Standards 

for Consumer Products’’ (the Process 

Rule), sets forth procedures to guide 

DOE in its consideration and 

promulgation of new or revised energy 

conservation standards. These 

procedures elaborate on the statutory 

criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) 

and, in part, eliminate problematic 

technologies early in the process of 

prescribing or amending an energy 

conservation standard. In particular, 

sections 4(b)(4) and 5(b) of the Process 

Rule provide guidance to DOE for 

determining which design options are 

unsuitable for further consideration: 

Technological feasibility. DOE will 

consider technologies incorporated in 

commercial products or in working 

prototypes to be technologically 

feasible. 

Practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service. If mass production and 

reliable installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time the standard comes into effect, 

then DOE will consider that technology 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service. 

Adverse impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If DOE determines 

a technology would have significant 

adverse impacts on the utility of the 

product to significant subgroups of 

consumers, or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered equipment 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as equipment 

generally available in the United States 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7766 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

at the time, it will not consider this 

technology further. 

Adverse impacts on health or safety. 

If DOE determines that a technology 

will have significant adverse impacts on 

health or safety, it will not consider this 

technology further. 

In the NOPR, DOE screened out one 

technology option: laminated sheets of 

amorphous steel. For magnetic metal 

halide ballasts, DOE found one method 

of decreasing transformer losses is to 

create the core of the inductor from 

laminated sheets of amorphous steel, 

insulated from each other. DOE 

screened out amorphous steel 

technology because it failed to pass the 

‘‘practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service’’ criterion, and using amorphous 

steel could have adverse impacts on 

consumer utility because increasing the 

size and weight of the ballast may limit 

the places a customer could use the 

ballast. DOE received no comments to 

the contrary, and thus continues to 

screen out amorphous steel in the final 

rule. 

DOE identified the design options 

listed in Table V.2 as technologies that 

could improve MHLF ballast efficiency 

and pass the screening criteria 

discussed above. For further details on 

these design options, see chapter 3 of 

the final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.2—METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE DESIGN OPTIONS

Ballast type Design option Description 

Magnetic ........................................ Improved Core Steel ........................ Use a higher grade of electrical steel, including grain-oriented silicon 

steel, to lower core losses. 

Copper Wiring ................................... Use copper wiring in place of aluminum wiring to lower resistive 

losses. 

Increased Stack Height .................... Add steel laminations to lower core losses. 

Increased Conductor Cross Section Increase conductor cross section to lower winding losses. 

Electronic Ballast .............................. Replace magnetic ballasts with electronic ballasts. 

Electronic ....................................... Improved Components.Magnetics .......... Use grain-oriented or amorphous electrical steel to reduce core 

losses. 

Use optimized-gauge copper or litz wire to reduce winding losses. 

Add steel laminations to lower core losses. 

Increase conductor cross section to lower winding losses. 

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

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

capacitance. 

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

Improved Circuit 

Design.

Integrated Circuits.Substitute discrete components with an integrated circuit. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Approach 

The engineering analysis develops 

cost-efficiency relationships depicting 

the manufacturing costs of achieving 

increased ballast efficiency. DOE 

applies two methodologies to estimate 

manufacturing costs for the engineering 

analysis: (1) The design-option 

approach, which provides the 

incremental costs of adding the design 

options discussed in section V.B of this 

notice to improve the efficiency of a 

baseline model; and (2) the efficiencylevel approach, which estimates the 

costs of achieving increases in ELs 

through ballast efficiency testing, 

manufacturer catalogs, and teardowns. 

Details of the engineering analysis are in 

chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. The 

following discussion summarizes the 

general steps of the engineering 

analysis: 

Determine Representative Equipment 

Classes. When multiple equipment 

classes exist, to streamline testing and 

analysis, DOE selects certain classes as 

‘‘representative,’’ primarily because of 

their high market volumes. DOE then 

scales the ELs from representative 

equipment classes to those equipment 

classes it does not analyze directly. 

Determine Representative Wattages. 

Within each representative equipment 

class, DOE also selects a particular 

wattage fixture as ‘‘representative’’ of 

the wattage range, primarily because of 

their high market volumes. In this final 

rule, DOE assigns only one 

representative wattage per 

representative equipment class. 

Representative Fixture Types. To 

calculate the typical cost of a fixture at 

each representative wattage, DOE selects 

certain types of fixtures to analyze as 

representative. 

Select Baseline Units. DOE establishes 

a baseline unit for each representative 

wattage. The baseline unit has attributes 

(circuit type, input voltage capability, 

electronic configuration) typical of 

ballasts used in fixtures of that wattage. 

The baseline unit also has the lowest 

(baseline) efficiency for each 

representative wattage. DOE measures 

changes resulting from potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

compared with this baseline. For 

fixtures subject to existing federal 

energy conservation standards, a 

baseline unit is a MHLF with a 

commercially available ballast that just 

meets existing standards. If no standard 

exists for a fixture, the baseline unit is 

the MHLF at a representative wattage 

with a ballast with the lowest tested 

ballast efficiency that is sold. To 

determine energy savings and changes 

in price, DOE compares each higher EL 

with the baseline unit. 

To determine the ballast efficiency, 

DOE tested a range of MH ballasts from 

multiple ballast manufacturers. In some 

cases, when test data was unavailable, 

DOE used efficiency values listed in 

manufacturer catalog data sheets. 

Appendix 5A of the final rule TSD 

presents the test results. When 

necessary, DOE selects more than one 

baseline for a representative wattage to 

ensure consideration of different fixture 

and ballast types and their associated 

customer economics. 

Select More-Efficient Units. DOE 

selected both commercially available 

MHLFs and modeled MHLFs with 

higher-than-baseline-efficiency ballasts 

as replacements for each baseline model 

in each representative equipment class. 

In general, DOE can identify the design 

options associated with each moreefficient ballast model by considering 

the design options that meet the criteria 

of the screening analysis (chapter 4 of 

the final rule TSD). For electronic 

ballasts, where design options cannot be 

identified for that class by the product 

number or catalog description, DOE 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7767 

28The MSP is the price at which the 

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

costs include selling, general, and administration 

(SG&A) costs, the cost of R&D, and interest. 

29 Descriptions of each of these fixtures types can 

be found in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD. 

conducts testing to determine their 

efficiency. Appendix 5A of the final rule 

TSD presents these test results. These 

ballast efficiencies were calculated 

according to the MH ballast test 

procedures (10 CFR 431.324), unless 

otherwise specified. DOE estimates the 

design options likely to be used to 

achieve a higher efficiency based on 

information gathered during 

manufacturer interviews and 

information presented in ballast 

catalogs. 

Determine Efficiency Levels. DOE 

develops ELs based on: (1) The design 

options associated with the equipment 

class studied and (2) the max-tech EL 

for that class. As previously noted and 

as discussed in section IV.B.2, DOE’s 

ELs are based on test data collected from 

commercially available equipment, 

catalog data, manufacturer input, and 

ballast modeling. 

Conduct Price Analysis. DOE 

generated a bill of material (BOM) by 

disassembling multiple manufacturers’ 

ballasts from a range of ELs and fixtures 

that span a range of applications for 

each equipment class. The BOMs 

describe the equipment in detail, 

including all manufacturing steps 

required to make and assemble each 

part. DOE then developed a cost model 

to convert the BOMs for each 

representative unit into manufacturer 

production costs (MPCs). By applying 

derived manufacturer markups to the 

MPCs, DOE calculated the MSPs 28 and 

constructed industry cost-efficiency 

curves. In cases where DOE was not able 

to generate a BOM for a given ballast, 

DOE estimated an MSP based on the 

relationship between teardown data and 

retail data. DOE also estimated ballast 

and fixture cost adders necessary to 

allow replacement of more-efficient 

substitutes for baseline models. 

2. Representative Equipment Classes 

As described in the previous section, 

DOE selects certain equipment classes 

as ‘‘representative’’ to focus its analysis. 

The 24 equipment classes (based on 

rated lamp wattage, indoor or outdoor 

designation, and test voltage) and the 

criteria used for development are 

presented in section V.A.2. Due to their 

low shipment volume (as indicated 

through manufacturer interviews), DOE 

does not directly analyze the equipment 

classes containing only fixtures with 

ballasts tested at 480 V. DOE selected all 

other equipment classes as 

representative, resulting in a total of 12 

representative classes that cover the full 

range of lamp wattages, as well as 

indoor and outdoor designations. DOE 

had only analyzed 10 representative 

equipment classes in the NOPR. This 

increase is a result of DOE’s decision to 

split the 501 W–2000 W equipment 

classes into 501 W–1000 W and 1001 

W–2000 W. This new equipment class 

structure is discussed in section V.A.2. 

3. Representative Wattages 

In the NOPR, DOE selected five 

representative wattages of MHLFs (70 

W, 150 W, 250 W, 400 W, and 1000 W) 

to analyze in the engineering analysis. 

Each representative wattage was 

typically the most commonly sold 

wattage within each equipment class, 

based on analysis of fixture availability 

from catalogs and manufacturer input. 

As discussed in section V.A.2, DOE 

has split the 501 W–2000 W equipment 

classes from the NOPR into 501 W–1000 

W and 1001 W–2000 W in the final rule. 

From 501 W–1000 W, DOE still finds 

1000 W to be an appropriate 

representative wattage based on it being 

the most commonly sold. In the final 

rule, DOE is analyzing 1500 W as the 

representative wattage for the 1001 W– 

2000 W equipment classes based on this 

wattage being the most commonly 

shipped in the wattage range. 

4. Representative Fixture Types 

After selecting representative wattages 

for analysis, DOE identified the 

applications commonly served by each 

equipment class’s wattage range in order 

to select representative fixture types. 

DOE recognizes that technological 

changes in the ballast caused by 

standards considered in this 

rulemaking, especially moving from 

magnetic ballasts to electronic ballasts, 

could necessitate alterations to the 

fixture. These changes often incur 

additional costs depending on the 

fixture type that needs to be altered. In 

the engineering analysis, DOE estimates 

a baseline fixture cost, as well as 

incremental costs to the fixture based on 

the type of ballast used (e.g., electronic 

ballasts require specific fixture 

adaptations that magnetic ballasts do 

not). The cost adders to the fixtures are 

discussed in section V.C.12. 

In the NOPR, DOE selected one to 

three representative fixture types for 

each rated wattage range based on the 

most common application(s) within that 

range. For the 50 W–100 W range, DOE 

selected canopy fixtures as the 

representative fixture types. For the 101 

W–150 W and 150 W–250 W range, DOE 

selected canopy, low bay, and wallpack 

fixtures as representative fixture types. 

For wattages greater than 250 W, DOE 

chose canopy, flood, and high bay 

fixtures as representative fixture 

types.29

In this final rule, DOE has expanded 

its analysis of representative fixtures to 

account for separate uses in indoor and 

outdoor applications. This allows DOE 

to develop separate prices for indoor 

and outdoor fixtures, taking into 

account the weather protection built 

into outdoor fixtures. The new 

representative fixture types, which 

include from one to four applications 

for each equipment class, are shown in 

Table V.3. 

TABLE V.3—REPRESENTATIVE WATTAGES AND FIXTURES

Designed to be operated with lamps 

of the following rated lamp wattage Representative wattage 

Representative fixture types 

Indoor Outdoor 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ........................... 70 W ................................... Recessed Can ................................. Wallpack, Post Top, Flood. 

>100 W and <150 W * ....................... 150 W ................................. Low Bay ........................................... Parking Lot, Area, Wallpack, Flood. 

≥150 W and ≤250 W ** ...................... 250 W ................................. Low Bay ........................................... Area, Flood, Wallpack. 

>250 W and ≤500 W ......................... 400 W ................................. Flood, High Bay ............................... Pole Top, Flood. 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ....................... 1000 W ............................... High Bay .......................................... Flood, Sports. 

>1000 W and ≤2000 W ..................... 1500 W ............................... Sports ............................................... Sports. 

* Includes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7768 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

** Excludes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

5. Ballast Efficiency Testing 

After selecting representative wattages 

and fixture types, DOE purchased and 

tested MH ballasts, ranging from lowefficiency magnetic to high-efficiency 

electronic, in order to evaluate the range 

of commercially available ballast 

efficiencies. In selecting units for testing 

and analysis, DOE focused its effort on 

representative wattage ballasts with 

operating characteristics similar to 

ballasts most prevalent in the market. 

For example, through interviews and an 

assessment of commercially available 

MH ballasts, DOE learned that the 

majority of MH ballasts sold are quadinput voltage ballasts. Thus, DOE 

primarily tested MH ballasts capable of 

quad-input operation. Similarly, DOE 

found that at low wattages (less than or 

equal to 150 W), high-reactance 

autotransformer (HX) ballasts and CWA 

ballasts are most prevalent. At higher 

wattages, CWA ballasts compose the 

vast majority of the market. In 

consideration of these findings, DOE 

focused its testing and analysis on HX 

and CWA ballasts for the 70 W to 150 

W range and CWA ballasts for all other 

wattage units. 

DOE calculated average ballast 

efficiencies, across four samples, in 

accordance with MH ballast test 

procedures (10 CFR 431.324) by 

dividing measured output power by 

measured input power. As discussed in 

sections V.C.7 and V.C.8 of this notice, 

DOE selects baseline and higherefficiency representative units for 

analysis based on these average 

efficiencies. Also, as discussed in the 

following section, DOE determines 

representative ballast input power for 

each EL based on these tested ballast 

efficiencies. To determine the ELs under 

consideration, as discussed in section 

V.C.9 of this notice, DOE uses a reported 

efficiency value based on the four tested 

samples, pursuant to the MH ballast 

certification procedures in 10 CFR 

429.54. 

6. Input Power Representations 

As MH lamps age, they exhibit higher 

voltages, which can lead to higher 

system input power over the life of the 

lamp. Electronic ballasts have the 

capability to sense that the lamp voltage 

has increased and, in response, decrease 

their output current to maintain 

constant wattage throughout the life of 

the ballast. In the NOPR, DOE noted that 

magnetic ballasts do not have this 

capability and therefore the system 

wattage of magnetic MH ballasts would 

increase in response to an increase in 

lamp voltage over the lamp life. 

Therefore, DOE used a 5.5 percent 

increase in the NOPR when calculating 

the representative input power of 

magnetic ballasts. 

Venture, NEMA, and ULT commented 

that while there is a voltage rise over the 

life of MH lamps, it can be extremely 

variable based on lamp design and 

manufacturing tolerances. Venture 

cautioned against applying a single 

factor to increase power across all 

ballasts. (Venture, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 178; NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 15; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 8–9) ULT 

further asserted that DOE did not 

consider that ballast efficiency increases 

with a lamp’s voltage and age, and also 

that many lamps have voltage below the 

nominal level when new. (ULT, No. 50 

at pp. 8–9) In contrast, CA IOUs agreed 

with DOE on the increase in system 

input power and voltage that occurs 

over a ballast’s life, but remarked that 

this increase may not be linear, and that 

the increase is smaller with electronic 

ballasts than with magnetic ballasts. 

They suggested that DOE continue to 

research this area, as the 5.5 percent 

figure determined could be an 

underestimation of the advantages of 

electronic ballasts. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at 

p. 7) 

In the NOPR, DOE’s inclusion of a 5.5 

percent increase in input power for 

magnetic ballasts was based on feedback 

from manufacturers gathered during 

interviews. After reviewing the NOPR 

interview feedback in light of the new 

comments and conducting additional 

research on this topic, it was unclear 

whether the input power of magnetic 

ballasts actually increased over the 

ballasts’ lifetime and, if it did increase, 

what the magnitude of that increase 

would be. Therefore, in this final rule 

DOE has not applied a scaling factor to 

increase the input power of magnetic 

ballasts. 

7. Baseline Ballast Models 

DOE selected baseline models as 

reference points for each representative 

equipment class, against which DOE 

measured changes in energy use and 

price resulting from potential amended 

energy conservation standards. For 

MHLFs and MH ballasts subject to 

existing federal energy conservation 

standards, a baseline model is a 

commercially available ballast that just 

meets existing standards and provides 

basic consumer utility. If no standard 

exists for a specific fixture type (e.g., 

less than 150 W or greater than 500 W 

fixtures), DOE chooses baselines that 

represent the least efficient equipment 

(based on average tested ballast 

efficiencies) or highest-volume 

equipment within the representative 

parameters defined (e.g., representative 

wattage, magnetic circuit type, input 

voltage). 

For the NOPR, DOE analyzed a CWA, 

quad-input voltage, pulse-start baseline 

ballast for the 70 W, 150 W, 250 W, and 

400 W representative wattages. As 

electronic ballasts comprise a significant 

portion of the 50 W–100 W ballasts 

shipped with indoor fixtures, for the 70 

W representative wattage DOE analyzed 

a second baseline ballast utilizing an 

LFE circuit and operating at quadvoltage. For the 1000 W representative 

wattage, DOE analyzed a CWA, quadinput voltage, probe-start baseline 

ballast. 

a. 70 W Baseline Ballast 

In the NOPR, DOE analyzed an 

electronic ballast as a second baseline 

ballast for the 70 W representative 

wattage. DOE included this second 

baseline because it had determined that 

electronic ballasts comprise a significant 

portion (estimated as more than 25 

percent) of the 50 W–100 W ballasts 

shipped with indoor fixtures. NEMA 

agreed with the addition of the 

electronic 70 W baseline ballast. 

(NEMA, No. 56 at p. 15) Receiving no 

comments in opposition, DOE has 

continued analyzing both an electronic 

and magnetic baseline ballast at 70 W 

for this final rule. 

b. 1000 W Baseline Ballast 

In the NOPR, DOE identified a probestart ballast as the 1000 W baseline unit. 

While DOE acknowledged that pulsestart ballasts are available at the 1000 W 

level, it noted that probe-start, CWA, 

quad-voltage units are predominant in 

the high-wattage category, and are 

therefore the most appropriate 

baselines. 

Musco Lighting questioned why a 

probe-start ballast was used as the 1000 

W baseline ballast if this standard is 

suggesting a shift towards pulse-start in 

all equipment classes. (Musco Lighting, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

130) As discussed previously, a baseline 

ballast is the most common, least 

efficient ballast at the representative 

wattage, without the imposition of 

standards (i.e., the base case). The 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7769 

30An Epstein test is a method for evaluating a 

steel’s magnetic properties by testing its 

performance with a standardized Epstein frame. 

During the measurement the Epstein frame, 

comprising a primary and a secondary winding, 

behaves as an unloaded transformer and the power 

losses are then measured with a wattmeter. 

baseline unit is meant to measure 

changes resulting from potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

compared with this baseline. DOE found 

that while pulse-start ballasts are 

available at the 1000 W level, probestart ballasts currently dominate the 

market. As it is much more common for 

1000 W ballasts to be probe-start, DOE 

continued to analyze a probe-start 

ballast as the 1000 W baseline unit in 

this final rule. 

c. 1500 W Baseline Ballast 

In the NOPR, a 1000 W baseline was 

analyzed in the 501 W to 2000 W 

equipment class. In this final rule, DOE 

divided this wattage range into a 501 

W–1000 W equipment class and a 1001 

W–2000 W equipment class (see section 

V.A.2 of this notice). DOE continued to 

analyze a 1000 W baseline in the 501 W 

to 1000 W equipment class. In the 1001 

W–2000 W equipment class, DOE 

analyzed the 1500 W wattage as 

representative. Therefore, DOE added a 

baseline model at the new 

representative wattage, 1500 W, to 

represent the most common, least 

efficient ballast in the 1001 W–2000 W 

representative equipment class. The 

baseline unit for 1500 W is a magnetic 

CWA ballast and has a ballast efficiency 

of 92.9 percent. 

d. Summary of Baseline Ballasts 

In summary, after considering the 

comments received and changes to the 

equipment class structure, DOE has 

selected seven baseline units for 

analysis: 70 W magnetic, 70 W 

electronic, 150 W magnetic, 250 W 

magnetic, 400 W magnetic, 1000 W 

magnetic, and 1500 W magnetic. 

8. Selection of More-Efficient Units 

After the selection of baseline models, 

DOE used a combination of two 

methods to determine more-efficient 

units for analysis within each 

representative equipment class. The first 

method was examining DOE’s own test 

data (discussed in section V.C.5 of this 

notice) to select commercially available 

ballasts to represent higher ELs. The 

second method involved filling in large 

gaps of efficiency present in the test 

data (often between commercially 

available magnetic and electronic 

ballasts) by modeling ballasts with 

improved efficiency due to the 

implementation of several of the design 

options described in section V.B of this 

notice. DOE derived those estimates 

based on manufacturer interviews and 

by validating or supplementing that 

feedback with independent modeling of 

potential reductions in ballast losses. 

Specifically, DOE used the watts loss 

per pound characteristics for various 

steel types to determine the levels of 

efficiency modeled ballasts could 

achieve. 

DOE developed a max-tech magnetic 

ballast based on either commercially 

available equipment or a modeled 

ballast that utilized the highest grade 

steel practicable for manufacturing MH 

ballasts. For further details on the 

higher-efficiency units analyzed in this 

final rule, see chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD. 

a. Higher-Efficiency Magnetic Ballasts 

DOE recognizes that several 

commercially available magnetic 

ballasts may already utilize the most 

efficient design options and have 

reached their efficiency limit. However, 

based on feedback from manufacturer 

interviews, DOE has learned that for 

each of the representative wattages 

analyzed, there exist design options to 

improve efficiency of magnetic ballasts. 

Therefore, DOE utilizes these design 

options to estimate the max-tech 

efficiency for magnetic ballasts for each 

representative wattage. DOE received a 

number of comments in response to the 

NOPR regarding the modeled higherefficiency magnetic ballasts, specifically 

regarding the modeling method, 

performance characteristics of the 

modeled more-efficient units, and the 

impacts on fixture and ballast redesign. 

Modeling Method 

In modeling more-efficient magnetic 

ballasts for the NOPR, DOE maintained 

the physical size of the higher-efficiency 

models relative to commercially 

available magnetic ballasts within the 

representative wattages (i.e., the 

modeled ballasts did not increase in size 

compared to what’s currently available 

on the market). By using design 

information provided by manufacturers, 

DOE assumed improvements to the core 

steel and conductor of the commercially 

available magnetic ballasts to determine 

the higher-efficiency magnetic ballast 

efficiency and prices. 

NEMA explained that core losses are 

determined by the type of material being 

used, the most efficient being M6 steel. 

Wire loss is generated from electrical 

resistance, and the most efficient wire 

material used is copper. (NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 3) NEMA cited that for EL1 and 

EL2, the model assumes a higher quality 

steel will be used than is provided in 

the baseline unit. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 

10) NEMA and ULT noted that the EL2 

calculation appears speculative, and 

that to move from EL1 to EL2 would 

require a 17 percent reduction (in the 

case of 70 W ballasts) in ballast losses, 

which is unfeasible. (NEMA, No. 56 at 

p. 10; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 6–7) NEMA 

commented that DOE underestimated 

both core steel losses and winding 

losses, which led to overestimates of 

feasible efficiencies. (NEMA, No. 56 at 

p. 11) 

Regarding core losses, NEMA and 

ULT noted that the watts loss per pound 

of core steel constants DOE provided in 

the NOPR TSD are correct numbers 

obtained by an Epstein test 30 per the 

ASTM A–343 standard. However, 

NEMA and ULT stated that those 

numbers would be more appropriate to 

use for power transformers than for 

ballasts, and that the values are 

deceiving when applied directly to 

ballast core loss calculations. NEMA 

and ULT gave the example that M6 steel 

is shown to have 0.66 W/lb losses at 1.5 

Tesla 60 Hz sine flux along the grain, 

when losses across the grain for M6 

steel in an MH ballast are approximately 

1.2 W/lb. Furthermore, NEMA and ULT 

explained that when ballast laminations 

are welded during manufacturing, grainoriented material degrades substantially, 

and the losses increase. (NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 11; ULT, No. 50 at p. 7) Philips 

agreed, commenting that the watts per 

pound loss for M6 steel would more 

than double during the manufacturing 

process, limiting the benefit of using 

this steel. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 120) Philips also 

explained that the increase in M6 core 

losses is because welding disrupts the 

magnetic properties of the material. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 121) Additionally, NEMA and 

ULT commented that magnetic flux in 

MH ballasts is not purely sinusoidal, 

rather it also includes harmonic 

frequencies that increase losses. They 

commented that even relative ratios of 

the losses provided in the NOPR TSD 

would not work, because data for grainoriented steels are found using the 100 

percent along the grain Epstein test, 

while data for cold-rolled steels, such as 

M19, use the 50 percent Epstein test. 

This 50/50 Epstein test takes into 

account and averages losses along the 

grain and across the grain. Therefore, 

DOE is not comparing equivalent 

measurements when simply using the 

already calculated core loss values 

presented in the NOPR. (NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 11; ULT, No. 50 at p. 7) 

In this final rule, DOE has revised its 

approach to modeling the efficiency of 

magnetic ballasts. The efficiency of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7770 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

commercially available ballasts is 

established by independent test data 

conducted in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure, or taken directly from a 

manufacturer’s ballast data sheet when 

test data was unavailable. Based on 

feedback obtained during individual 

manufacturer interviews, DOE assigned 

design characteristics to these 

commercially available ballasts. Design 

characteristics included core steel type, 

core mass, wire material, and wire mass. 

To analyze more-efficient ballast 

designs than those currently on the 

market, DOE calculated the change in 

efficiency (i.e., change in ballast losses) 

resulting from a substitution of steel 

type. 

Regarding the core loss calculations, 

DOE revised its loss values for M6 steel 

in response to the comments received. 

In the NOPR, the losses per pound 

values for M6 steel were based on 

alignment of the magnetic field 

longitudinally (in the same direction as 

the grain orientation) to the core steel. 

However, portions of the magnetic field 

are aligned transverse (perpendicular to 

the grain orientation) to the core steel. 

The core losses in the transverse 

orientation are much higher. For this 

final rule, DOE calculated a weighted 

average of longitudinal and transverse 

losses as the core loss factor for M6 steel 

and found that about one third of losses 

are in the transverse direction. Using 

this information, DOE calculated the 

average core losses, in W/lb, for M6 

steel. See chapter 5 of the final rule TSD 

for additional detail. With this revision, 

the M6 loss value is comparable with 

the conventional cold-rolled steel (such 

as M19) 50/50 Epstein-test-based loss 

per pound values. 

To calculate the losses associated 

with an EL2 ballast that uses M6 steel, 

DOE first calculated the losses of the 

EL1 ballast of the same wattage, by 

dividing lamp wattage by ballast 

efficiency, and then subtracting the 

lamp wattage. Next, DOE calculated the 

core losses of the EL1 ballast based on 

the mass of the EL1 core and the watts 

per pound loss value associated with 

the type of steel used in the EL1 ballast. 

Then, assuming the footprint and stack 

height cannot change, DOE assumed the 

EL2 M6 core would have the same mass. 

DOE therefore multiplied the M6 loss 

per pound value by the mass of the EL1 

core to calculate the losses assuming an 

M6 steel substitution. DOE assumed all 

other losses remained constant, and 

therefore reduced the total EL1 ballast 

losses by the incremental decrease in 

core losses associated with the M6 steel. 

Regarding the 70 W ballasts, this final 

rule now models an increase in ballast 

efficiency from 76.6 percent to 78.4 

percent, based on the decrease in core 

losses (and therefore increase in ballast 

efficiency) from M19 to M6 steel. This 

is a reduction in losses of 9.1 percent 

relative to EL1. 

Regarding the resistive losses in the 

windings, NEMA and ULT stated that 

DOE’s assumption that the current in 

the primary side of the transformer was 

approximately equal to the input 

current to the ballast is incorrect. This 

incorrect assumption would lead to 

calculated losses substantially lower 

than actual losses. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 

11; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 7–8) NEMA and 

ULT pointed out that the current in the 

secondary coil of the transformer does 

not need to be estimated, as it is equal 

to lamp current. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 11; 

ULT, No. 50 at p. 8) NEMA and ULT 

suggested that as lamp current is 

responsible for winding losses, it should 

be used as a technical parameter when 

screening ballast design options. 

(NEMA, No. 56 at p. 10; ULT, No. 50 at 

p. 6) 

DOE agrees with NEMA and ULT’s 

description of current in various stages 

of the magnetic ballast. In an HX ballast, 

the presence of a capacitor in parallel 

with the primary transformer winding 

increases the current in the primary 

winding relative to the input current 

from the power source. With the 

secondary winding, the current is equal 

to the lamp current, which is given in 

ANSI C78.43–2010. However, for the 

final rule, modeled ELs are only based 

on substitution of electrical steel, 

assuming all else remains equal. 

Therefore, the comments relating to 

resistive losses based on current are not 

applicable to DOE’s final rule 

calculations. 

Modeled More-Efficient Units 

In the NOPR, DOE used the modeling 

ballast methodology to calculate the 

efficiency of ballasts more efficient than 

those currently available for sale. 

NEMA, Philips, and ULT stated that 150 

W fixtures could not meet the proposed 

efficiency requirement. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 33; 

Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 48; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 23–24) 

ULT commented that an efficiency 

requirement for 150 W magnetic ballasts 

higher than currently commercially 

available equipment would practically 

ban 150 W magnetic autotransformer 

ballasts. (ULT, No. 50 at pp. 23–24) 

NEMA and ULT suggested that DOE 

made a mistake in considering how 

magnetic ballast efficiency behaves as a 

result of design considerations. As 

ballast wattage decreases, efficiency loss 

factors are compounded and the ballast 

size necessary to achieve potential 

efficiency gains increases, making it 

difficult to further raise the efficiency of 

ballasts 150 W and below. (NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 3; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 19–24) 

ULT noted that typically, as lamp 

wattage decreases, so does lamp current. 

As 150 W lamps have higher lamp 

current than 175 W ballasts, it is more 

difficult for the 150 W ballasts to 

achieve high efficiencies. ULT noted 

that this relationship is the net effect of 

three main factors: (1) Higher current, 

(2) increased inductance, and (3) wire 

cross-section. In conjunction, these 

factors make it impossible to have an 88 

percent efficient 150 W magnetic ballast 

on a 3x4 frame. Hence, the industry has 

not developed a 150 W MHLF with an 

88 percent efficient magnetic 

autotransformer ballast in response to 

EISA 2007. (ULT, No. 50 at pp. 23–24) 

Furthermore, ULT stated that as ballasts 

ranging from 50 W to 150 W would need 

to increase in size in order to meet the 

EL proposed in the NOPR, these ballasts 

would not fit in the fixtures for which 

they were previously suitable. (ULT, No. 

50 at p. 6) Philips clarified that the 

increase in size comes from the 

magnetic ballast stack height. Philips 

noted there are options for electronic 

ballasts, but they are not necessarily 

interchangeable and might be too big for 

existing fixtures. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 50) 

DOE notes that the level proposed at 

150 W in the NOPR was intended to 

only be met by electronic ballasts, as are 

all EL3 and EL4 levels in both the NOPR 

and this final rule. DOE agrees with 

ULT that 150 W autotransformer ballasts 

cannot reach 88 percent efficiency with 

today’s technology. In the NOPR, the 

magnetic ELs were set at 84.0 percent 

for EL1 and 86.5 percent for EL2. DOE 

disagrees that an EL above commercially 

available equipment would ban 150 W 

magnetic ballasts, as improving the core 

steel to M6, even while maintaining the 

same core footprint and weight, would 

improve the magnetic ballast efficiency 

beyond commercially available levels. 

DOE agrees that 150 W ballasts have a 

lower maximum achievable efficiency 

relative to 175 W ballasts, and has 

analyzed the 150 W fixture exempted by 

EISA 2007 accordingly. For this final 

rule, DOE revised the magnetic ballasts 

analyzed as more efficient replacements 

for the 150 W representative wattage. 

DOE selected a more common 

replacement ballast for EL1. At EL2, 

revisions in the magnetic ballast 

modeling resulted in changes to the 

performance characteristics. In the final 

rule, as in the NOPR, the ballast 

efficiencies analyzed at both EL1 and 

EL2 are less than 88 percent. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7771 

APPA and NEMA commented that the 

modeled magnetic ELs are not 

technologically feasible, as modeling 

and calculations are not proof of 

concept and do not account for 

variability in manufacturing. (APPA, 

No. 51 at pp. 7–8; NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 

2, 24) NEMA and ULT also commented 

that the proposed characteristics of the 

modeled magnetic ballasts are based on 

theories, but have not been proven in 

manufacturing or physical testing and 

are therefore infeasible and cannot be 

tested for form, fit, or functions 

compatibility. ULT further asserted that 

the max-tech magnetic levels would 

require higher grade steel and wire, and 

would therefore increase ballast size. 

(NEMA, No. 56 at p. 11; ULT, No. 50 at 

pp. 4, 8, 30) In addressing the 

technological feasibility of the max-tech 

levels, NEMA stated that most max-tech 

levels selected for magnetic ballasts are 

possible only in laboratory conditions, 

and even then only with electronic 

ballasts. In cases where magnetic 

ballasts could reach the EL, they would 

need to be enlarged, and might not fit 

in existing fixtures. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 

10) Philips questioned whether a 

modeled product proves technological 

feasibility. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 214) Philips also 

questioned whether interviews with 

manufacturers were enough to 

constitute an assessment of 

technological feasibility without actual 

proof. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 215) NEMA 

stated that many other rulemakings 

select products of the highest efficiency 

that are already commercially available, 

as opposed to modeling something that 

has not been produced yet. Philips 

stated that it is unreasonable to think 

that there would not be other changes 

required in order to implement the 

modeled product. (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 221) 

DOE conducted interviews with 

individual manufacturers for the NOPR 

analysis and received information 

through that process describing the 

design characteristics of ballasts more 

efficient than those currently in 

production. DOE then validated that 

information by calculating the 

incremental change in losses associated 

with substituting the electrical steel of 

a commercially available ballast for a 

higher grade of steel. While it is true 

that the ballasts directly analyzed at EL2 

are not currently commercially 

available, the design option (M6 steel) 

used to create these ballasts is 

commercially available. M6 steel 

designs are used for 175 W ballasts with 

a 3x4 footprint, as evidenced by public 

comment during the preliminary 

analysis and NOPR phases of this 

rulemaking. In addition, DOE purchased 

and inspected a 175 W 3x4 magnetic 

ballast, and found the lamination 

thickness (0.14 inches) was indicative of 

M6 steel. DOE has modified its 

calculations of the benefits of M6 steel 

based on comment received from 

industry, but continues to analyze 

modeled ballasts for some ELs. 

APPA and NEMA commented that 

meeting EL2, which DOE based on 

modeled magnetic ballasts, will actually 

require electronic ballasts. APPA and 

NEMA especially noted that the 91.5 

percent efficiency requirement for 250 

W ballasts is only achievable with 

electronic ballasts. (APPA, No. 51 at pp. 

7–8; NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 2, 24) Overall, 

ULT stated that EL2 is too high for 

magnetic ballasts. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 137) NEMA and 

ULT commented that the proposed 

efficiency standards would only be 

achievable by magnetic ballasts in some 

lab conditions, and would therefore 

require everything less than or equal to 

750 W to be redesigned. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 32, 37; 

NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 2, 10; NEMA, No. 

44 at p. 9; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2, 4, 10) 

Therefore, NEMA suggested that the 

max-tech magnetic levels (EL2) of this 

rule be lower than proposed. (NEMA, 

No. 56 at p. 12) However, the Joint 

Comment provided a listing of various 

magnetic ballasts capable of meeting the 

max tech magnetic levels (EL2), 13 of 

which exceeded both EL2 and EL3, and 

two exceeded EL4. (Joint Comment, No. 

62 at p. 6) The Joint Comment noted 

that reactor ballasts represent a highefficiency magnetic alternative to 

electronic ballasts for many applications 

and urged DOE to model these ballasts 

as the equipment chosen by customers 

in many cases when the standard is set 

at EL3 or EL4. (Joint Comment, No. 62 

at p. 7) 

DOE found that after revising its 

assumptions for M6 core losses, EL2 at 

250 W (and other wattages) decreased 

relative to the NOPR. The 250 W EL2 is 

now set at 91.0 percent based on an M6 

ballast design. DOE’s analysis indicates 

both magnetic ballasts (using M6 steel) 

and electronic ballasts would be 

compliant with EL2 at 250 W. In 

response to the model list given by the 

Joint Comment, the commercially 

available magnetic ballasts that were 

noted as capable of meeting EL2 were 

single-voltage reactor ballasts. DOE 

agrees that there are commercially 

available reactor ballasts that have 

increased efficiency compared to more 

common magnetic ballast circuit types, 

but has chosen not to model them for 

EL3 and EL4. Reactor ballasts have 

limited utility due to their single input 

voltage and reduced ability to mitigate 

input voltage variation relative to HX or 

CWA ballasts, though these limited 

features do lead to increased efficiency. 

As discussed in section V.C.7 of this 

notice, DOE bases its analysis on CWA 

and HX magnetic ballasts. DOE has 

accounted for the thermal and voltage 

transient concerns with electronic 

ballasts with the design changes 

discussed in section V.C.8 of this notice. 

Fixture and Ballast Redesign 

DOE noted in the NOPR that its 

modeling method would not require 

changes in ballast or fixture size relative 

to those currently commercially 

available. NEMA, ULT, and GE 

commented that DOE’s assumption that 

proposed ELs will not require changes 

to the size of the ballast is incorrect, 

especially for ballasts in the 50 W–150 

W range, noting that the fixtures would 

need to be replaced to reach those 

levels. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 14; ULT, No. 

50 at p. 6; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 190) ULT stated 

that as the ballast size would increase, 

the proposed financial analysis, and 

market and manufacturer impact, might 

be incorrect. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 66) ULT asked 

how DOE could be sure that ballast size 

would not increase if in some cases 

ballasts meeting the max tech magnetic 

ELs were not yet commercially 

available. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 140) Similarly, 

NEMA requested that DOE explain its 

assumption that there will be no size 

increase. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 14) 

However, CA IOUs and the Joint 

Comment supported DOE’s modeled 

teardown approach as an indicator of 

potential higher-efficiency equipment 

that could be manufactured in the 

future, and an indicator that the max 

tech magnetic standard levels would not 

necessarily increase ballast size. (CA 

IOUs, No. 54 at p. 2; Joint Comment, No. 

62 at p. 6) 

As discussed previously, DOE’s 

modeling approach for magnetic ballasts 

does not change the ballast footprint or 

stack height relative to a commercially 

available ballast. For example, when 

modeling an EL2 magnetic ballast, all 

parameters remain constant except for a 

substitution of the electrical steel. The 

cost and efficiency associated with the 

DOE’s magnetic ballast analysis is based 

on the constraint that ballast size 

(footprint and stack height) is not 

allowed to change. As discussed in 

section V.I of this notice, DOE notes that 

any modifications to fixtures necessary 

so that the fixture can be used in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7772 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

conjunction with electronic ballasts can 

be completed during the manufacturing 

process, and the costs associated with 

these new processes are accounted for 

in the MIA. This regulation does not 

require retrofitting of MHLFs already 

installed in the field. 

CA IOUs also illustrated the existence 

of high efficiency magnetic ballasts 

throughout the wattage ranges, which 

conflicts with manufacturer claims that 

ELs beyond EL1 could not be achieved 

by magnetic ballasts. (CA IOUs, No. 54 

at pp. 3–7) DOE notes that the ballasts 

found with higher than EL1 efficiencies 

in the CEC database were either reactor 

ballasts or ballasts capable of only one 

input voltage. As discussed in section 

V.C.7, DOE only identified ballasts that 

were quad-voltage and either CWA or 

HX as representative. While there are 

more efficient ballasts, if DOE were to 

set an EL that only permitted single 

input voltage or reactor ballasts then 

there would be significant utility lost. 

NEMA and ASAP cautioned that any 

standard requiring a larger ballast for 

one wattage will likely require a larger 

ballast to be designed for all wattages 

within the associated range. This will 

increase the ballast size, weight, and the 

cost of materials (steel and aluminum) 

for a broad range of equipment—not just 

the wattage directly analyzed. (NEMA, 

No. 56 at p. 14; ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 63) For example, 

ULT commented that coverage of the 50 

W–100 W range would require redesign 

of all magnetic ballasts of that range. EEI 

and Acuity commented that increasing 

the size of a ballast would require 

increasing the size of the accompanying 

fixture, which would use more natural 

resources and would impact windloading requirements. (EEI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 59; 

Acuity, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 59) ULT further affirmed that 

bigger ballasts would lead to alterations 

of fixture housing, and thus to a 

complicated replacement process 

affecting the entire installed base. 

Replacing all the MHLFs currently 

installed, especially in applications, 

such as light poles, where more than the 

fixture would have to change to 

accommodate the mounting of a larger 

ballast, would have a negative impact 

on the whole market. (ULT, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 61) 

APPA noted that altered design 

specifications and wind-loading 

requirements are significant cost adders. 

(APPA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 62) 

As stated previously, DOE does not 

analyze a level that would require an 

increase in ballast size relative to 

commercially available ballasts. All 

magnetic ballasts are either 

commercially available, or modeled 

using the size constraints of a 

commercially available ballast. All 

electronic ballasts analyzed are 

commercially available. Thus, DOE does 

not find that the ballast efficiencies 

analyzed in this final rule would 

necessitate an increase in ballast size. 

Regarding ballast weight, electronic 

ballasts tend to be lighter than magnetic 

ballasts. For fixtures, DOE analyzed the 

size of fixtures on pole tops (parking/

area fixtures and acorn-style post tops) 

to determine if any ELs would increase 

the surface area of fixtures to the point 

of causing concerns with wind loading. 

DOE found no evidence that fixtures 

listed for only magnetic ballasts, versus 

those listed for both electronic and 

magnetic or only electronic had a 

systematically different wind resistance 

(effective projected area—surface area of 

the largest side) or overall weight. Thus, 

DOE does not find that the ballast 

efficiencies analyzed in this final rule 

would necessitate an increase in fixture 

size. 

GE commented that manufacturers 

could choose to rate ballasts 

conservatively (i.e., overdesign the 

ballast) compared to standards, thus 

providing a cushion between the 

regulation and the ballasts’ tested 

efficiency. This approach would 

translate into increased size and 

material costs. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 89) 

DOE acknowledges that 

manufacturers have flexibility in 

choosing how to design and rate their 

products. However, DOE does not 

require manufacturers to rate a product 

at a certain increment above the adopted 

standard level. Therefore, DOE has not 

accounted for any increase in ballast 

size or material cost that may result 

from such a decision. 

b. Electronic Ballasts 

In the NOPR, DOE analyzed electronic 

ballasts as higher-efficiency 

replacements for magnetic ballasts and 

based max-tech efficiencies for 50 W to 

500 W MHLFs on commercially 

available electronic ballasts 

independently tested by DOE. In 

response to that approach, DOE received 

several comments, discussed below, 

regarding outdoor transient protection, 

thermal protection, fixture and ballast 

redesign, electronic ballast applications, 

HFE ballasts, lumen maintenance, and 

other issues. 

Transient Protection 

In the NOPR, DOE recognized the 

necessity for outdoor fixtures to be able 

to withstand large voltage transients, 

primarily due to lightning strikes. While 

MHLFs with magnetic ballasts are 

robust and do not require any additional 

devices or enhancements to withstand 

these transients, based on its evaluation 

of commercially available MHLFs, DOE 

found that fixtures with electronic 

ballasts usually require additional 

design features in order to have 

adequate protection. Some 

manufacturers indicated that a portion 

of their electronic ballasts already have 

10 kV surge protection built in, but most 

electronic ballasts are only rated for 2.5 

kV–6 kV voltage spikes. Though 

magnetic ballasts are known to provide 

protection in excess of the 10 kV 

specified by the ANSI C62.41.1–2002 

Class C rating, for the NOPR DOE only 

considered the cost of meeting the 10 kV 

requirement. 

NEMA asserted the proposed 

efficiency standards would lead to a 

shift from magnetic to electronically 

ballasted fixtures that are more 

susceptible to transient surges. (NEMA, 

No. 56 at pp. 5–6; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 

9; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 48 at pp. 32–33) The South Carolina 

Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G), 

APPA, NEMA, and ULT noted that the 

need for additional surge protection in 

outdoor applications using electronic 

ballasts is real, as they will not handle 

transient surges as well as magnetic 

ballasts. (SCE&G, No. 49 at p. 1; APPA, 

No. 51 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 16; 

ULT, No. 50 at pp. 9–10) Acuity 

expressed concern that the efficiency 

standards could preclude necessary 

fixtures used in environments with 

transient voltage. (Acuity, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 162) 

SCE&G explained that magnetic ballasts 

contain larger coils and steel cores that 

better absorb energy. SCE&G added that 

the more robust protection required for 

electronic ballasts would add cost and 

complexity. (SCE&G, No. 49 at p. 1) 

Specifically, APPA and NEMA stated 

that transient surge protection would 

require a much larger front end or an 

external sacrificial device, resulting in 

additional reengineering cost. (APPA, 

No. 51 at p. 6; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees that electronic ballasts 

need additional surge protection in 

outdoor applications. In this final rule, 

DOE continues to find that by providing 

external surge protection up to the 10 

kV requirement of ANSI C62.41.1–200, 

electronic ballasts can be used in the 

same outdoor locations as magnetic 

ballasts. The cost of the additional 

equipment in outdoor applications is 

added to the total fixture MSP (see 

section V.C.12.c). Using electronic 

ballasts outdoors may also result in 

increased maintenance or replacement 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7773 

costs for the voltage surge protection 

devices. These costs are accounted for 

in the LCC analysis (section V.F of this 

notice). 

APPA, NEMA, and ULT noted that 

while it is not difficult to add extra 

surge protection, it is impossible to 

predict when the protection device will 

need to be replaced and how many 

strikes any given surge protector can 

handle over its lifetime before the 

ballast and lamp are affected. APPA, 

NEMA, and ULT added that voltage 

transients can be variable in severity 

and timeframe. The current 

requirements for surge protection only 

cover 10 kV, even though surges of 20 

kV are common. ULT stated that even 

with transient protection, electronic 

ballasts would likely not withstand 

voltage transients as well as magnetic 

ballasts do. When the surge protector 

has reached the end of its life, the next 

surge will cause the ballast to fail. 

(APPA, No. 51 at pp. 5, 6; NEMA, No. 

56 at pp. 2, 16; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 12– 

13. 16). SCE&G further commented that 

resources will be consumed while 

installing and repairing fixtures with 

electronic ballasts damaged by 

lightning. (SCE&G, No. 49 at p. 1) The 

Joint Comment agreed that the surge 

protection device might need to be 

replaced during a fixture’s lifetime for 

some fixtures and this additional 

maintenance and repair cost should be 

analyzed by DOE. (Joint Comment, No. 

62 at p. 5) 

DOE has included the cost of transient 

protection capable of surge protection 

up to 10 kV in its estimates of the initial 

cost of outdoor MHLFs with electronic 

ballasts, as that is the level specified in 

ANSI C136.2–2004. DOE agrees that one 

difficulty arising from the addition of 

transient protection to electronic 

ballasts in voltage transient affected 

areas is the uncertainty in how many 

strikes the protection will be able to 

absorb and when the protective device 

will be sacrificed and the ballast made 

vulnerable. This vulnerability will affect 

the maintenance costs and average 

lifetime of outdoor electronic ballasts. 

See section V.F of this notice for 

discussion of these costs. 

APPA suggested that DOE take into 

account data regarding the frequency 

and severity of lightning strikes in the 

United States and revise the forecasts 

for maintenance costs given the 

frequency and effect of strikes. A 

lightning strike can affect fixtures 

within a square kilometer, and 

according to National Lightning Safety 

Institute data, which would affect 

hundreds of ballasts each year. (APPA, 

No. 51 at p. 6) APPA and NEMA noted 

that besides lightning, there could be 

many other causes of transient surges, 

such as wind, transmission line 

movement, wind generator surges, 

equipment or load switching, and 

collapse of sections of a distribution 

network. (APPA, No. 51 at p. 6; NEMA, 

No. 56 at p. 17) APPA and NEMA urged 

DOE not to eliminate the desirable 

performance characteristics of magnetic 

ballasts from the market. APPA and 

NEMA predicted that replacement rates 

for outdoor fixtures would increase 

significantly for utilities and could 

cause safety and security concerns. 

(APPA, No. 51 at p. 6; NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 16) Therefore, APPA and NEMA 

stated that the many causes of transient 

surges make magnetic ballasts necessary 

in outdoor applications. (APPA, No. 51 

at p. 6; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 17) 

As discussed previously, DOE has 

determined that electronic ballasts can 

be used as substitutes for magnetic 

ballasts when the necessary design 

changes are included. DOE agrees that 

transient protection is a critical 

consideration, which is why DOE is 

modeling electronically ballasted 

fixtures sold with transient protection 

devices, and also including transient 

protection device and ballast 

replacement costs. See section V.F of 

this notice for details on how DOE 

models the frequency with which 

outdoor ballasts encounter surges, and 

how those translate directly to increased 

maintenance and replacement costs, and 

the cost-effectiveness of these measures. 

NEMA and ULT noted that indoor 

applications also expose ballasts to high 

voltage transients. While transient 

protection is needed to protect against 

lighting strikes in any outdoor 

application, it is also needed in heavy 

industrial indoor applications where 

large machinery can send massive 

transients across the power lines when 

they are turned on. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 

16; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 9–10) 

In researching transient protection for 

the final rule, DOE found that indoor 

industrial fixtures are also subject to 

voltage surges. DOE has thus included 

voltage transient protection in its price 

analysis for indoor electronic ballasts 

experiencing transient surges in these 

industrial applications. Specifically, 

DOE analyzes the indoor industrial 

applications that require additional 

surge protection as an LCC subgroup. 

DOE found that indoor industrial 

MHLFs could experience voltage surges 

up to 6 kV. The voltage transient 

protection device used in DOE’s 

analysis can withstand 120 surges of 3 

kV, 18 surges of 6 kV, or 5 surges of 10 

kV before failure. LCC subgroups are 

discussed in section V.H and the results 

of the subgroup analysis are presented 

in section VII.B.1.b. 

Thermal Protection 

In the NOPR, DOE found that fixtures 

with electronic ballasts had to be 

designed to tolerate electronic ballasts’ 

higher sensitivity to temperatures. 

Manufacturers must design new and 

often larger brackets, and apply 

additional potting material, for example, 

to create an adequate thermal contact 

between the ballast and fixture housing. 

Based on manufacturer feedback and 

fixture teardown costs, DOE found that 

there was an approximately 20 percent 

increase in fixture MPCs to include 

thermal management for electronic 

ballasts. 

Several stakeholders commented on 

the heat sensitivity of electronic 

ballasts. SCE&G stated that the most 

serious flaw of the electronic MH ballast 

concept is heat dissipation. The heat 

sensitivity of electronic ballasts would 

lead to a larger fixture, so that the 

fixture could achieve proper thermal 

management, adding cost and using 

more resources. (SCE&G, No. 49 at p. 1) 

One issue identified by stakeholders 

regarding the thermal management of 

electronic ballasts is that electronic 

ballasts cannot operate in the same 

temperature environments as magnetic 

ballasts. SCE&G, APPA, and NEMA 

stated that most electronic ballasts have 

an 80 °C internal operating temperature 

(or case temperature) limit, while their 

magnetic counterparts are in the greater 

than 180 °C range. (SCE&G, No. 49 at p. 

1; APPA, No. 51 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 56 

at pp. 5–6; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 9; 

NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at pp. 32–33) ULT commented that 

this case temperature limitation results 

in the unavailability of electronic 

ballasts rated for operation in ambient 

air with a temperature higher than 50 

°C. (ULT, No. 50 at pp. 2, 8–10) APPA 

and NEMA stated that this poses 

significant maintenance and operations 

issues for existing fixtures. In some 

cases, protecting against temperature 

sensitivity would require a utility to 

move from ballast replacement to entire 

fixture replacement. (APPA, No. 51 at 

pp. 5, 8; NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 2, 16, 24) 

Acuity expressed concern for high 

wattage fixtures used in extreme 

applications, stating that the efficiency 

standards could preclude necessary 

fixtures from being available for use in 

environments with high temperatures. 

(Acuity, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 162) 

In addition, several stakeholders 

noted that the design of existing fixtures 

may create high temperature 

environments within the fixture itself, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7774 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

which would be unsuitable for 

electronic ballasts. Philips commented 

that many MHLFs are designed with the 

core and coil of the ballast directly 

above the lamp, which creates a high 

temperature environment in which 

electronic ballasts cannot survive. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 188) In addition, Philips stated 

that with higher system input power, 

there are often higher temperature 

environments, and it is difficult to find 

components, especially capacitors, rated 

at those high temperatures. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 

194–195) GE questioned whether the EL 

models took into account thermal 

conditions and luminaire design, or if it 

just assumed the boundary conditions 

would match the ballast. GE ultimately 

agreed that DOE’s model does not 

include the thermal characteristics of 

the fixture or the boundary conditions. 

(GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 

at pp. 147, 217) 

DOE agrees that thermal protection is 

required to render electronic ballasts 

suitable substitutes for magnetic ballasts 

in all applications. DOE accounts for 

this cost in section V.C.12 of this final 

rule. DOE also analyzed the 

commercially available fixtures that are 

advertised for use with electronic 

ballasts in outdoor locations. In extreme 

heat conditions, DOE has determined 

that electronic ballasts typically operate 

up to case temperatures of 80–90 °C. 

While magnetic ballasts themselves are 

able to handle temperatures as extreme 

as 180 °C, a magnetic ballast must be 

paired with a capacitor and DOE has 

determined that the capacitor typically 

only carries a temperature rating of 

about 100 °C. Furthermore, pulse start 

magnetic ballasts must be paired with 

an igniter in addition to a capacitor and 

DOE has determined that the igniter also 

typically carries a temperature rating of 

about 100 °C. Based on manufacturer 

interviews and assessment of 

commercially available fixtures, DOE 

believes that thermal design changes, 

such as new brackets or additional 

potting material to create an adequate 

thermal contact between the ballast and 

fixture housing, can address this 10–20 

°C difference in temperature rating 

between electronic and magnetic 

ballasts. Therefore in this final rule, as 

in the NOPR, DOE has included a 20 

percent increase in fixture MPCs to 

account for increased thermal 

management for electronic ballasts. 

DOE acknowledges that existing 

fixtures designed for magnetic ballasts 

may not be suitable for electronic 

ballasts due to the need for increased 

thermal management. This rulemaking 

does not require retrofits of fixtures 

currently installed in the field. Any 

modifications to fixture design would be 

completed by the fixture manufacturer 

and incorporated in any new fixture 

sales. Fixture manufacturers already sell 

fixtures rated for use with electronic 

ballasts. 

Fixture and Ballast Redesign 

When analyzing electronic ballast 

levels (EL3 and EL4) in the NOPR, DOE 

assumed that the main design changes 

required to allow electronic ballasts 

were to increase thermal management, 

add voltage transient suppression, and 

add 120 V auxiliary power 

functionality. The costs of these design 

changes are discussed in section V.C.12 

of this notice. In addition to the 

increased costs associated with these 

design changes, DOE also accounted for 

manufacturer conversion costs in the 

MIA. 

ASAP agreed with DOE’s 

methodology in analyzing the 

challenges and costs associated with 

using electronic ballasts in outdoor 

applications. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 57, 62) CA 

IOUs and the Joint Comment stated that 

major manufacturers already offer 

electronic ballasts designed to be used 

outdoors. Further, electronic ballasts 

generate less internal heat and already 

make up approximately 25 percent of 

sales for some wattage bins. In addition, 

using the CEC compliance database, CA 

IOUs illustrated the high efficiency and 

availability of electronic ballasts for 

indoor and outdoor applications. (CA 

IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 3–7; CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

202; Joint Comment, No. 62 at pp. 4–5) 

DOE also received several comments 

that questioned the feasibility of using 

electronic ballasts in all applications, in 

particular how requiring electronic 

ballasts could impact the need for 

ballast and fixture redesign. ULT stated 

that there is a difference between 

commercially available LFE ballasts and 

commercially available MHLFs 

effectively incorporating such ballasts. 

(ULT, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 

at p. 204) APPA, the National Rural 

Electric Cooperative Association 

(NRECA), ULT, and EEI stated that 

magnetic ballasts are better suited to 

withstand temperature and transient 

extremes, wet locations, heat from the 

lamp, and would require larger fixtures. 

Therefore, the switch to electronic 

ballasts would require new designs, 

retooling, and cause a lack of 

replacements for existing fixtures. 

(APPA, No. 51 at p. 4; NRECA, No. 61 

at p. 2; ULT, No. 50 at p. 2; EEI, No. 53 

at p. 3) NEMA commented further that 

electronic ballasts for outdoor 

applications would need to be 

redesigned, and hardened and sealed, 

and thus made larger. (NEMA, No. 56 at 

p. 6) While California has regulations 

that require electronic ballasts in certain 

situations, NEMA pointed out that 

efficiency standards in California are 

low enough that the amount of redesign 

was not as challenging as it would be for 

some of the levels presented in the 

NOPR. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 199) 

Stakeholders further stated that, 

because of the increased size of 

electronic ballasts and fixtures, there 

would be significant impacts on existing 

fixtures. APPA, NRECA, ULT, and EEI 

commented that the switch to electronic 

ballasts would require new designs, 

retooling, and cause a lack of 

replacements for existing fixtures. 

(APPA, No. 51 at p. 4; NRECA, No. 61 

at p. 2; ULT, No. 50 at p. 2; EEI, No. 53 

at p. 3) EEI elaborated, stating that 

electronic ballasts used for outdoor 

fixtures are larger and heavier than 

magnetic ballasts, which would make it 

harder to replace ballasts in existing 

fixtures. (EEI, No. 53 at p. 3) GE asserted 

that switching to electronic ballasts, 

especially outdoors, would take a great 

deal of care, attention, design, and 

development because it is not possible 

to put an electronic ballast into an 

existing magnetic fixture. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 198) 

APPA expressed concern regarding the 

ability to maintain existing 

infrastructure and Cooper Lighting 

(Cooper) cautioned against replacement 

fixtures not matching installations. 

(APPA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 196; Cooper, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 71) In addition, 

Cooper commented that lighting fixtures 

are usually UL listed with a certain type 

of ballast and have fit and thermal 

issues among different suppliers. 

(Cooper, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 74) NEMA asserted the 

proposed efficiency standards would 

force a shift from magnetic to larger 

electronic ballasts that would not be 

interchangeable in fixtures. (NEMA, No. 

56 at pp. 5–6; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 9; 

NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at pp. 32–33) 

DOE agrees that there would need to 

be adjustments made to the MHLF 

system to allow electronic ballasts to be 

used outdoors. DOE determined that 

electronic ballasts are capable of use 

outdoors by adding transient protection, 

thermal protection, and using fixtures 

specifically designed to be used 

outdoors. Outdoor fixtures that use 

electronic ballasts already exist in the 

marketplace and DOE research did not 

indicate any trend of these fixtures 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7775 

being larger than comparable magnetic 

fixtures for the same wattage products. 

Furthermore, as discussed in section 

V.C.12, DOE revised its methodology for 

determining fixture pricing to ensure 

that the costs for outdoor fixtures 

housing electronic ballasts also 

incorporate the necessary 

weatherization. 

DOE contends that the levels analyzed 

in this rulemaking will not require 

increases in ballast size. All magnetic 

ballast levels are designed to be 

achievable with magnetic ballasts 

commercially available or using 

magnetic ballasts that are the same size 

as commercially available ballasts. 

When switching to electronic ballasts, 

DOE notes that the sizes and shapes of 

electronic ballasts are typically different 

from magnetic ballasts (longer length 

but narrower width), but do not increase 

to a size that would cause concern about 

their use in any applications where 

magnetic ballasts are used. Any fixture 

redesign that is required to ensure 

fixtures comply with adopted standards 

was taken into account in the economic 

analyses of the final rule. As discussed 

above, DOE acknowledges that the surge 

protection device might need to be 

replaced during the fixture’s lifetime 

and this maintenance cost, as well as 

potential early replacement costs from 

the surge protection being sacrificed and 

the next strike compromising the 

electronic ballast, are taken into account 

in the LCC analysis (section V.F of this 

final rule). 

DOE has determined that replacement 

fixtures should have no issues with the 

adopted standard, as the size and weight 

of fixtures do not need to increase for 

any of the levels. While certain fixtures 

may require redesign for new ballast 

types, such as electronic, the overall 

size and weight of fixtures does not 

increase. DOE agrees that certain 

fixtures are UL listed and have 

compatibility assured with specific 

types of ballasts—but the ballasts 

affected by this rulemaking are those 

being placed in new fixtures and not 

those being used as replacements in 

existing fixtures. Any new fixture sold 

will be able to be cleared for UL listing 

and compatibility with the ballast 

included in the final assembly. 

Regarding the most efficient levels 

analyzed, which require electronic 

ballasts, Philips stated that LFE MH 

ballasts cannot be made more efficient 

than the equipment already available. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 70) DOE agrees that the 

efficiency of low frequency ballasts 

cannot be improved beyond that of 

currently commercially available 

ballasts. DOE’s max tech electronic level 

(EL4) is based on commercially 

available low frequency ballasts. 

In summary, in this final rule, DOE 

continues to model the cost of switching 

from magnetic ballasts to electronic 

ballasts, accounting for thermal 

management, transient protection, and 

general weatherization of the fixture in 

applications in which it is required. 

Applications 

Because DOE concluded that 

electronic ballasts and magnetic ballasts 

could provide the same utility in the 

wattages that electronic ballasts are 

offered (50 W to 500 W), DOE 

concluded in the NOPR that there was 

no application unique to magnetic or 

electronic ballasts. With the proper 

adjustments to the fixture, electronic 

ballasts could be used anywhere 

magnetic ballasts are used. 

Several manufacturers commented on 

the prevalence of commercially 

available MHLFs listed for use with 

electronic ballasts. Cooper commented 

that they only use electronic ballasts in 

select MHLFs, including a very limited 

number of low-wattage fixtures in some 

garage applications. (Cooper, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 191) GE 

stated that they carry a 400 W electronic 

ballast, but it is used in retail 

applications with ideal operating 

conditions. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 191) Philips, on 

the other hand, commented that they 

make a lot of electronic MH ballasts, 

anywhere from 25 W to 400 W, mostly 

used in retail applications. However, 

these ballasts are primarily for use with 

CMH lamps and would not be suitable 

in existing fixtures, regardless of lamp 

type, without significant redesign. 

Philips added that there are no 

components available for applications 

greater than 400 W and the costs are 

approximately three times higher than 

magnetic ballasts (Philips, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 192– 

193, 195) Acuity commented that the 

only applications with which they use 

electronic ballasts and low-wattage 

fixtures are downlights, cylindrical 

architectural lighting, and spaces meant 

for low-wattage fixtures where there is 

good power quality and no extreme 

temperatures. (Acuity, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 192) CA IOUs 

clarified that as this ruling applies to 

new fixtures only, they do not see a 

problem with electronic ballasts being 

used outdoors. (CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 196) 

DOE identified fixtures for sale with 

electronic ballasts that were advertised 

for and intended for use in outdoor 

applications, such as exterior post top, 

outdoor area, bollard, canopy, security, 

and wall pack lighting. Manufacturers 

selling these fixtures did not provide 

any indication that they were to be used 

in a more limited set of applications 

relative to magnetic ballasts and did not 

contain warnings with regard to 

particular conditions that should be 

avoided when using those fixtures. For 

the previously described reasons, DOE 

has found that electronic ballasts can be 

used in outdoor applications assuming 

the proper adjustments have been made 

to the fixtures. Any overall fixture 

redesign or conversion costs incurred by 

the manufacturer to switch production 

to fixtures meeting these levels are 

accounted for in the MIA (see section 

V.I.4). DOE emphasizes that this 

rulemaking only applies to new fixtures. 

High-Frequency Electronic Ballasts 

In the NOPR, DOE analyzed HFE 

ballasts and determined that they were 

a valid design option to improve ballast 

efficiency. DOE acknowledged the lack 

of compatibility with CMH lamps, but 

proposed to take those impacts into 

account when adopting any amended 

standards. 

NEMA commented that in the 320 W– 

400 W range, when developing 

electronic ballasts the industry is split 

between low-frequency square wave and 

high-frequency. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 28) However, 

NEMA warned that HFE ballasts are not 

compatible with all MH lamps; the size 

of the arc tube could lead to acoustic 

resonance problems, which cause arc 

instability and possible rupture of the 

arc tube. This would lead to 

compatibility problems where a ballast 

or lamp could not be readily replaced. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 28) NEMA expressed concern 

that there would likely be very limited 

lamp models that could be used with 

these high-efficiency, high-frequency 

ballasts. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 29; NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 15) ULT agreed, commenting 

that there are applications where an 

electronic ballast will not work and an 

HFE-only standard would therefore be a 

mistake. (ULT, No. 50 at p. 8) 

DOE agrees that there are 

compatibility issues with HFE ballasts 

and CMH lamps and that there are no 

industry standards in place for HFE 

ballasts. As discussed in section III.A.4, 

DOE has decided to not consider 

standards for HFE ballasts in this 

rulemaking. Given that HFE ballasts are 

no longer in the scope of the final rule, 

DOE revised the 400 W EL4 

representative unit to be an LFE ballast. 

The final rule only analyzes LFE ballasts 

as representative units. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7776 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Lumen Maintenance 

When analyzing the potential energy 

savings of electronic ballasts in the 

NOPR, DOE only considered the savings 

that would come from increased ballast 

efficiency. It was assumed that 

increased ballast efficiency when using 

the same wattage electronic MH system 

would still provide an equivalent light 

output. 

The Joint Comment expressed its 

belief that DOE has significantly 

underestimated the energy and 

economic savings from electronic 

ballasts because lamps driven by 

electronic ballasts experience better 

lumen maintenance, which allows for 

fewer fixtures or lower-wattage lamps 

and less frequent re-lamping. (Joint 

Comment, No. 62 at pp. 1–2) The Joint 

Comment cited the following sources in 

support of the positive impact electronic 

ballasts have on lumen maintenance: (1) 

Natural Resources Canada stated an 

electronic ballast produced 15 percent 

more light output after 8000 hours; (2) 

GE claimed their UltraMaxTM 

electronic ballast produced 13 percent 

higher mean lumens at 40 percent of 

rated life than an MH system using a 

pulse-start magnetic ballast; (3) Advance 

claimed that their DynaVision®

electronic ballast delivered a 20 percent 

improvement in lumen maintenance at 

40 percent of rated life over a pulse-start 

MH system; and (4) Holophane claimed 

that electronic ballast technology 

increased mean lumen output by 13 

percent on pulse-start lamps and stated 

that improved lumen maintenance is the 

most fundamental benefit of electronic 

HID ballasts. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at 

p. 2) 

DOE researched the potential increase 

in lumen maintenance when switching 

from magnetic to electronic ballasts. 

While the comments cited several 

different examples of systems whose 

lumen maintenance was increased with 

electronic ballasts, DOE did not find 

universal agreement across the industry 

regarding the impact of electronic 

ballasts on lumen maintenance. While 

there seemed to be general agreement 

that electronic ballasts may have 

increased lumen maintenance, the 

literature indicated that specific claims 

may be unique to certain combinations 

of lamps and ballasts. There is no 

assurance that customers would choose 

an electronic ballast or lamp that would 

increase lumen maintenance if DOE 

adopted an electronic ballast standard 

level. As such, DOE maintains the 

approach from the NOPR to only 

consider the energy savings from 

increased ballast efficiency. 

Additional Considerations 

NEMA stated that mandating ELs that 

preclude any technology but pulse-start 

electronically ballasted MHLFs would 

cause increased maintenance and 

material costs due to surge and lightning 

resistance, increased fixture size and 

price, added weather resistance, remote 

igniter installation, and the higher 

maintenance cost and considerations of 

high-mast lighting fixtures. (NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 8) APPA and Florida Power and 

Light were skeptical about electronic 

ballasts being able to withstand all types 

of outdoor threats, such as extreme cold, 

extreme heat, humidity, salt water, salt 

air, surge, sag, and swell. (APPA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 196; 

Florida Power and Light, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 204) NEMA 

stated that electronic ballasts would 

require added capabilities of weather 

resistance, surge resistance, and thermal 

resilience. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 70) 

DOE has accounted for the additional 

costs at any level requiring the use of 

electronic ballasts. DOE also agrees that 

electronic ballasts used outdoors require 

general weatherization. To account for 

this, DOE conducted additional fixture 

teardowns for this final rule to come up 

with a fixture price at each 

representative wattage that was unique 

for indoor versus outdoor applications. 

This way the outdoor fixtures 

incorporating electronic ballasts will 

account for the necessary 

weatherization. Weather resistance, 

voltage transient protection, and 

thermal protection are incorporated into 

the full fixture MSPs (see section 

V.C.12). Any potential redesign required 

of manufacturers is considered in the 

MIA (see section V.I.4). Maintenance is 

considered in the LCC analysis (see 

section V.F). DOE investigated whether 

a standard that requires an electronic 

ballast would negatively impact highmast lighting applications using remote 

ballast placement. Some electronic 

ballasts are capable of starting lamps up 

to 33 feet, but magnetic ballasts can 

perform remote starting and lamp 

operation from longer distances. Unlike 

magnetic pulse-start ballasts, the ballast 

to lamp distance cannot be increased 

with a remote igniter, because this 

remote igniter device is not available for 

use with electronic ballasts. DOE 

investigated high-mast applications and 

determined some roadway applications 

with 30 to 40 foot poles could be 

utilizing the remote starting feature. It is 

unclear what percentage, if any, of the 

30 to 40 foot poles use remote ballast 

placement, such that the remote starting 

ability of electronic ballasts would be an 

issue. Further, DOE notes that electronic 

ballasts are capable of starting lamps at 

distances exceeding 30 feet. The other 

main category of high-mast applications 

includes those at extreme heights, at 

least 100 feet, typical of sports stadium 

or airfield lighting. These applications 

require fixtures of 1000 W or higher. 

Because DOE is not analyzing efficiency 

levels that would require electronic 

ballasts at these high wattages, these 

high-mast, high-wattage MHLFs do not 

pose a concern. In summary, DOE 

concluded the need for remote starting 

does not necessitate the usage of 

magnetic ballasts. 

Florida Power and Light commented 

that electronic ballasts are designed to 

work on a National Electrical Safety 

Code (NESC) three-wire system. 

However, Florida Power and Light runs 

a NESC two-wire system and is having 

difficulties with electronic drivers. 

Florida Power and Light stated that they 

have heard of similar issues from other 

utilities, such as Duke Energy and 

National Grid, and are very concerned 

about being forced into using electronic 

ballasts. (Florida Power and Light, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

204) DOE reviewed manufacturer 

literature for a variety of electronic 

ballasts and found no requirements that 

they be used in conjunction with a 

specific wiring scheme. The literature 

does stipulate that the electronic ballast 

should be grounded to earth, but does 

not speak to preferred or required 

wiring systems. DOE continued to 

analyze electronic ballasts in outdoor 

locations for this final rule. 

9. Efficiency Levels 

Based on the higher-efficiency ballasts 

selected for analysis, discussed in 

section V.C.8, DOE developed ELs for 

the representative equipment classes. 

EL1 represented a moderately higherefficiency magnetic ballast, and EL2 

represented the max-tech magnetic 

ballast. EL1 and EL2 were characterized 

by a combination of commercially 

available and modeled magnetic 

ballasts. EL3 represented the least 

efficient commercially available 

electronic ballast, and EL4 represented 

the max-tech level for all ballasts 

incorporated into MHLFs. In the NOPR, 

DOE created four ELs for the equipment 

classes with the 70 W, 150 W, 250 W, 

and 400 W representative wattages. Due 

to the fact that DOE did not analyze 

electronic ballasts for the 1000 W 

representative wattage, DOE analyzed 

only two ELs in the equipment class 

above 500 W. 

NEMA and ULT offered revised 

efficiency equations, suggesting 

efficiencies lower than the NOPR 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7777 

proposed levels. The levels are set with 

linear equations from 50 to 150 W and 

500 to 1000 W, with a flat efficiency of 

88 percent from 150 to 500 W. (NEMA, 

No. 56 at pp. 17–19; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 

10–11) Philips commented that 

opportunities to further increase 

efficiency in this market have been 

explored and all economically feasible 

efficiency gains have already been 

achieved. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 55) NEMA 

added to this point, stating that 

commercial markets, such as sports 

lighting, are already aggressively 

managing their costs and trying to get 

the most efficient equipment. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

56) 

In this final rule, all of the max-tech 

levels are commercially available. All 

lower ELs analyzed are either 

commercially available or 

technologically feasible based on DOE’s 

revised ballast modeling. To develop 

efficiency-level equations in this final 

rule, DOE utilized its own efficiency test 

data as well as catalog efficiency data 

and modeling to develop the equation 

forms and efficiency trends for each 

wattage range. The efficiency-level 

equations are generally designed to 

closely match the efficiency of the moreefficient representative units identified 

for each equipment class. The 

discussion below describes the 

equations used in each wattage bin. For 

further details, see chapter 5 of the final 

rule TSD. 

For the lowest two wattage bins, 

which consist of 50 W–150 W ballasts, 

DOE used its own test data, as well as 

efficiency trends according to catalog 

data and modeled more-efficient units, 

to generate separate power-law 

equations for magnetic (EL1 and EL2) 

and electronic (EL3 and EL4) ballasts. 

The next wattage bin consists of 150 

W ballasts, excluding those in the 

currently exempt 150 W fixtures, 

through and including 250 W ballasts. 

Because EISA 2007 covered equipment 

in this wattage bin, DOE can only 

evaluate efficiencies equal to or above 

the existing standards to avoid 

backsliding. 150 W magnetic ballasts 

cannot be designed to meet the EISA 

2007 standard of 88 percent efficiency 

and 175 W ballasts only reach 88 

percent by using M6 steel. DOE’s test 

data also indicated that there are no 150 

W or 175 W magnetic ballasts available 

that exceed 88 percent efficiency. 

Though DOE did not test any 200 W 

ballasts, a review of the CCE database 

indicates that 200 W ballasts are 

typically only available at about 88 

percent efficiency. Because DOE has no 

specific information indicating that 

these ballasts can be designed to be 

more efficient, DOE assumed that 88 

percent is also the max-tech magnetic 

ballast efficiency for wattages up 

through 200 W. Thus, DOE maintained 

the EISA 2007 efficiency requirement of 

88 percent for ELs designed to represent 

levels met by magnetic ballasts. DOE 

did not have any information available 

about the achievable efficiencies for 201 

W–250 W ballasts, as ballasts in this 

range are not commercially available. 

Therefore, DOE gradually increased the 

magnetic ELs (EL1 and EL2) between 

200 W and 250 W ballasts using a linear 

trend from 88 percent to the efficiency 

of the EL1 and EL2 250 W 

representative units. For the electronic 

ballast levels (EL3 and EL4), DOE 

continued the power-law function fit 

from the 50 W–150 W range to 250 W. 

The next wattage bin consists of 251 

W–500 W ballasts. Because the 250 W 

and 400 W magnetic representative 

units at EL1 and EL2 have the same 

efficiency and utilize similar design 

options, DOE created a flat efficiency 

requirement for magnetic ballasts in this 

wattage bin. For the electronic ballast 

levels (EL3 and EL4), DOE continued 

the power-law function fit from the 50 

W–250 W range to 500 W. 

The next wattage bin consists of 501 

W–1000 W ballasts. DOE examined 

catalog data for market availability and 

found no electronic ballasts for general 

lighting applications commercially 

available above 500 W. Thus, there are 

only two ELs at this wattage range rather 

than four. NEMA submitted written 

comments indicating that different 

groups of ballasts have different 

relationships between lamp current 

squared and lamp wattage. (NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 13) Through review of ANSI 

C78.81–2010 and lamp datasheets, DOE 

found lamps with rated wattages 

between 501 W and 750 W generally 

had different lamp voltages than lamps 

with rated wattages between 751 W and 

1000 W, suggesting a difference in 

ballast efficiency trends across the 750 

W threshold. Therefore, DOE used 

linear equations from 501 W–750 W that 

(1) connect to the EL1 and EL2 

equations from the 251 W–500 W 

equipment class, and (2) connect to the 

least efficient 750 W ballasts on the 

market at 91 percent. Then from 751 W– 

1000 W DOE used linear equations that 

(1) connect to 91 percent at the low 

wattage end, and (2) connect to the EL1 

and EL2 representative unit efficiencies 

at 1000 W. This approach to the 501 W– 

1000 W equipment class also has the 

advantage of encouraging purchase of 

lower wattage ballasts, by ensuring that 

commercially available options remain 

on the market at EL1 and EL2. 

The highest wattage bin consists of 

1001 W–2000 W ballasts. DOE again 

found no electronic ballasts in this 

wattage range, so there are only two 

levels of efficiency at the highest 

wattage range rather than four. After 

examining the efficiency trends among 

commercially available ballasts in this 

wattage bin, DOE used a flat linear 

equation above 1000 W due to the 

limited data available regarding an 

efficiency trend for these wattages. DOE 

anchored the line from the previous 

wattage bin’s 1000 W efficiencies at EL1 

and EL2 and confirmed the equation 

allows the representative units at 1500 

W to just meet their respective ELs. 

Table V.4 summarizes all of the 

functions and efficiencies describing 

each equipment class. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.4—EFFICIENCY LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Representative equipment 

class 

Rep. wattage EL Minimum efficiency equation† % 

≥50 W and ≤100 W .................. 70 W .......................... EL1 1/(1+1.33×P∧(¥0.346))† 

EL2 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

EL3 1/(1+0.600×P∧(¥0.340)) 

EL4 1/(1+0.360×P∧(¥0.297)) 

>100 W and <150 W* ............... 150 W ........................ EL1 1/(1+1.33×P∧(¥0.346)) 

EL2 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

EL3 1/(1+0.600×P∧(¥0.340)) 

EL4 1/(1+0.360×P∧(¥0.297)) 

≥150 W** and ≤250 W ............. 250 W ........................ EL1 ≥150 W and ≤200 W: .........................

0.880 ...................................................

>200 W and ≤250 W: 

0.000400×P + 0.800 

EL2 ≥150 W and ≤200 W: .........................

0.880 ...................................................

>200 W and ≤250 W: 

0.000600×P + 0.760 

EL3 1/(1+0.600×P∧(¥0.340)) 

EL4 1/(1+0.360×P∧(¥0.297)) 

>250 W and ≤500 W ................ 400 W ........................ EL1 0.900 

EL2 0.910 

EL3 1/(1+0.600×P∧(¥0.340)) 

EL4 1/(1+0.360×P∧(¥0.297)) 

>500 W and ≤1000 W .............. 1000 W ...................... EL1 >500 W and ≤750 W: .........................

0.0000400×P+0.880 ...........................

>750 W and ≤1000 W: 

0.0000840×P + 0.847 

EL2 >500 W and ≤750 W: .........................

0.910 ...................................................

>750 W and ≤1000 W: 

0.000104×P + 0.832 

>1000 W and ≤2000 W ............ 1500 W ...................... EL1 0.931 

EL2 0.936 

* Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

** Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

† P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the MHLF is designed to operate. 

10. Design Standard 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(4), DOE is 

permitted to set an energy efficiency 

standard based on both design and 

performance requirements. EISA 2007 

required probe-start ballasts to be 94 

percent efficient, effectively banning 

probe-start ballasts between 150 W and 

500 W (except those 150 W ballasts 

exempted by EISA 2007) based on their 

inability to meet this performance 

requirement. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(hh)(1)(A)(ii)) Manufacturers 

responded to the EISA 2007 standards 

by shifting their inventory to pulse-start 

ballasts, which are subject to less 

stringent standards. In the NOPR, DOE 

proposed a design standard that would 

prohibit the sale of probe-start ballasts 

in newly sold fixtures from 501 W–2000 

W. 

The Joint Comment supported 

standards for high-wattage fixtures and 

agreed that a design standard 

prohibiting probe-start ballasts could 

yield additional energy savings by 

allowing a customer to install fewer or 

lower-wattage pulse-start fixtures. If 

DOE found that a design standard for 

the highest wattage products was not 

feasible or cost effective, the Joint 

Comment urged DOE to split the 

highest-wattage equipment class into 

two classes—one for 501 W–1000 W 

fixtures and one for 1001 W–2000 W 

fixtures—such that the design standard 

could be applied to only 501 W–1000 W 

fixtures. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at p. 8) 

DOE agrees that the design standard 

could result in energy savings through 

various potential energy saving 

pathways. As discussed in section 

V.A.2, in the final rule DOE has 

established separate equipment classes 

for 501 W–1000 W MHLFs and 1001 W– 

2000 W MHLFs. As a result, DOE 

analyzed the feasibility of the design 

standard separately for these two 

wattage ranges. 

In the NOPR, DOE based its analysis 

of the design standard on the 1000 W 

MHLFs. For the final rule DOE 

continues to analyze the 1000 W 

MHLFs, but only as representative of the 

501 W–1000 W equipment class. The 

Joint Comment disagreed with DOE’s 

figure proposed in the NOPR of a 5.6 

increase in lumen maintenance 

corresponding to a 5.6 percent reduction 

in normalized input system power and 

instead predicted higher energy savings 

of 12.5 percent. (Joint Comment, No. 62 

at p. 8) Musco Lighting also did not 

agree with the 5.6 percent energy 

savings assumed in the NOPR, but 

predicted it would be a smaller 

percentage. Musco Lighting stated that 

in sports lighting applications, which 

are common at the higher wattage range, 

the lamp arc tube is horizontal or in a 

tilted position, yielding less projected 

energy savings than calculated with a 

vertical base up position. (Musco 

Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 180) Musco Lighting provided 

further data demonstrating that 1500 W 

probe-start start applications have 

greater efficiency than 1000 W or 2000 

W pulse-start when operated in a 

horizontal position. Furthermore, 

Musco Lighting commented that while 

the probe in probe-start lamps 

contributes to the blackening of the arc 

tube in lower-wattage lamps, as the size 

of the arc tube increases in higherVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:39 Feb 07, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10FER2.SGM 10FER2

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7779 

31The estimate of 12.5 percent energy savings 

comes from reducing a 1000 W system by 12.5 

percent to get to 875 W. However, since 875 W 

ballasts are characteristically less efficient than 

1000 W ballasts, the total energy savings will in 

reality be slightly less than 12.5 percent. 

wattage lamps, the probe does not 

increase in size and thus has less of an 

impact. In larger arc tubes, the 

blackening is driven principally by the 

primary electrodes, which are present in 

pulse-start lamps as well. (Musco 

Lighting, No. 55 at p. 2) Philips 

commented that there are no efficiency 

differences between probe-start and 

pulse-start at or above 1000 W. (Philips, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

130) Acuity noted that the majority of 

the energy savings at 1000 W would 

come from the lamp rather than the 

ballast. Acuity questioned whether or 

not the statutory authority allows energy 

savings to be calculated using gains in 

lamp performance, as this MHLF 

rulemaking is based on ballast 

efficiency. (Acuity, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 173) 

DOE notes that the intent of the 

design standard is to encourage 

customers to switch to reduced-wattage 

pulse-start from full-wattage probe-start 

systems due to the observation that 

pulse-start lamps have better lumen 

maintenance. For the 501 W–1000 W 

equipment classes, DOE has adjusted 

the assumption that pulse-start systems 

have 5.6 percent higher mean lumens 

which would result in 5.6 percent 

energy savings. DOE presents two 

commercially available pathways that 

an existing 1000 W probe-start customer 

could take in response to the design 

standard: Shifting to an 875 W pulsestart system, or staying at 1000 W and 

shifting to a pulse-start system. The shift 

to pulse-start at 1000 W would result in 

additional light output and no energy 

savings relative to a probe-start MHLF. 

The shift to 875 W would maintain 

equal lumen output and result in about 

12.5 percent energy savings relative to 

1000 W probe-start MHLFs.31 This 

rulemaking regulates the efficiency of 

ballasts used in new MHLFs. Due to the 

increased mean lumens available in 

pulse-start lamps, the pulse-start lampand-ballast system can save energy 

relative to probe-start lamp-and-ballast 

systems. The design standard 

component of this final rule only 

regulates the ballast component of the 

lamp-and-ballast system. 

NEMA, Venture, Musco Lighting, and 

ULT disagreed with DOE’s proposed 

design standard regarding greater than 

or equal to 1000 W applications. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 168; Venture, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 170; Musco 

Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 180; Musco Lighting, No. 55 at 

pp. 1–3; ULT, No. 50 at p. 120) Musco 

Lighting pointed out that pulse-start has 

limited applicability above 1000 W and 

should not be considered at these higher 

wattages. (Musco Lighting, No. 55 at p. 

3) ULT commented that MHLFs above 

1000 W are typically probe-start and the 

proposed ruling would eliminate this 

class. ULT also added that there are no 

1250 W or 1650 W pulse-start lamps. 

(ULT, No. 50 at p. 3) NEMA also stated 

that there would be a conspicuous cost 

increase for most other higher-wattage 

ballasts, including the change from 

probe- to pulse-start for 1001 W–2000 

W. (NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 6–7) Musco 

Lighting additionally expressed 

concerns about involving 1500 W 

fixtures in the rulemaking because their 

principal use is sports lighting. Not only 

does sports lighting have very specific 

application standards requiring 

particularly uniform light levels and 

glare control that dictate specific pole 

locations, but also the transition from 

probe-start to pulse-start would require 

development of a 944 W system that 

does not currently exist. Due to this lack 

of existing commercially available 

technology, Musco Lighting stated that 

the proposed rule would go against 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). (Musco Lighting, No. 

55 at pp. 1–3) NEMA further explained 

that stadium fixtures for double-ended, 

pulse-start 1500 W and 2000 W MH 

lamps meet industry standards for 

containment in the event of lamp 

rupture, and provide a UV attenuation 

barrier and lens interlock, while 

meeting league and television network 

requirements for on-field illumination 

and uniformity. Therefore, NEMA 

contended that there are no direct 

replacements for this equipment. 

Elimination of the lamp type used in 

such fixtures would result in significant 

retrofitting or replacement with lamps 

less suitable for the application, costs 

that NEMA stated must also be added to 

feasibility estimates. (NEMA, No. 56 at 

p. 7) 

After establishing a new equipment 

class for 1001 W to 2000 W fixtures, 

DOE reanalyzed the merits of the design 

standard for the 1500 W representative 

wattage. DOE agrees that the design 

standard banning probe-start lamps 

should not be analyzed for fixtures 

above 1000 W because pulse-start 

systems in this wattage range do not 

have increased lumen maintenance 

relative to probe-start systems. 

Therefore, there are no commercially 

available pulse start options that would 

offer the same light output with reduced 

energy consumption (industry considers 

changes in light output of greater than 

10 percent to be perceptible by the 

average customer). Thus, in this final 

rule, DOE did not analyze a design 

standard in the 1001 W–2000 W 

equipment classes. 

NEMA expanded upon its view that 

DOE’s proposed efficiency requirements 

would eliminate probe-start ballasts and 

lamps. NEMA argued that the facility of 

starting probe-start lamps in the greater 

than 1000 W category is a highly 

desirable performance characteristic. 

NEMA described that sports lighting 

owners and operators prefer the ballast 

and other serviceable components to be 

located in the base of the fixture mast, 

for ease of maintenance and safety. With 

probe-start technology, the 400 V 

starting signal is able to travel up the 

mast and reliably ignite the lamp. The 

3000 V–4000 V microsecond pulses 

from pulse-start ballasts are attenuated 

by long wires over the 30 ft.–40 ft. 

height of the masts so that the high 

pressure starting gas in pulse-start 

lamps may not ignite. NEMA noted that 

moisture could also cause attenuation 

with pulse-start ballasts, while probestart ballasts are less susceptible to the 

effects of weather. NEMA acknowledged 

that pulse-start remote electronic 

igniters are available at a considerable 

cost premium. However, as the fixture 

housing is not designed for them, there 

are thermal concerns and the igniters 

themselves are difficult to access for 

maintenance. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 7) 

Philips, NEMA, Musco Lighting, and 

ULT further commented that a ruling 

that discontinued probe-start ballasts 

and lamps would create problems. 

There are currently no pulse-start 

options for MHLFs installed in highmast locations; to make the technology 

work would require the addition of an 

igniter at the top of the pole, which 

would add costs and complexity. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at pp. 166, 169; NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 166; 

NEMA, No. 56 at p. 19; Musco Lighting, 

No. 48, Public Meeting Transcript, at p. 

167; ULT, No. 50 at p. 3) ULT explained 

that applications at 1000 W or higher 

generally have a ballast-to-lamp 

distance that is too long for standard 

pulse-start ballasts and would require 

the addition of a special igniter and a 

cost adder of $10-$15 per ballast. (ULT, 

No. 50 at p. 12) Musco Lighting stated 

that the additional costs required to 

change from a probe-start to pulse-start 

system are much higher than DOE 

estimated. (Musco Lighting, No. 55 at p. 

3) NEMA asserted that mandating ELs 

that preclude any technology but pulsestart electronically ballasted equipment 

would create increased maintenance 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7780 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

and material costs due to surge and 

lightning resistance, increased fixture 

size and price, added weather 

resistance, remote igniter installation, 

and the higher maintenance cost and 

considerations of high-mast lighting 

fixtures. NEMA suggested excluding 

such equipment from energy 

conservation standards in order to avoid 

these issues. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 168; NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 8) NEMA also noted that given 

the previous considerations, including 

greater than or equal to 1000 W fixtures 

in the rulemaking, would go against 42 

U.S.C. 62955(o)(4), as the adoption of 

these standards would be ‘‘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 at the time 

of the Secretary’s finding.’’ (NEMA, No. 

56 at pp. 6–7) 

For 1000 W high-mast applications, 

DOE found that remote starting is an 

option that is commercially available 

using pulse-start technology. As 

mentioned in comments, this would 

require the addition of a remote igniter 

at the top of the pole. DOE has 

accounted for the added equipment 

costs that would be associated with 

using pulse-start technology in 1000 W 

applications requiring high-mast 

fixtures. DOE notes that the design 

standard would not result in a push 

towards electronic levels, as the design 

standard is only considered for fixtures 

between 501 W and 1000 W, where 

electronic ballasts are not commercially 

available, and thus not analyzed. 

NEMA commented that DOE appears 

to be applying incandescent technology 

to ballast efficiency and lamp efficacy. 

NEMA and ULT asserted that a ballast 

will have difficulties operating at 

wattages other than its rating and that 

such operation is a violation of its 

intended use and should not be 

considered. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 15; 

ULT, No. 50 at p. 8). DOE agrees that 

ballasts would have difficulty operating 

at wattages other than those listed by 

the manufacturer. As mentioned 

previously, in this final rule DOE 

analyzed the design standard so that 

1000 W probe-start systems would be 

replaced with either 875 W or 1000 W 

pulse-start systems. The use of 875 W 

ballasts would be with 875 W lamps, as 

DOE is not modeling the design 

standard to use a reduced-wattage lamp 

on a full-wattage ballast in this MHLF 

rulemaking. DOE continues to agree that 

ballasts will have difficulties operating 

lamps at wattages other than their 

rating, and does not analyze any such 

scenarios in this final rule. 

EEI expressed concerns that an 

outright ban on probe-start ballasts may 

hinder technological developments and 

higher-efficiency possibilities for the 

technology. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 183) Further, 

NEMA and ULT opposed the ban, as 

175 W to 400 W probe-start ballasts are 

already practically prohibited by 

existing regulation. NEMA and ULT 

stated that any limited remaining 

market should be maintained for 

desirable performance characteristics 

where it is deemed necessary. (NEMA, 

No. 56 at p. 19; ULT, No. 50 at p. 12) 

DOE recognizes that probe-start MH 

ballasts have the remote-starting feature 

that is not provided with standard 

pulse-start MH ballasts. However, as 

discussed previously, DOE has found 

that pulse-start 1000 W systems can 

provide the remote-starting feature with 

the addition of a remote igniter. DOE 

accounts for the increased cost of the 

remote-start pulse-start system in 

section V.C.12 of this notice. 

In summary, this final rule analyzes a 

design standard from 501 W–1000 W, 

but not from 1001 W–2000 W. In the 

1001–2000 W equipment class pulse 

start systems do not have better lumen 

maintenance compared to probe start 

systems. At 501 W–1000 W, however, 

DOE is still analyzing a design standard 

banning probe-start ballasts. Customers 

previously purchasing 1000 W probestart fixtures would have the option of 

purchasing an 875 W pulse-start system 

with 12.5 percent energy savings while 

maintaining light output, or adopting a 

compliant 1000 W pulse-start system. 

11. Scaling to Equipment Classes Not 

Analyzed 

DOE did not directly analyze ballasts 

tested at an input voltage of 480 V. 

Thus, it was necessary to develop a 

scaling relationship to establish ELs for 

these equipment classes. To do so in the 

NOPR, DOE compared quad-voltage 

ballasts from the representative 

equipment classes to their 480 V ballast 

counterparts using catalog data over all 

representative wattages at various 

efficiencies. In the NOPR, DOE found 

the average reduction to ballast 

efficiency to be 0.6 percent. Therefore, 

DOE proposed applying this reduction 

(in the form of a multiplier of 0.994) to 

develop ELs for the 480 V ballasts. For 

the 150 W–250 W equipment classes, 

DOE made adjustments to resulting 

scaled equations to ensure all ELs were 

equal to or more stringent than the 

existing standards (see chapter 5 of the 

final rule TSD for additional detail). 

ULT and NEMA commented that a 

flat 0.6 percent efficiency gap between 

quad-voltage and dedicated 480 V 

fixtures cannot be used across all 

wattages. In lower wattages, this 

difference can be much higher, greater 

than 2 percent. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 209; NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 19) ULT and NEMA proposed 

a scaling factor of 2 percent for wattages 

less than or equal to 150 W, and 1 

percent for wattages greater than 150 W 

(in the form of a subtraction of 2 

percentage points and 1 percentage 

point from the representative equipment 

class ELs, respectively). (ULT, No. 50 at 

pp. 11–12; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 19) 

Musco Lighting noted that the 480 V 

scaling factor should be a 1 percent 

reduction instead of 0.6 percent to 

account for the inability to measure 

ballast efficiency with more precision 

than a whole percentage point. (Musco 

Lighting, No. 55 at p. 4) 

In the final rule, DOE analyzed the 

test data and agreed that the difference 

in efficiency between ballasts tested at 

480 V and ballasts tested at other input 

voltages changes based on wattage. At 

lower wattages, ballasts are more 

compact and less efficient, and the 

difference in efficiency between the 

voltages is greater. Because of this 

correlation, DOE has adjusted the 

scaling factor used to scale efficiency 

levels from representative equipment 

classes to the 480 V equipment classes 

from the 0.6 percent reduction in the 

NOPR to the values shown in Table V.5. 

As in the NOPR, DOE again compared 

quad-voltage ballasts to their 480 V 

ballast counterparts using catalog data 

over all representative wattages. DOE 

found the average reduction to ballast 

efficiency changed based on two 

wattage ranges: 50 W–150 W and 151 

W–1000 W. For 50 W–150 W, DOE 

found the average reduction in ballast 

efficiency to be less than the 2.0 percent 

proposed by NEMA. However, DOE did 

find some instances in which the 

difference in efficacy was as high or 

higher than that noted by NEMA. 

Therefore, DOE determined a scaling 

factor of 2.0 percent (in the form of a 

subtraction of 2 percent from the 

representative equipment class ELs) to 

be appropriate from 50 W–150 W. 

Subtracting 2.0 percent across all 

wattages from 50 W–150 W, instead of 

applying a scaling multiplier to the EL 

equations, also aligns with DOE’s 

observation that the difference in 

efficiency between 480 V ballasts and 

quad-voltage ballasts is greater at lower 

wattages. For 150 W–1000 W, DOE also 

found the average reduction to ballast 

efficiency to be less than the 1.0 percent 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7781 

32When viewed from the company-wide 

perspective, the sum of all material, labor, and 

overhead costs equals the company’s sales cost, also 

referred to as the cost of goods sold. 

proposed by NEMA. However DOE did 

find some instances in which the 

difference in efficacy was as high or 

higher than that noted by NEMA. 

Therefore, DOE determined a scaling 

factor of 1.0 percent (in the form of a 

subtraction of 1 percent from the 

representative equipment class ELs) to 

be appropriate from 151 W–1000 W. As 

with the 50 W–150 W range, DOE 

applied this scaling factor as a 

subtraction from the representative 

equipment class ELs instead of as a 

multiplier. Even though the 1001 W– 

2000 W equipment class no longer 

shows a difference in efficiency between 

480 V and non-480 V classes, DOE 

continues to consider the 480 V and 

non-480 V equipment classes separately 

for the purposes of this rulemaking. 

This separation allows DOE to continue 

comparing consistent representative 

classes, of ballasts not tested at 480 V, 

for each wattage bin. Additionally, for 

the 150 W–250 W equipment classes, 

DOE made adjustments to the resulting 

scaled equations to ensure all ELs were 

equal to or more stringent than the 

existing standards (see chapter 5 of the 

final rule TSD for additional detail). 

TABLE V.5—FINAL RULE SCALING

FACTORS

Wattage range 

Scaling 

factor 

(percent) 

50 W–150 W ................................. 2.0 

151 W–1000 W ............................. 1.0 

1001 W–2000 W ........................... 0.0 

12. Manufacturer Selling Prices 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

DOE developed the MSPs for MHLFs 

and MH ballasts by determining an 

MPC, either through a teardown or retail 

pricing analysis, and then applying a 

manufacturer markup to arrive at the 

MSP. For the NOPR, DOE conducted 

teardown analyses on a total of 32 

commercially available MH ballasts and 

eight MHLFs. Using the information 

from these teardowns, DOE summed the 

direct material, labor, and overhead 

costs used to manufacture a MHLF or 

MH ballast, to calculate the MPC.32 For 

further details on this analysis, see 

chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

APPA noted that if this rulemaking 

requires larger and heavier ballasts, the 

replacement costs would increase 

substantially and have a large effect on 

the LCC and PBP analyses since the 

fixture may need to be replaced. (APPA, 

No. 51 at p. 7) As described in section 

III.A, this rulemaking only covers 

ballasts in new fixtures. A replacement 

ballast for an existing fixture would not 

need to comply with DOE standards. As 

described in section V.C.8, DOE also 

notes that the ballasts needed to meet 

the standards adopted by this final rule 

are not notably larger than the baseline 

ballasts. Efficiency levels based on 

magnetic ballasts are either based on 

commercially available ballasts, or 

modeled using the constraint that 

ballast size cannot increase relative to 

less efficient commercially available 

designs. As such, DOE concluded 

fixtures would not need to be 

redesigned to account for an increase in 

ballast size. See section V.F of this 

notice for details about the costs that are 

accounted for in the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

ULT commented that the fixture price 

assumptions are too low, as a majority 

of the fixtures would have to be 

redesigned, requiring engineering time, 

new tools, and testing time. (ULT, No. 

50 at p. 15) DOE’s final fixture prices 

account for the MPC of the fixture, as 

detailed in chapter 5 of the final rule 

TSD. DOE also determined that for the 

levels analyzed in this rulemaking, 

fixtures would not be required to be 

substantially redesigned. Further, any 

costs associated with redesign, tooling, 

testing and the general manufacturing 

process are accounted for in the MIA as 

detailed in section V.I of this notice. 

b. Empty Fixture Costs 

DOE conducted fixture teardowns for 

the NOPR to determine appropriate 

empty fixture prices. When referring to 

the ‘‘empty fixture’’ component of a 

MHLF, DOE means the lamp enclosure 

and optics. The empty fixture does not 

include the ballast or lamp. DOE added 

the other components required by the 

system (including ballasts and any cost 

adders associated with electronically 

ballasted systems) and applied 

appropriate markups to get the final full 

fixture MSP. In the NOPR, a 

representative fixture price was 

developed for each wattage (using the 

same MSP for indoor and outdoor 

fixtures), resulting in five unique fixture 

prices to account for the five 

representative wattages. 

As detailed in section V.C.4 of this 

notice, DOE has expanded its analysis of 

representative fixtures in the final rule 

to account for the varying fixture types 

used in indoor and outdoor 

applications. This new division allows 

DOE to develop separate empty fixture 

prices for indoor and outdoor fixtures, 

and thus take the weather protection 

built into outdoor fixtures into account. 

These new empty fixture MPCs can be 

found in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. 

The updated pricing results in 12 

unique empty fixture prices, namely an 

indoor and an outdoor price for each of 

the six representative wattages. 

c. Incremental Costs for Electronically 

Ballasted MHLFs 

After determining baseline MH ballast 

and fixture MPCs, DOE considered 

whether transitioning from magnetic to 

electronic ballast technology would 

require any further ballast or fixture 

design changes to accommodate the 

electronic ballast or maintain similar 

utility to the baseline magnetic ballast. 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed three 

sources of incremental costs: (1) 

Outdoor transient protection, (2) 

thermal management, and (3) 120 V 

auxiliary power functionality. 

Transient Protection 

DOE recognizes the necessity for 

outdoor fixtures to be able to withstand 

at least 10 kV voltage transients. While 

MHLFs with magnetic ballasts are 

robust and do not require any additional 

devices or enhancements to withstand 

these transients, based on its evaluation 

of commercially available MHLFs, DOE 

finds that fixtures with electronic 

ballasts usually require additional 

design features in order to have 

adequate protection. Some 

manufacturers indicated that a portion 

of their electronic ballasts already have 

surge protection built in, but most 

electronic ballasts are only rated for 2.5 

kV–6 kV voltage spikes. In the NOPR, 

DOE proposed an incremental fixture 

cost of $19 for 10 kV inline (external to 

the ballast) surge protection for 

electronically ballasted outdoor fixtures. 

CA IOUs and the Joint Comment 

supported DOE’s approach to modeling 

the incremental cost for electronic 

ballasts over magnetic ballasts to 

account for 10 kV surge protection. (CA 

IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 3–7; CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

202; Joint Comment, No. 62 at pp. 4–5) 

In the final rule, DOE updated the 

price of 10 kV voltage transient 

protection devices. Based on a review of 

selling prices from transient 

manufacturers, DOE assigned a cost 

adder to manufacturers of $10.31 for 10 

kV inline surge protection for electronic 

ballasts, as most electronic ballasts do 

not have this feature built in. The 

$10.31 cost adder reflects a high volume 

purchase, which would be 

representative of a fixture manufacturer. 

As such, DOE applies this adder to the 

fixture MPC for fixtures that require 

voltage surge protection. DOE also 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7782 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

assigned a cost to end-users of $21.45 to 

purchase a replacement voltage 

transient protection device at a single 

unit quantity. 

In response to public comment, DOE 

researched indoor industrial fixtures 

and found these fixtures can also be 

subject to voltage surges. DOE has thus 

accounted for the issue of indoor 

electronic ballasts experiencing voltage 

surges in these industrial applications. 

Specifically, DOE analyzes the indoor 

industrial applications that require 

additional surge protection as an LCC 

subgroup. In order for electronic ballasts 

to be used in these applications, the 

voltage transient device costs were 

added to total fixture MSPs in the 

subgroup. The costs for the transient 

protection devices for electronic ballasts 

assigned to the manufacturer and the 

end user are the same for indoor 

industrial applications as for outdoor 

applications. Additionally, when these 

surge protection devices are 

compromised from repeated transient 

events, the additional maintenance and 

replacement are incorporated in the LCC 

analysis and NIA. 

Thermal Management 

Electronic ballasts are more 

vulnerable than magnetic ballasts to 

high ambient temperatures which, if not 

managed well, can cause premature 

ballast failure. In order to correct for this 

difference, fixtures housing electronic 

ballasts would need to be redesigned to 

account for thermal management in both 

indoor and outdoor applications. 

Manufacturers must design new and 

often larger brackets, and apply 

additional potting material to create an 

adequate thermal contact between the 

ballast and fixture. During interviews, 

manufacturers gave DOE information 

about the cost to add thermal 

management to fixtures with electronic 

ballasts. In aggregate, manufacturers 

indicated a 20 percent increase in 

fixture MPCs associated with thermal 

management. Additionally, DOE 

conducted teardown analyses of empty 

MHLFs. Through analysis of pairs of 

fixtures designed for electronic ballasts 

and fixtures designed for comparable 

magnetic ballasts, DOE also found an 

approximately 20 percent increase in 

fixture MPCs to include thermal 

management for electronic ballasts. 

Accordingly, in the NOPR cost analysis, 

all electronically ballasted MHLFs incur 

a 20 percent incremental cost to the 

empty fixture MPCs. 

Philips and Georgia Power both 

expressed concerns that the MSP will 

increase more substantially than DOE 

projected. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 207; Georgia 

Power, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 207) Philips emphasized that 

DOE’s 20 percent figure for electronic 

ballasts in outdoor fixtures is 

understated and would become much 

higher with pole, fixture, and ballast 

redesign. However, CA IOUs and the 

Joint Comment supported DOE’s 

approach to modeling the incremental 

cost for electronic ballasts over magnetic 

ballasts to account for thermal 

management and the potential need for 

fixture redesign. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 

3–4; CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 202; Joint 

Comment, No. 62 at pp. 4–5) 

As previously mentioned, any price 

increases required for MHLFs are 

accounted for in this MSP analysis, 

while any capital conversion and 

redesign costs are addressed in the MIA 

(see section V.I of this notice). DOE has 

determined that ballast size and weight 

are not required to change in response 

to the ELs analyzed, so DOE did not 

analyze a change in pole size or cost. 

DOE believes that a cost adder for 

thermal management is necessary, and 

given that the costs cited by 

manufacturers are either not required or 

are accounted for in another part of the 

analysis, DOE continues to apply a 20 

percent increase in fixture MPCs to 

reflect thermal management for 

electronic ballasts 

120 V Auxiliary Tap 

For indoor applications, a number of 

magnetic ballasts include a 120 V 

auxiliary tap. This output is used to 

operate an emergency incandescent 

lamp after a temporary loss of power 

and while the MH lamp is still too hot 

to restart. These taps are generally 

required for only one out of every ten 

indoor lamp fixtures. A 120 V tap is 

easily incorporated into a magnetic 

ballast due to its traditional core and 

coil design, and incurs a negligible 

incremental cost. Electronic ballasts, 

though, require additional design to add 

this 120 V auxiliary power 

functionality. Using a combination of 

manufacturer information and market 

research, DOE proposed in the NOPR 

that a representative value for electronic 

ballasts to incorporate this auxiliary tap 

is $7.50. Because this functionality is 

only needed for 10 percent of ballasts in 

indoor fixtures, that number was 

multiplied by 0.10 to get an incremental 

ballast cost of $0.75 per indoor ballast. 

ULT questioned why DOE scaled 

down the price of an auxiliary power 

120 V tap using a 1:10 ratio just because 

10 percent of indoor fixtures require the 

auxiliary power functionality. (ULT, No. 

50 at p. 14) Philips commented that 

auxiliary power is not always available 

for electronic ballasts and would require 

an additional transformer, increasing 

costs. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 189) 

DOE scaled down the price of an 

auxiliary power 120 V tap using a 1:10 

ratio because that was the simplest way 

to characterize the cost that the average 

fixture will incur when adding this 

functionality. Based on manufacturer 

feedback, DOE determined that 10 

percent of indoor fixtures require 

auxiliary 120 V power functionality. 

Therefore, this method continued to be 

used to account for these costs in this 

final rule. DOE agrees that the auxiliary 

power is not always available with 

electronic ballasts, and therefore 

included this incremental ballast cost to 

account for integrating the additional 

tap. DOE maintains that the 

representative value for electronic 

ballasts to incorporate the auxiliary tap 

is $7.50. As mentioned previously, as 

this functionality is only needed for 10 

percent of ballasts in indoor fixtures, the 

resulting incremental ballast cost is 

$0.75 per indoor ballast. 

d. Costs Associated With the Design 

Standard 

In the NOPR, DOE analyzed a design 

standard banning probe-start ballasts for 

fixtures greater than 500 W. Pulse-start 

MH systems require an igniter to start 

the lamp, while probe-start MH systems 

do not. In DOE’s NOPR cost model, the 

additional cost of this igniter in pulsestart systems was the only source of cost 

difference between probe- and pulsestart systems. 

Musco Lighting commented that at 

1500 W, the cost to shift from a probestart to a pulse-start system would be 

much higher than DOE estimated. 

Musco estimated a more representative 

value would be four times the 

incremental cost currently utilized and 

noted that the igniter could lead to 

increased maintenance costs. (Musco 

Lighting, No. 55 at p. 3) 

As noted in section V.C.10 of this 

notice, DOE has chosen to not analyze 

a design standard for lamps above 1000 

W. Therefore, the costs of a transition to 

pulse-start technology at 1500 W are no 

longer needed for the final rule analysis. 

However, DOE did find that at 1000 

W, the design standard could create 

challenges with certain customers 

switching to pulse-start technology. 

Customers who use high-mast 

applications often see probe-start 

systems as preferable because they can 

be easily mounted remotely. This means 

that the ballast can be at the bottom of 

the pole for easy maintenance, while the 

lamp is operated at the top of the pole. 

In order for a pulse-start system to allow 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7783 

33The Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Available at 

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

24, 2013.) 

for this remote mounting, DOE found 

that there are commercially available 

remote-start igniters that allow pulsestart ballasts to also be remotely 

mounted. This comes at increased cost 

due to the addition of this more 

complex igniter at the top of the pole. 

When comparing commercially 

available standard and remote-start 

igniters, DOE found that remote-start 

igniter costs were about two times 

greater. As such, when modeling 

customers who require remote starting 

in design standard scenarios, DOE 

applied a multiplier of 2.07 to the 

igniter costs. 

e. Manufacturer Markups 

The last step in determining MSPs is 

development and application of 

manufacturer markups to scale the 

MPCs to MSPs. DOE developed initial 

manufacturer markup estimates by 

examining the annual SEC 10–K reports 

filed by publicly traded manufacturers 

of MH ballasts and MHLFs, among other 

products. Based on feedback from 

manufacturers, in the NOPR DOE 

proposed separate markups for ballast 

manufacturers (1.47) and fixture 

manufacturers (1.58). DOE also assumed 

that fixture manufacturers apply the 

1.58 markup to the ballasts used in their 

fixtures rather than to only the empty 

fixtures. In aggregate, the markup also 

accounted for the different markets 

served by fixture manufacturers. The 

1.47 markup for ballast manufacturers 

applied only to ballasts sold to fixture 

original equipment manufacturers 

(OEMs) directly impacted by this 

rulemaking. For the purpose of the LCC 

and NIA analysis, DOE assumed a 

higher markup of 1.60 for ballasts that 

are sold to distributors for the 

replacement market. Receiving no 

comments to the contrary, DOE 

continued using these manufacturer 

markups in the final rule. 

D. Markups To Determine Equipment 

Price 

By applying markups to the MSPs 

estimated in the engineering analysis, 

DOE estimated the amounts customers 

would pay for baseline and moreefficient equipment. At each step in the 

distribution channel, companies mark 

up the price of the equipment to cover 

business costs and profit margin. 

Identification of the appropriate 

markups and the determination of 

customer equipment price depend on 

the type of distribution channels 

through which the equipment moves 

from manufacturer to customer. 

1. Distribution Channels 

Before it could develop markups, DOE 

needed to identify distribution channels 

(i.e., how the equipment is distributed 

from the manufacturer to the end user) 

for the MHLF designs addressed in this 

rulemaking. In an electrical wholesaler 

distribution channel, DOE assumed the 

fixture manufacturer sells the fixture to 

an electrical wholesaler (i.e., 

distributor), who in turn sells it to a 

contractor, who sells it to the end user. 

In a contractor distribution channel, 

DOE assumed the fixture manufacturer 

sells the fixture directly to a contractor, 

who sells it to the end user. In a utility 

distribution channel, DOE assumed the 

fixture manufacturer sells the fixture 

directly to the end user (i.e., electrical 

utility). 

2. Estimation of Markups 

To estimate wholesaler and utility 

markups, DOE used financial data from 

10–K reports from publicly owned 

electrical wholesalers and utilities. 

DOE’s markup analysis developed both 

baseline and incremental markups to 

transform the fixture MSP into an enduser equipment price. DOE used the 

baseline markups to determine the price 

of baseline designs. Incremental 

markups are coefficients that relate the 

change in the MSP of higher-efficiency 

designs to the change in the wholesaler 

and utility sales prices, excluding sales 

tax. These markups refer to higherefficiency designs sold under market 

conditions with new and amended 

energy conservation standards. 

In the NOPR, DOE assumed a 

wholesaler baseline markup of 1.23 and 

a contractor baseline markup of 1.13, for 

a total wholesaler distribution channel 

baseline markup of 1.39. DOE also 

assumed utility baseline markups of 

1.00 and 1.13 for the utility distribution 

channel in which the manufacturer sells 

a fixture directly to the end user, and 

the channel in which a manufacturer 

sells a fixture to a contractor who in 

turn sells it to the end user, 

respectively. 

The sales tax represents state and 

local sales taxes applied to the end-user 

equipment price. DOE obtained state 

and local tax data from the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse.33 These data represent 

weighted averages that include state, 

county, and city rates. DOE then 

calculated population-weighted average 

tax values for each census division and 

large state, and then derived U.S. 

average tax values using a populationweighted average of the census division 

and large state values. For the NOPR, 

this approach provided a national 

average tax rate of 7.13 percent. 

3. Summary of Markups 

Table V.6 summarizes the markups at 

each stage in the distribution channels 

and the overall baseline and 

incremental markups, and sales taxes, 

for each of the three identified channels. 

TABLE V.6—SUMMARY OF FIXTURE DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKUPS

Wholesaler distribution Utility distribution 

Baseline Incremental 

Via wholesaler & contractor Direct to end user 

Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental 

Electrical Wholesaler (Distributor) ........... 1.23 1.05 (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Utility ........................................................ (1) (1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Contractor or Installer .............................. 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 (1) (1) 

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

Overall ...................................................... 1.49 1.27 1.21 1.21 1.07 1.07 

1 Not applicable. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7784 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

34U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency. Commercial Building Energy Consumption 

Survey: Micro-Level Data, File 2 Building Activities, 

Special Measures of Size, and Multi-building 

Facilities. 2003. Available at www.eia.doe.gov/

emeu/cbecs/public_use.html. 

35U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Agency. Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey, Table 1.4: Number of Establishments Using 

Energy Consumed for All Purposes. 2006. Available 

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

2006tables.html. 

Using these markups, DOE generated 

fixture end-user prices for each EL it 

considered, assuming that each level 

represents a new minimum efficiency 

standard. Chapter 6 of the final rule TSD 

provides additional detail on the 

markups analysis. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

For the energy use analysis, DOE 

estimated the energy use of metal halide 

lamp fixtures in actual field conditions. 

The energy use analysis provided the 

basis for other DOE analyses, 

particularly assessments of the energy 

savings and the savings in operating 

costs that could result from DOE’s 

adoption of new and amended standard 

levels. 

To develop annual energy use 

estimates for the August 2013 NOPR, 

DOE multiplied annual usage (in hours 

per year) by the lamp-and-ballast system 

input power (in watts). DOE 

characterized representative lamp-andballast systems in the engineering 

analysis, which provided measured 

input power ratings. To characterize the 

country’s average use of fixtures for a 

typical year, DOE developed annual 

operating hour distributions by sector, 

using data published in the 2010 LMC, 

the Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS),34 and 

the Manufacturer Energy Consumption 

Survey (MECS).35 78 FR 51464, 51501 

(Aug. 20, 2013). 

Musco Lighting and NEMA 

commented that metal halide lamp 

fixtures over 1000 W–particularly 1500 

W fixtures—are principally confined to 

sports lighting applications, and Musco 

Lighting noted that their monitoring 

data indicates average usage of 250 

hours per year for these fixture types. 

(Musco Lighting, No. 55 at pp. 1, 4; 

NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 6–7) The CA IOUs 

stated that high-wattage MH fixtures are 

also commonly used in high mast 

applications, with operating hours 

similar to other outdoor lighting 

applications. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges that high-wattage 

MH fixtures may be used in high mast 

applications but notes that the 2010 

LMC indicates an average MH lamp 

wattage of less than 250 W for roadway 

and parking applications, suggesting a 

negligible contribution by high mast 

lighting. As discussed in section V.A.2, 

DOE created a separate 1500 W 

equipment class for this final rule to 

address the unique design features and 

application of these fixture types. 

Musco did not provide detailed 

operating hours data with their written 

comments; however, NEMA cited the 

2010 LMC estimate of 1 hour per day for 

stadium lighting as reasonable for 

MHLF applications greater than 1000 W. 

DOE agrees with NEMA that this 2010 

LMC estimate is reasonable for sports 

lighting applications, and DOE assumed 

annual operation of 350 hours per year 

(based on the actual LMC value of 0.958 

hours per day) for the 1500 W 

equipment class in its final rule energy 

use analysis. 

The August 2013 NOPR analysis 

assumed full operating power and no 

dimmed operation to estimate MHLF 

energy use. 78 FR 51464, 51502 (Aug. 

20, 2013). DOE received no comments 

regarding its operating power 

assumption, and retained its approach 

for the energy use analysis in today’s 

final rule. Chapter 7 of the final rule 

TSD provides a more detailed 

description of DOE’s energy use 

analysis. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP 

analysis to evaluate the economic effects 

of potential energy conservation 

standards for metal halide lamp fixtures 

on individual customers. For any given 

efficiency level, DOE measured the PBP 

and the change in LCC relative to an 

estimated baseline equipment efficiency 

level. The LCC is the total customer 

expense over the life of the equipment, 

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 equipment. The PBP is 

the estimated amount of time (in years) 

it takes customers to recover the 

increased purchase cost (including 

installation) of more efficient equipment 

through lower operating costs. DOE 

calculates the PBP by dividing the 

change in purchase cost (normally 

higher) by the change in average annual 

operating cost (normally lower) that 

results from the more efficient standard. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

equipment—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, 

equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and 

the year that compliance with new and 

amended standards is required. To 

account for uncertainty and variability, 

DOE created distributions for selected 

inputs, including operating hours, 

equipment lifetimes, electricity prices, 

discount rates, and sales tax rates. 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 variations across 

building types, lighting applications, 

and metal halide systems for three 

sectors (commercial, industrial, and 

outdoor stationary). In contrast, fixture 

MSPs were specific to the representative 

designs evaluated in DOE’s engineering 

analysis, and price markups were based 

on limited publicly available financial 

data. Consequently, DOE used discrete 

values instead of distributions for these 

inputs. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC and PBP, which 

incorporates Crystal Ball (a 

commercially available software 

program), relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty 

and variability into the analysis. The 

Monte Carlo simulations randomly 

sample input values from the 

probability distributions and fixture 

user samples. The final rule TSD 

chapter 8 and its appendices provide 

details on the spreadsheet model and all 

the inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis. 

Table V.7 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to develop inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations for the 

August 2013 NOPR as well as the 

changes made for today’s final rule. The 

subsections that follow discuss the 

calculation inputs and DOE’s changes to 

them. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7785 

36A draft paper, Using the Experience Curve 

Approach for Appliance Price Forecasting, posted 

on the DOE Web site at www.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards, provides a 

summary of the data and literature currently 

available to DOE that is relevant to price forecasts 

for selected appliances and equipment. 

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

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Equipment: 

Preliminary Technical Support Document: HighIntensity Discharge Lamps. 2010. Washington, DC. 

Available at <www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/60>. 38R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2010 RS Means 

Electrical Cost Data. 2010. Kingston, MA. 

TABLE V.7—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Equipment Cost ................. Derived by multiplying MHLF MSPs by distribution channel 

markups and sales tax.

No change. 

Installation Cost ................. Calculated costs using estimated labor times and applicable 

labor rates from ‘‘RS Means Electrical Cost Data’’ (2009) and 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Calculated costs using estimated labor times 

and applicable labor rates from ‘‘RS Means 

Electrical Cost Data’’ (2013); Sweets Electrical Cost Guide 2013; and U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. 

Annual Energy Use ........... Determined operating hours separately for indoor and outdoor 

fixtures. Used lighting market data: 2010 LMC (2012).

No change. 

Energy Prices .................... Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 826 data for 2012 ..................... No change. 

Variability: Energy prices determined at state level; incorporated 

off-peak electricity prices in the Monte Carlo analysis.

Energy Price Projections ... Projected using AEO2013 ............................................................. No change. 

Replacement Costs ........... Included labor and material costs for lamp and ballast replacement through the end of their lifetimes.No change. 

Equipment Lifetime ........... Ballasts: Assumed 50,000 hours for magnetic ballasts and 

40,000 hours for electronic ballasts.

Ballasts: No change. 

Fixtures: Assumed 20 years for indoor fixtures and 25 years for 

outdoor fixtures.

Fixtures: No change. 

Variability: Incorporated lamp and ballast lifetimes in the Monte 

Carlo analysis.

Variability: Incorporated lamp, ballast and fixture 

lifetimes in the Monte Carlo analysis. 

Discount Rates .................. Commercial/Industrial: Developed a distribution of discount rates 

for each end-use sector.

Commercial/Industrial: No change. 

Outdoor Stationary: Developed a distribution of discount rates 

for each end-use sector.

Outdoor Stationary: 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. Equipment Cost 

To calculate customer equipment 

costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs 

developed in the engineering analysis 

by the distribution channel markups 

described in section V.D.1 (along with 

sales taxes). DOE used different 

markups for baseline equipment and 

higher efficiency equipment because the 

markups estimated for incremental costs 

differ from those estimated for baseline 

models. For the August 2013 NOPR, 

DOE also examined historical price data 

for various appliances and equipment 

that—along with economic literature— 

suggest that the real costs of these 

products may in fact trend downward 

over time, partially because of 

‘‘learning’’ or ‘‘experience.’’ 36 78 FR 

51464, 51503 (Aug. 20, 2013). 

On February 22, 2011, DOE published 

a notice of data availability (February 

2011 NODA; 76 FR 9696) stating that 

DOE may consider improving regulatory 

analysis by addressing 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 causal 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. 

For the August 2013 NOPR and 

consistent with the February 2011 

NODA, DOE examined two methods for 

estimating price trends for metal halide 

lamp fixtures: using historical producer 

price indices (PPIs), and using projected 

price indices (called deflators). With PPI 

data, DOE found both positive and 

negative real price trends, depending on 

the specific time period examined, and 

did not use this method to adjust fixture 

prices. DOE instead adjusted fixture 

prices using deflators used by EIA to 

develop the AEO2011. When adjusted 

for inflation, the deflator-based price 

indices decline from 100 in 2010 to 

approximately 75 in 2046. 78 FR 51464, 

51503 (Aug. 20, 2013). 

DOE received no comments related to 

equipment price trends, and retained its 

deflator-based approach to adjust fixture 

prices for this final rule. Using updated 

(AEO2013) deflators, DOE estimated 

that the price indices decline from 100 

in 2010 to approximately 90 in 2046. A 

more detailed discussion of price trend 

modeling and calculations is provided 

in appendix 8B of the final rule TSD. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation costs for metal halide 

lamp fixtures include the costs to install 

the fixture, maintain the ballast, and 

replace the lamp. For the August 2013 

NOPR, DOE used data collected for its 

July 2010 HID lamps determination,37

labor rates for electricians from RS 

Means,38 and other research to estimate 

the installation costs. DOE assumed that 

installation costs varied between 

equipment classes as a function of 

fixture size and mounting locations but 

were the same between efficiency levels 

within a given equipment class. For 

maintenance costs, DOE employed a 

methodology that allows the use of 

annualized maintenance costs while 

maintaining the integrity of the NPV 

calculations in the NIA. 78 FR 51464, 

51503 (Aug. 20, 2013). 

DOE received comments that larger 

ballasts and housings—and larger poles 

required for outdoor fixtures—would 

increase costs and payback periods for 

higher-efficiency designs. (Acuity 

Brands, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 60; GE, Public Meeting 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7786 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

39Sweets-McGraw Hill Construction. Sweets 

Electrical Cost Guide 2013. 2012. Vista, CA. 

40National Lightning Safety Institute. See http:// 

lightningsafety.com. 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 231–232; 

NEMA, No. 56 at p. 2) As discussed 

previously in section V.C of this final 

rule, DOE’s engineering analysis 

indicated that higher-efficiency fixture 

designs would not incur significant 

increases in housing size, effective 

projected area, or required pole size. 

DOE, therefore, did not include the 

added cost of larger poles in the 

installation costs for higher efficiency 

fixture designs. For this final rule, DOE 

also referenced Sweets Electrical Cost 

Guide 39 in developing installation cost 

estimates for the LCC and PBP analysis. 

For further detail, see chapter 8 of the 

final rule TSD. 

3. Annual Energy Use 

As discussed in section V.E, DOE 

estimated the annual energy use of 

representative metal halide systems 

using system input power ratings and 

sector operating hours. For the August 

2013 NOPR, DOE based the annual 

energy use inputs to the LCC and PBP 

analysis on weighted average annual 

operating hours. 78 FR 51464, 51503 

(Aug. 20, 2013). For this final rule, DOE 

based the annual energy use inputs on 

sectoral operating hour distributions 

(commercial, industrial, and outdoor 

stationary sectors), with the exception of 

a discrete value (350 hours per year) for 

the 1500 W equipment class that is 

primarily limited to sports lighting. DOE 

used operating hour (and, by extension, 

energy use) distributions to better 

characterize the potential range of 

operating conditions faced by MHLF 

customers. 

4. Energy Prices 

For the August 2013 NOPR, DOE 

estimated electricity prices for 

commercial, industrial and outdoor 

stationary sectors by state using data 

from EIA Form 826, ‘‘Monthly Electric 

Utility Sales and Revenue Data, 2011.’’ 

78 FR 51464, 51503 (Aug. 20, 2013). 

DOE received no comments related to 

electricity prices and used 2012 data for 

this final rule. For more information, see 

chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. 

5. Energy Price Projections 

To estimate the trends in energy 

prices, DOE used the price projections 

in AEO2013. To arrive at prices in 

future years, DOE multiplied current 

average prices by the projected annual 

average price changes in AEO2013. 

Because AEO2013 projects prices to 

2040, DOE used the average rate of 

change from 2030 to 2040 to estimate 

the price trend for electricity after 2040. 

In addition, the spreadsheet tools that 

DOE used to conduct the LCC and PBP 

analysis allow users to select price 

forecasts from the AEO low-growth, 

high-growth, and reference-case 

scenarios to estimate the sensitivity of 

the LCC and PBP to different energy 

price forecasts. 78 FR 51464, 51504 

(Aug. 20, 2013). DOE received no 

comments related to energy price 

projections, and retained its approach 

for this final rule. For more information, 

see chapter 8 of the final rule TSD. 

6. Replacement Costs 

In the August 2013 NOPR, DOE 

addressed ballast and lamp 

replacements that occur within the LCC 

analysis period. Replacement costs 

include the labor and materials costs 

associated with replacing a ballast or 

lamp at the end of their lifetimes and 

are annualized across the years 

preceding and including the actual year 

in which equipment is replaced. For the 

LCC and PBP analysis, the analysis 

period corresponds with the fixture 

lifetime that is assumed to be longer 

than that of either the lamp or the 

ballast. For this reason, ballast and lamp 

prices and labor costs are included in 

the calculation of total installed costs. 

DOE received numerous comments 

indicating that electronic HID lamp 

ballasts require additional voltage 

transient (surge) protection, in 

comparison to magnetic ballasts. Highvoltage transients could result from, e.g., 

lightning or wind effects and could 

shorten electronic ballast life in outdoor 

applications. (APPA, No. 51 at pp. 5–7; 

CA IOUs, No. 54 at p. 4; FP&L, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 232– 

233; NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 16–17; ULT, 

No. 50 at p. 13; SCE&G, No. 49 at p. 1) 

NEMA stated that voltage transients are 

also a concern in indoor heavy 

industrial applications. (NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 16) Several commenters also stated 

that it is not possible to determine when 

transient protection has reached its end 

of life, other than when it fails and 

causes a ballast failure in the process. 

(APPA, No. 51 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 16; Universal, No. 50 at p. 13) 

ASAP and GE suggested that transientinduced failures and maintenance 

should also be addressed in the LCC and 

PBP analysis. (ASAP, No. 62 at p. 5; GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

248) 

For this final rule, DOE examined the 

potential effects of voltage transients on 

electronically ballasted fixtures in 

outdoor and heavy industrial indoor 

applications. As discussed previously in 

section V.C of this final rule, DOE’s 

engineering analysis considers the 

additional cost of transient protection in 

determining the total cost for fixtures 

using electronic ballasts. DOE assumed 

that outdoor fixtures of all wattages 

could face transient-induced damage, 

and that industrial indoor fixtures in the 

250 W and 400 W equipment classes 

were most susceptible to voltage 

transients, based on 2010 LMC data for 

average HID lamp wattages in indoor 

applications. 

For outdoor fixtures, DOE examined 

data on the frequency and geographic 

distribution of lightning strikes from the 

National Lightning Safety Institute 40

and other sources to estimate additional 

surge protection and ballast 

replacements due to voltage transients. 

Lightning is more prevalent in the 

southern and lower midwestern regions 

of the United States, which leaves high 

concentrations of outdoor lighting 

fixtures, e.g., in western and 

northeastern metropolitan areas, less 

affected by lightning. On a national 

level, DOE estimated that direct 

lightning strikes would be exceedingly 

rare—approximately 0.01 strikes per 

year on average, or approximately 1 

direct strike per 100 years. DOE 

estimated that ‘‘near-strikes,’’ which 

occur within a larger radius of the 

fixture and may be survivable by a 

protected electronic ballast, are also 

rare—approximately 0.04 strikes per 

year on average, or approximately 1 

near-strike per 25 years. DOE, therefore, 

considered the probability of lightninginduced ballast replacements to be 

negligible for the average MHLF 

customer and did not consider this 

replacement event in its main LCC and 

PBP analysis. DOE expects that MHLF 

customers in lightning-prone areas will 

experience a higher probability of 

transient-induced ballast failures, and 

DOE estimated the related LCC and PBP 

effects in its subgroup analysis (see 

section V.H of this final rule). 

For indoor applications, DOE 

assumed some 250 W and 400 W 

electronically ballasted fixtures were 

used in heavy industrial settings 

susceptible to voltage transients. The 

2010 Lighting Market Characterization 

estimates that 434 W is the average 

wattage of metal halide lamps in the 

industrial sector. This means the vast 

majority of metal halide lamp fixtures in 

the industrial sector range between 250 

W to 1000 W. The engineering analysis 

only proposed electronic ballasts for 250 

W and 400 W light fixtures—thus those 

fixture types were the only types 

analyzed the LCC subgroup analysis. 

DOE’s research determined that 60–80 

percent of interior transients are 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7787 

41Weibull distribution is a probability density 

function; for more information, see 

www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/

eda3668.htm. 

42The data are available at pages.stern.nyu.edu/ 

∼adamodar. (Last accessed August 21, 2013.) 

generated by equipment (e.g., elevators, 

machinery, air-conditioners) within the 

building. The magnitude of the 

transients generated ranged in size as 

did the frequency of the transients. 

Transient voltage surge suppressors 

(known mostly as TVSS) and/or other 

surge protection devices have become 

more common in industrial buildings. 

DOE found electronic fluorescent 

ballasts (although a different 

technology, an example of what can be 

accomplished) that manufacturers 

claimed could survive in industrial 

settings. DOE assumed that transients 

could reduce the life of electronic metal 

halide ballasts by 20 percent and thus 

modeled this reduction in the LCC 

subgroup analysis. DOE, therefore, 

considered the probability of transientinduced surge protection and ballast 

replacements to be negligible for the 

average MHLF customer and did not 

consider this replacement event in its 

main LCC and PBP analysis. DOE 

expects that some MHLF customers in 

heavy industrial indoor applications 

areas will experience a higher 

probability of transient-induced surge 

protection and ballast failures, and DOE 

estimated the related LCC and PBP 

effects in its subgroup analysis (see 

section V.H of this final rule). 

For more information regarding 

replacement costs, see chapter 8 of the 

final rule TSD. 

7. Equipment Lifetime 

For the August 2013 NOPR, DOE 

defined equipment lifetime as the age 

(in hours in operation) when a fixture, 

ballast, or lamp is retired from service. 

The time period used for the LCC and 

PBP analysis in this rulemaking is the 

average lifetime of the baseline metal 

halide lamp fixture. For fixtures in all 

equipment classes, DOE assumed 

average lifetimes for indoor and outdoor 

fixtures of 20 and 25 years, respectively. 

Metal halide lamp fixtures are 

operated by either magnetic or 

electronic ballasts. In the August 2013 

NOPR, DOE assumed that magnetic 

ballasts last for 50,000 hours and 

electronic ballasts last for 40,000 hours. 

Similarly, MH lamp lifetimes vary by 

lamp technology and equipment class. 

DOE assumed that ballast and lamp 

lifetimes can vary due to both physical 

failure and economic factors (e.g., early 

replacements due to retrofits); 

consequently, DOE accounted for 

variability in lifetimes in LCC and PBP 

via the Monte Carlo simulation, and in 

the shipments and NIA analyses by 

assuming a Weibull distribution for 

lifetimes to accommodate failures and 

replacements.41 78 FR 51464, 51504 

(Aug. 20, 2013). 

DOE received comments that its 

analysis unfairly penalized 

electronically ballasted designs by 

modeling an additional ballast 

replacement late in the fixture lifetime. 

For example, a customer with an 

electronically ballasted indoor fixture 

(20-year lifetime) would have to install 

a second replacement ballast 

approximately 2 years before retiring the 

fixture, which the commenters 

considered unrealistic. In comparison, a 

customer with a magnetically ballasted 

fixture would face only one ballast 

replacement, given the longer ballast 

lifetime. To more fairly model the late 

ballast replacements, the commenters 

suggested assigning a residual value to 

remaining ballast life at the end of the 

fixture’s life. (ASAP, No. 62 at pp. 3–4; 

CA IOUs, No. 54 at pp. 4–5) DOE agrees 

with this approach, and included the 

residual value remaining in both lamps 

and ballasts in its LCC and PBP 

analysis. ASAP also suggested an 

alternative that uses a distribution of 

fixture lifetimes in the LCC and PBP 

analysis instead of a single average 

value. (ASAP, No. 62 at p. 4) DOE agrees 

with the use of a distribution of fixture 

lifetimes, which captures both early 

fixture failures (avoiding a second 

ballast replacement) and customers 

using fixtures beyond the average 

lifetimes (more fully using the second 

replacement ballast). For this final rule, 

DOE used a distribution of fixture, 

ballast, and lamp lifetimes as inputs to 

its LCC and PBP analysis. 

For more information regarding 

equipment lifetimes, see chapter 8 of the 

final rule TSD. 

8. Discount Rates 

The discount rate is the rate at which 

future expenditures are discounted to 

estimate their present value. In this final 

rule, DOE estimated separate discount 

rates for commercial, industrial, and 

outdoor stationary applications. For all 

related customers, DOE estimated the 

cost of capital for commercial and 

industrial companies by examining both 

debt and equity capital, and DOE 

developed an appropriately weighted 

average of the cost to the company of 

equity and debt financing. For this final 

rule, DOE also developed a distribution 

of discount rates for each end-use sector 

from which the Monte Carlo simulation 

samples. 

For each sector, DOE assembled data 

on debt interest rates and the cost of 

equity capital for representative firms 

that use metal halide lamp fixtures. 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.42 The average discount rates, 

weighted by the shares of each rate 

value in the sectoral distributions, are 

4.9 percent for commercial end users, 

4.7 percent for industrial end users, and 

3.4 percent for outdoor stationary end 

users. 

For more information regarding 

discount rates, see chapter 8 of the final 

rule TSD. 

9. Analysis Period Fixture Purchasing 

Events 

DOE designed the LCC and PBP 

analysis for this rulemaking around 

scenarios where customers need to 

purchase a metal halide lamp fixture. 

The ‘‘event’’ that prompts the purchase 

of a new fixture (either a ballast failure 

or new construction/renovation) was 

assumed to influence the costeffectiveness of the customer purchase 

decision. DOE assumed that a customer 

will replace a failed fixture with an 

identical fixture in the base case, or a 

new standards-compliant fixture with 

comparable light output in the 

standards case. DOE analyzed six 

representative equipment classes for 

fixtures and presented the results for 

each of these representative equipment 

classes by fixture purchasing event, 

which influenced the LCC and PBP 

results. 

For more information regarding 

fixture purchasing events for the LCC 

analysis, see chapter 8 of the final rule 

TSD. 

G. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

DOE’s NIA assessed the national 

energy savings (NES) and the national 

net present value (NPV) of total 

customer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels. 

DOE used a Microsoft Excel 

spreadsheet model to calculate the 

energy savings and the national 

customer costs and savings from each 

TSL. The TSD and other documentation 

for the rulemaking help explain the 

models and how to use them, enabling 

interested parties to review DOE’s 

analyses by changing various input 

quantities within the spreadsheet. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7788 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

43U.S. Census Bureau. Manufacturing, Mining, 

and Construction Statistics. Current Industrial 

Reports, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, MQ335C. 2008. 

(Last accessed October 28, 2013). www.census.gov/ 

mcd/. 

DOE used the NIA spreadsheet to 

calculate the NES, and the NPV of costs 

and savings, based on the annual energy 

use and total installed cost data from the 

energy use and LCC analyses. DOE 

projected the energy savings, energy 

cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV 

of customer benefits for each equipment 

class for equipment sold from 2017 

through 2046. The projections provided 

annual and cumulative values for all 

four output parameters. 

DOE evaluated the impacts of new 

and amended standards for metal halide 

lamp fixtures by comparing base-case 

projections with standards-case 

projections. The base-case projections 

characterize energy use and customer 

costs for each equipment class in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE compared 

these projections with projections 

characterizing the market for each 

equipment 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 the final rule TSD 

chapter 11. 

Table V.8 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive the inputs 

to the NES and NPV analyses for the 

August 2013 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.8—APPROACH AND DATA USED FOR NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND CUSTOMER NET PRESENT VALUE

ANALYSES

Inputs Proposed rule Changes for the 

final rule 

Shipments ........................................................................ Developed annual shipments from shipments model ..................... See Table V.9. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ............................. Established in the energy use analysis (NOPR TSD chapter 7) .... See section V.E. 

Rebound Effect ................................................................ 0% .................................................................................................... No change. 

Electricity Price Forecast ................................................. AEO2013 ......................................................................................... No change. 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factor ....................... Used annually variable site kWh to source Btu conversion factor .. No change. 

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

Present Year .................................................................... 2013 ................................................................................................. No change. 

1. Shipments 

Equipment shipments are an 

important component of any estimate of 

the future impact of a standard. Using 

a three-step process, DOE developed the 

shipments portion of the NIA 

spreadsheet, a model that uses historical 

data as a basis for projecting future 

fixture shipments. First, DOE used U.S. 

Census Bureau fixture shipment data, 

NEMA lamp shipment data, and NEMA 

ballast sales trends to estimate historical 

shipments of each fixture type analyzed. 

Second, DOE estimated an installed 

stock for each fixture in 2017 based on 

the average service lifetime of each 

fixture type. Third, DOE developed 

annual shipment projections for 2017– 

2046 by modeling fixture purchasing 

events, such as replacement and new 

construction, and applying growth rate, 

replacement rate, and alternative 

technologies penetration rate 

assumptions. For details on the 

shipments analysis, see chapter 10 of 

the final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.9—APPROACH AND DATA USED FOR THE SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

Inputs Proposed rule Changes for the final rule 

Historical Shipments ......................... Used historical HID fixture and lamp shipments to 

develop shipments for MH fixtures.

Revised historical MH fixture shipments based on 

updated NEMA MH ballast shipment trends. 

Fixture Stock .................................... Based projections on the shipments that survive up 

to a given date; assumed Weibull lifetime distribution.

No change. 

Growth .............................................. Adjusted based on fixture market ............................. No change. 

Base Case Scenarios ....................... Developed ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘high’’ shipments scenarios ... Revised ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘high’’ shipments scenarios 

based on revised historical MH fixture shipments. 

Standards Case Scenarios ............... Analyzed Roll-up only ............................................... No change. 

a. Historical Shipments 

For the August 2013 NOPR, DOE 

reviewed U.S. Census Bureau data from 

1993 to 2001 for metal halide lamp 

fixtures.43 DOE compared the MHLF 

census data to NEMA data for historical 

metal halide lamp shipments from 1990 

to 2008 taken from DOE’s final 

determination for HID lamps published 

on July 1, 2010. 75 FR 37975. DOE 

found a correlation between metal 

halide lamp fixture and metal halide 

lamp shipments. From 1993 to 2001, the 

number of MHLF shipments on average 

represented 37 percent of the amount of 

lamp shipments, with a standard 

deviation of 3 percent. Using this 

relationship, DOE multiplied all of the 

metal halide lamp shipments from 1990 

to 2010 by 37 percent to estimate the 

historical shipments of metal halide 

lamp fixtures. DOE assumed that 

shipments for metal halide lamp 

fixtures would peak somewhere 

between 2010 and 2015, and generally 

decline thereafter. 78 FR 51464, 51506 

(Aug. 20, 2013). 

DOE received multiple comments 

indicating that its shipments analysis 

significantly underestimated the rate of 

decline in the MHLF market, and 

thereby overestimated total MHLF 

shipments. (APPA, No. 51 at p. 2; 

NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 2, 4, 22; ULT, No. 

50 at p. 15) NEMA presented new MH 

ballast sales trend graphs at the NOPR 

public meeting, suggesting a much 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7789 

44The August 2013 NOPR text at 78 FR 51463, 

51506 (August 20, 2013) incorrectly indicated that 

fixture shipments in the ‘‘high’’ scenario in 2040 

roughly equaled the shipments in 2006. Several 

commenters stated that the declining MHLF market 

would not return to 2006 shipment levels. (APPA, 

No. 51 at p. 2; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 4) DOE’s actual 

modeled fixture shipments for 2040 were roughly 

equal to pre-2000 shipments, significantly lower 

than the 2006 peak. 

45U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Products: 

Preliminary Technical Support Document: Energy 

Efficiency Standards for Consumer Products: 

General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps. February 2013. 

Washington, DC. http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0006- 

0022. 

steeper decline in fixture shipments 

from 2008 to 2013 than assumed in the 

August 2013 NOPR. (NEMA, No. 44 at 

p. 15) For this final rule, DOE retained 

its peak in fixture shipments, and 

revised its trend for subsequent 

historical shipments to approximate the 

new sales trend information provided 

by NEMA. As a result, total estimated 

MHLF shipments for 2013 were 

approximately 31 percent lower than in 

the August 2013 NOPR. By extension, 

DOE also revised its projected base case 

shipments downward, as discussed in 

section V.G.1.c of this final rule. 

b. Fixture Stock Projections 

In the August 2013 NOPR shipments 

analysis, DOE calculated the installed 

fixture stock using estimated historical 

fixture shipments and its projected 

shipments for future years. DOE 

estimated the installed stock during the 

analysis period by using fixture 

shipments and calculating how many 

will survive up to a given year based on 

a Weibull lifetime distribution for each 

fixture type. 78 FR 51464, 51506 (Aug. 

20, 2013). DOE received no comments 

on the August 2013 NOPR regarding its 

fixture stock projection method and 

retained this approach for this final rule. 

c. Base Case Shipment Scenarios 

For the August 2013 NOPR, DOE 

assumed that shipments for MHLFs 

peaked somewhere between 2010 and 

2015. For projected fixture shipments in 

the ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘high’’ shipment 

scenarios, DOE projected a decline that 

fell back to the levels in 2000 and 2006, 

respectively.44 78 FR 51464, 51506 

(Aug. 20, 2013). As discussed 

previously, several commenters stated 

that DOE overestimated total MHLF 

shipments in its NOPR analysis. (APPA, 

No. 51 at p. 2; NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 2, 

4, 22; ULT, No. 50 at p. 15) For this final 

rule, DOE used new MH ballast sales 

trend information provided by NEMA to 

revise its historical fixture shipments, 

resulting in significantly lower 

shipment estimates for 2008 to 2013. As 

a result, DOE’s projected fixture 

shipments through 2047 were also 

significantly lower; for example, the 

‘‘low’’ scenario shipments for 2020 were 

31 percent lower than the corresponding 

NOPR estimate and declined to 

approximately pre-1990 levels by the 

end of the shipments analysis period. 

d. Standards-Case 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 equipment efficiency. For 

the August 2013 NOPR, DOE used a 

‘‘Roll-up’’ shipment efficiency scenario, 

which is a standards case in which all 

equipment efficiencies in the base case 

that do not meet the standard would 

‘‘roll up’’ to the lowest level that can 

meet the new standard level. Equipment 

efficiencies in the base case above the 

standard level are unaffected in the 

Roll-up scenario, as these customers are 

assumed to continue to purchase the 

same base-case fixtures. The Roll-up 

scenario characterizes customers 

primarily driven by the first cost of the 

analyzed equipment, which DOE 

believes more accurately characterizes 

the metal halide lamp fixture 

marketplace. 78 FR 51464, 51506 (Aug. 

20, 2013). 

NEMA and ULT commented on the 

August 2013 NOPR, stating that setting 

a standard for 150 W fixtures that 

requires electronic ballasts will steer 

customers to higher wattage, 

magnetically ballasted fixtures. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 

33–34; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 9; NEMA, 

No. 56 at p. 24; ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 144–145; ULT, 

No. 50 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees that there is some 

possibility of a shift between the 

technologies. The ballast types play a 

role in the decision, but so do initial 

costs, life-cycle costs, and utility 

features of the light source. DOE assume 

that customer would not opt for the 175 

W magnetically ballasted fixture if the 

150 W light fixture is cheaper. DOE’s 

analysis has the 175 W metal halide 

lamp fixture at the baseline and 

efficiency levels 1–3 to be greater than 

the 150 W metal halide lamp fixture at 

the baseline and efficiency levels 1–3. 

Therefore, DOE assumes that only if a 

standard that were set requiring 

efficiency level 4 would customers 

chose to install 175 W metal halide 

lamp fixtures. In this shift scenario, 

DOE did not assume an overwhelming 

number of customers would shift to 175 

W because the economics and utility 

features between the two options were 

similar. Because the options were so 

similar, there was no an overwhelming 

reason for customers to make large shifts 

to the 175 W metal halide lamp fixture 

as a result of a standard requiring 

electronic ballasts for 150 W metal 

halide lamp fixtures. 

Similarly, DOE modeled a shift of 

customers migrating from 1000 W 

probe-start fixtures to either 875 W 

pulse-start or 1000 W pulse-start 

fixtures as a result of the design 

standard being part of this rule. In order 

to examine the market shift that would 

be expected to occur under a design 

standard for the 500 W–1000 W 

equipment class, DOE developed an 

econometric-based consumer choice 

model to estimate the relative fraction of 

1000 W probe-start fixture customers 

who migrate to 1000 W pulse-start and 

875 W pulse-start fixtures. The 

consumer choice model was based on a 

conditional logit model to establish 

consumer preference between these two 

options, based on economic parameters, 

coupled with a market diffusion curve 

to estimate the rapidity of movement in 

the market toward the consumer 

preference predicted by the logit model. 

Data underlying the consumer choice 

model reflected that for commercial and 

industrial lighting purchasers as 

presented in DOE’s General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps preliminary analysis 

technical support document.45 DOE 

estimated that approximately 27 percent 

of those customers using 1000 W probestart fixtures in the base case shipment 

forecast would shift to 875 W pulse-start 

fixtures and the remaining 73 percent of 

1000 W probe-start customers would 

migrate to 1000 W pulse-start fixtures. 

These market shifts were used in the 

shipments estimates underlying the 

calculation of the design standard 

benefits in the NIA. 

DOE also received comments on the 

August 2013 NOPR stating that 

additional costs resulting from potential 

standards could increase the rate at 

which MHLF customers migrate to other 

lighting technologies. (APPA, No. 51 at 

pp. 2–3; NEMA, No. 56 at p. 23; ULT, 

No. 50 at p. 15) NEMA noted that costs 

for many fixture types had already 

increased to meet recent new National 

Electrical Code requirements. (NEMA, 

No. 56 at p. 23) NEMA and ULT 

observed that applications requiring 

high lumen output and hightemperature operating environments 

still favor metal halide lamp fixtures, 

however. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 22; ULT, 

No. 50 at p. 15) DOE believes that its 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7790 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

46 Docket ID: EERE–2010–BT–NOA–0028, 

comment by Kirk Lundblade. 

47See www.eia.gov/electricity/wholesale/ (Last 

accessed December 2013). 

revised base case shipments (that 

incorporate new NEMA sales trend 

information) capture the main effect of 

migration to other lighting technologies, 

and illustrate a significant decrease in 

total MHLF shipments compared to the 

NOPR analysis. DOE reserved the 

standards-case shipments scenario to 

characterize the purchasing behaviors of 

remaining MHLF customers, and 

retained its Roll-up approach for this 

final rule. 

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 into primary or source 

energy consumption (the energy 

required to convert and deliver the site 

energy). These conversion factors 

account for the energy used at power 

plants to generate electricity and losses 

in transmission and distribution, as well 

as for natural gas losses from pipeline 

leakage and energy used for pumping. 

For electricity, the conversion factors 

vary over time due to projected changes 

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

power plants projected to provide 

electricity to the country). The factors 

that DOE developed are marginal 

values, which represent the response of 

the system to an incremental decrease in 

consumption associated with appliance 

standards. 

For the August 2013 NOPR, DOE used 

the annually variable site-to-source 

conversion factors based on the version 

of NEMS that corresponds to AEO2013, 

which provided energy forecasts 

through 2035. For 2036–2044, DOE used 

conversion factors that remain constant 

at the 2035 values. 78 FR 51464, 51506 

(Aug. 20, 2013). DOE received no 

comments regarding site-to-source 

conversion factors, and retained its 

approach for today’s final rule. 

DOE has historically presented NES 

in terms of primary energy savings. In 

response to the recommendations of a 

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

Energy Efficiency Standards’’ appointed 

by the National Academy of Science, 

DOE announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(August 18, 2011) While DOE stated in 

that notice that it intended to use the 

Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, 

and Energy Use in Transportation 

(GREET) model to conduct the analysis, 

it also said it would review alternative 

methods, including the use of NEMS. 

After evaluating both models and the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 notice, DOE published a statement 

of amended policy in the Federal 

Register in which DOE explained its 

determination that NEMS is a more 

appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and 

its intention to use NEMS for that 

purpose. 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). 

DOE received one comment, which was 

supportive of the use of NEMS for 

DOE’s FFC analysis.46

The approach used for today’s final 

rule, and the FFC multipliers that were 

applied, are described in appendix 11B 

of the final rule TSD. NES results are 

presented in both primary and FFC 

savings in section VII.B.3.a. 

H. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

The life-cycle cost subgroup analysis 

evaluates impacts of standards on 

identifiable groups, such as different 

customer populations or business types 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by any national energy conservation 

standard level. For the August 2013 

NOPR, DOE estimated LCC savings and 

payback periods for three subgroups: 

Utilities, transportation facility owners, 

and warehouse owners. These three 

subgroups were distinguished from 

average MHLF customers by higher 

maintenance costs (utilities), higher 

operating hours (transportation facility 

owners), and lower operating hours 

(warehouse owners). 78 FR 51464, 

51507 (Aug. 20, 2013). 

Several utilities commented that DOE 

incorrectly assigned the same retail 

electricity rates to all three subgroups, 

when utilities would instead pay lower 

wholesale rates, resulting in lower 

energy cost savings and longer payback 

periods. (APPA, No. 51 at pp. 8–9; EEI, 

No. 53 at p. 4; NRECA, No. 61 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with this distinction, and 

DOE referenced EIA wholesale 

electricity prices 47 for the utility 

subgroup in its final rule analysis. As 

discussed previously in section V.F.6 of 

this final rule, DOE is also evaluating 

two new customer subgroups for 

transient-prone fixtures in outdoor and 

heavy industrial indoor applications. 

DOE assumed that owners of transientprone outdoor fixtures would face 

shortened surge protection and 

electronic ballast lifetimes because of 

lightning-induced voltage transients, 

resulting in a 15 percent shorter 

electronic ballast life requiring more 

frequent electronic ballast and surge 

protection device replacements during 

the fixture lifetime. For indoor fixtures, 

DOE assumed that fixture owners in 

heavy industrial environments would 

face shortened surge protection and 

electronic ballast lifetimes because of 

voltage transients, resulting in a 20% 

shorter electronic ballast life requiring 

more frequent electronic ballast and 

surge protection device replacements 

during the fixture lifetime. 

For more information regarding the 

customer subgroup analysis, see chapter 

12 of the final rule TSD. 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE conducted an MIA to estimate 

the financial impact of new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of MHLFs and 

ballasts, and to estimate the impact of 

new and amended standards on 

employment and manufacturing 

capacity. The quantitative aspect of the 

MIA relies on the GRIM, an industry 

cash-flow model customized for MHLFs 

and ballasts covered in this rulemaking. 

The GRIM is used to calculate INPV, 

which is the key MIA output. In its 

analysis, DOE used the GRIM to 

calculate cash flows using standard 

accounting principles and to compare 

the difference in INPV between the base 

case and various TSLs (the standards 

cases). The difference in INPV between 

the base and standards cases represents 

the financial impact of new and 

amended MHLF standards on MHLF 

and ballast manufacturers. DOE 

employed different assumptions about 

markups and future shipments to 

produce ranges of results that represent 

the uncertainty about how the MHLF 

and ballast industries will respond to 

energy conservation standards. 

In the MIA, DOE typically groups its 

estimates of manufacturer impacts by 

the major equipment types that are 

produced by the same manufacturers. 

The covered equipment in today’s 

rulemaking is MHLFs; however, by 

requiring particular MH ballast 

efficiencies in this regulation, MH 

ballast manufacturers will also be 

affected by new and amended MHLF 

standards. The MHLF and ballast 

markets are served by separate groups of 

manufacturers. DOE therefore presents 

impacts on MHLF manufacturers and 

MH ballast manufacturers separately. 

DOE outlined its complete 

methodology for the MIA in the 

previously published NOPR. The 

complete MIA is presented in chapter 

13 of this final rule TSD. 

1. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing higher-efficiency 

equipment is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline equipment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7791 

due to the need for more costly 

components. The resulting changes in 

the MPCs of the analyzed equipment 

can affect the revenues, gross margins, 

and cash flows of manufacturers. DOE 

strives to accurately model the potential 

changes in these equipment costs, as 

they are a key input for the GRIM and 

DOE’s overall analysis. For the final 

rule, DOE updated the MHLF and some 

ballast MPCs based on stakeholder 

comments. For a complete description 

of the changes made to the MPCs see 

section V.C.12 of this final rule. 

2. Shipment Projections 

Changes in sales volumes and 

efficiency distribution of equipment 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. The GRIM 

estimates manufacturer revenues based 

on total unit shipment projections and 

the distribution of shipments by 

efficiency level. For the final rule, DOE 

reduced the number of shipments of 

MHLFs in both the low- and highshipment scenarios based on 

stakeholder comments. For the MIA, the 

GRIM uses the NIA’s annual shipment 

projections from the base year, 2014, to 

2046, which is the end of the analysis 

period. For a complete description of 

the changes made to the shipment 

analysis see section V.G.1 of this final 

rule. 

3. 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 new and 

amended energy conservation 

standards: (1) A flat, or preservation of 

gross margin, markup scenario and (2) a 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. These scenarios lead to 

different markup values, which when 

applied to the inputted MPCs, result in 

varying revenue and cash-flow impacts. 

For the final rule, DOE did not alter 

the markup scenarios, values, or 

methodology used in the NOPR 

analysis. 

4. Production and Capital Conversion 

Costs 

New and amended energy 

conservation standards will cause 

manufacturers to incur one-time 

conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and equipment 

designs into compliance. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these one-time 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Product conversion costs and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion costs are one-time 

investments in research, development, 

testing, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs necessary to make 

equipment designs comply with the 

new and amended standards. Capital 

conversion costs are one-time 

investments in property, plant, and 

equipment necessary to adapt or change 

existing production facilities such that 

new equipment designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. DOE created 

separate conversion costs for MHLF and 

ballast manufacturers. 

In response to the NOPR, Acuity 

stated they believed the conversion 

costs for fixture manufacturers seemed 

surprisingly low. (Acuity, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 285) 

DOE assumed that there would not be 

any capital conversion costs for fixture 

manufacturers at efficiency levels 

requiring more efficient magnetic 

ballasts. This is based on DOE’s 

assumption in the engineering analysis 

that the size of the magnetic ballast 

would not need to be increased at those 

efficiency levels and therefore, fixture 

manufacturers would not need to 

redesign their MHLFs to be compatible 

with the higher efficiency magnetic 

ballasts. Fixture manufacturers would, 

however, incur product conversion 

costs at efficiency levels requiring 

magnetic ballasts. Higher ballast 

efficiency levels would require fixture 

manufacturers to re-test and re-certify 

fixtures with ballasts that were 

redesigned to meet standards. DOE 

believes that there would be both 

product conversion costs, as well as 

capital conversion costs, for fixture 

manufacturers at all efficiency levels 

requiring electronic ballasts since 

fixture manufacturers producing MHLFs 

containing magnetic ballasts would 

need to redesign their fixture 

production process. 

Several manufacturers stated there 

would be significant conversion costs to 

comply with the MHLF standards 

proposed in the NOPR. Cooper, for 

example stated that they would have to 

make substantial investments to comply 

with the standards proposed in the 

NOPR. (Cooper, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 58) ULT 

expressed concern that complying with 

the proposed standards would consume 

significant company time and resources. 

They commented that from a design 

cycle standpoint, one fixture could take 

eight to 12 months to redesign and test, 

which includes design validation 

testing, UL testing, and life-cycle 

testing. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 201) DOE 

acknowledges that manufacturers would 

have to make investments to comply 

with MHLF standards. As part of the 

MIA, DOE attempts to quantify the time 

and monetary expenditures that would 

comprise the capital and product 

conversion costs, which MHLF and 

ballast manufacturers would need to 

incur to convert all their equipment to 

meet the standards. These conversion 

cost estimates were based on DOE’s 

research and modified based on 

manufacturer feedback during 

interviews. 

DOE modified the capital conversion 

costs for the final rule based on the 

reduction in shipments modeled in the 

final rule shipments analysis. 

Consequently, DOE reduced the capital 

conversion costs proportionally to the 

reduction in shipments of the final rule, 

since capital conversion costs are 

correlated to the shipment volume in 

the year standards require compliance. 

DOE did not alter the product 

conversion costs since these costs are 

correlated with the number of product 

designs impacted by standards, not 

necessarily the shipment volume in the 

year standards require compliance. 

5. Other Comments From Interested 

Parties 

During the NOPR public meeting and 

comment period, interested parties 

commented on the assumptions, 

methodology, and results of the NOPR 

MIA. DOE received comments about the 

compliance period, alternative 

technologies, the opportunity cost of 

investments, the replacement ballast 

market, and potential impact on MH 

lamp manufacturers. These comments 

are addressed below. 

a. Compliance Period 

NEMA stated that based on its 

analysis, a three-year compliance period 

would be inadequate for the extensive 

R&D effort that MHLF and ballast 

manufacturers would have to undergo 

in order to redesign all equipment to be 

compliant with the efficiency levels 

proposed in the NOPR. NEMA stated 

that in their analysis, they found that 

manufacturers would face significant 

technical obstacles when trying to 

produce high volumes of compliant 

MHLFs and ballasts due to the 

challenging nature of processing highergrade materials, such as M6 steel. 

NEMA does not believe that lighting 

manufacturers are willing to dedicate 

enough resources to MHLF and ballast 

technology to be able to redesign all 

wattages during a three-year time 

period. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 3) While 

DOE acknowledges there are difficulties 

and costs associated with manufacturing 

higher efficiency products, all efficiency 

levels analyzed in DOE’s engineering 

analysis, including max tech, are 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7792 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

technologically feasible to manufacture. 

For a complete description of MHLFs 

and ballasts and analyzed in the 

engineering analysis see section V.C of 

this final rule. 

NEMA also commented that the 

MHLF NOPR proposed expanding the 

scope of covered equipment to include 

wattage ranges previously not covered 

by the standards prescribed in EISA 

2007, as well as eliminating exemptions 

for certain equipment that were granted 

by EISA 2007. According to NEMA, the 

number of MHLFs impacted would be 

significant and bringing them into 

compliance would be time-consuming 

and costly. NEMA listed some of the 

most significant compliance obstacles 

that manufacturers would face 

including: Evaluating ballast 

performance to identify compliant 

ballasts; determining if ballasts in 

fixtures need to be replaced; modifying 

order and quotation systems; obtaining 

the test data for CCE; educating 

manufacturing staff; educating 

customers; and managing order 

backlogs. NEMA believes that managing 

these logistics would divert limited 

resources within lighting divisions and 

would prevent manufacturers from 

focusing on developing and selling more 

efficient lighting technology, such as 

LEDs. According to NEMA, the 

proposed standards would delay the 

market transition to technologies that 

are more efficient than those established 

by this rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 

20) 

During the NOPR public meeting, 

NEMA further emphasized the complex 

logistics manufacturers would face in 

complying with new and amended 

energy conservation standards. NEMA 

stated that a large amount of equipment 

would have to be redesigned and several 

sales channels would be impacted if 

DOE expanded the scope of covered 

MHLFs beyond what was included in 

EISA 2007. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 19–20) 

According to NEMA, manufacturers 

would have to employ significant 

company resources to educate internal 

staff, such as marketing and sales 

representatives, about new equipment 

available for purchase. Time and money 

would also have to be spent updating IT 

systems due to changes in order 

processing and inventory management 

software. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 22) 

NEMA further argued that 

manufacturers would have to use 

company resources to educate their 

customers about redesigned compliant 

equipment. For fixture manufacturers, 

customers include OEMs, distributors, 

contractors, designers, home centers, 

and showrooms. Manufacturers would 

have to modify marketing materials and 

manage orders and contracts which 

might extend one to two years into the 

future. According to NEMA, managing 

these contracts would be complicated, 

as the prices and performances of the 

MHLFs are generally guaranteed and 

would change due to standards. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

26) Ballast manufacturers also often 

have one or two-year contracts with 

their customers, who agree to buy 

ballasts that achieve particular 

performance levels for an agreed upon 

price. Ballast manufacturers would have 

to renegotiate these contracts, which 

would be difficult because prices and 

ballast performances would change due 

to standards. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 23) 

NEMA also stated that fixture 

manufacturers would not be able to start 

preparing for energy conservation 

standards until ballast manufacturers 

had completed their redesign and 

compliance efforts. Fixture 

manufacturers would have to assess 

whether redesigned ballasts were the 

same form and size and whether they 

had the same thermal characteristics 

before they would be able to begin 

redesigning fixtures. According to 

NEMA, if a particular ballast needed to 

be redesigned, that could mean dozens, 

if not hundreds, of unique fixtures using 

that particular ballast would also need 

to be redesigned. NEMA stated any 

change in a ballast’s form or thermal 

characteristics would require a 

tremendous redesign effort for fixture 

manufacturers. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 25) 

NEMA further commented that 

MHLFs and ballasts would also have to 

go through electrical, safety, thermal, 

and photometric testing, all of which 

would consume manufacturers’ time 

and resources. NEMA expressed 

concern that testing of the new and 

modified ballasts and fixtures would 

take a significant amount of time and 

would further complicate 

manufacturers’ efforts to abide by the 

three-year compliance period. NEMA 

pointed out that when the DOE CCE rule 

went into effect, manufacturers took six 

months to obtain accurate samples for 

certification. Manufacturers would have 

to redesign and test modified ballasts 

and fixtures before even beginning to 

collect samples for the CCE rule. NEMA 

argued that this would be difficult to 

achieve within the three-year 

compliance period. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 22) 

NEMA also questioned whether UL 

could handle the volume of testing that 

would be necessary to comply with 

standards in such a short period of time 

since all redesigned MHLFs and ballasts 

would need to be certified. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

26) 

DOE acknowledges that new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

will require MHLF and ballast 

manufacturers to undergo changes to 

their production processes, modify 

existing equipment, develop new 

models, and make a series of complex 

logistical decisions. In the NOPR, DOE 

assumed ballast and fixture 

manufacturers must comply with 

standards as of January 1, 2015. 

However, as described in section VI.C, 

DOE has revised the compliance date in 

the final rule to be consistent with the 

three-year time frame specified in EISA 

2007. DOE assumes a three-year 

compliance period when estimating all 

capital and product conversion costs, 

which DOE included as potential 

burdens when selecting standards for 

MHLFs. 

b. Alternative Technologies 

DOE recognizes that there are 

alternative lighting technologies that 

can be used in the same applications as 

MHLFs and that MHLF shipments are 

on the decline. Lighting manufacturers, 

for example are heavily investing in 

R&D for LEDs, an advanced and highly 

efficient lighting technology for which 

demand is growing rapidly. LED 

technology has matured to the point that 

it can be used in a number of 

applications in which MHLFs are 

typically used, predominantly at lower 

wattages. However at higher wattages, it 

is more difficult for customers to switch 

from MH to LED. 

At the NOPR public meeting, Philips 

pointed out that a majority of R&D 

resources within the lighting industry 

have already been transferred to LEDs 

and away from traditional lighting 

technologies. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 50) ULT stated 

that by creating new standards for a 

technology with declining market share, 

DOE is hindering this trend, as 

manufacturers will have to divert 

resources away from developing more 

advanced and efficient technologies to 

convert their metal halide product lines. 

(ULT, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 

at p. 61) Acuity noted, however, that in 

the higher-wattage applications, LED 

technology has not yet developed a 

high-intensity lighting solution, and 

therefore the market will be forced to 

continue to develop MH lamps for those 

applications. (Acuity, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 24) 

APPA, NRECA, and EEI all noted that 

due to market conditions and the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7793 

existence of other lighting technologies, 

manufacturers may have no incentive to 

make replacement ballasts for existing 

MHLFs. (APPA, No. 51 at p. 7; NRECA, 

No. 61 at p. 2; EEI, No. 53 at p. 3) APPA 

pointed out that MH ballast production 

has been declining since 2008 and that 

manufacturers may decide to halt the 

production of replacement ballasts to 

focus on LEDs. APPA argued that if 

replacement ballasts became 

commercially unavailable, the original 

intent of the rule, which was not to 

force the implementation of new 

fixtures, would be lost. (APPA, No. 51 

at p. 7) NEEA argued that to avoid this 

problem, regulations are needed for 

LEDs so that manufacturers would have 

incentive to perform research and 

development on MHLFs to make them 

more efficient. (NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 53) 

DOE acknowledges that the MHLF 

market is currently in decline and has 

modeled this decline into its projections 

of future MHLF and ballast shipments. 

Any effects of increased R&D of 

technologies not covered by this 

rulemaking and the market penetration 

of those technologies into the MHLF 

market are discussed in the following 

section of the MIA (V.I.5.c) DOE agrees 

that there are a number of applications 

in which LED cannot provide equivalent 

lumen output to MHLF light levels and 

that there will be a continued market for 

this equipment. DOE expects that even 

with the standards adopted by this final 

rule there will be a market for 

manufacturers to make replacement 

ballasts. 

c. Opportunity Cost of Investments 

Several manufacturers commented 

that developing MHLFs to meet energy 

conservation standards would have 

opportunity costs. NEMA argued that 

diverting resources to convert MHLFs 

and ballasts to comply with new and 

amended standards would negatively 

impact the lighting market by delaying 

the introduction of products with 

potentially higher efficiency, better 

utility, and more responsive controls. 

(NEMA, No. 56 at p. 24) Musco Lighting 

commented that the proposed standard 

requiring pulse-start lamps would divert 

critical R&D resources to attempt to 

develop a technology that does not exist 

and to this point has not been 

determined as commercially achievable. 

Musco Lighting stated R&D resources in 

the lighting industry should remain 

focused on technologies that have 

significant opportunities for energy 

reduction, such as LEDs. Musco 

Lighting believes the proposed MHLF 

standards would not achieve significant 

energy savings and would potentially 

hold back substantial lighting efficiency 

gains by diverting resources. (Musco 

Lighting, No. 55 at p. 3) 

Most manufacturers agreed that LEDs 

are the future of the lighting industry, 

and therefore are primarily focusing 

R&D resources on this technology as 

opposed to MH technology. As a result, 

NEMA pointed out that lighting 

manufacturers are working with fewer 

human resources dedicated to MH than 

they were when they first had to come 

into compliance with EISA 2007 MH 

standards. Meeting those standards was 

very complicated for manufacturers 

even with the more abundant resources 

that were available. It will be difficult 

for companies to simultaneously 

develop LEDs and upgrade MHLFs and 

ballasts (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 20) 

ULT pointed out that while LEDs are 

growing in market share, they are still 

not mature enough to work well in all 

applications; however, manufacturers 

are getting closer to achieving this 

through R&D. According to ULT, 

lighting manufacturers are working on 

developing fixtures that are designed to 

remove heat, keep water out, and help 

protect against surges to allow the use 

of LEDs in all fixtures. ULT believes that 

MHLF standards requiring 

manufacturers to spend over a year 

designing, testing, and validating 

MHLFs and ballasts would slow the 

integration of LEDs into the market and 

force manufacturers to work on lighting 

technologies that may not be in the 

market in the next five to 10 years. 

(ULT, No. 50 at p. 16–17) NEMA 

commented that if manufacturers chose 

to convert their MH equipment to the 

proposed efficiency levels, the higher 

priced MHLFs could cause customers to 

shift to LEDs anyway, which would 

mean that manufacturers would not 

recoup the cost of investment into 

MHLFs. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 150) Several 

manufacturers and NEMA said that 

these considerations could cause some 

fixture and ballast manufacturers to exit 

the MH market. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48. 283) 

NEMA argued that manufacturers may 

choose to exit the market due to the fact 

that the proposed standards could have 

severe impacts on manufacturers. They 

noted that in DOE’s NOPR analysis, MH 

ballast manufacturers would need to 

invest up to 29 million dollars at the 

proposed TSL and this could result in 

up to a 25 percent loss of base case 

INPV. According to NEMA, the impacts 

will be more severe than DOE projected 

in the NOPR because NEMA believes 

that shipments of MHLFs and ballasts 

will decline much faster than DOE 

projected. NEMA argued that the 

rapidly declining MH market makes it 

difficult for manufacturers to justify the 

significant investments necessary to 

comply with MHLF standards. (NEMA, 

No. 56 at p. 23) DOE has adjusted the 

projected volume of shipments based on 

stakeholder feedback. In the final rule 

shipment analysis, there is a sharper 

decline in MHLF shipments as 

suggested by NEMA’s comment. For a 

complete description of the changes 

made to the shipment analysis see 

section V.G.1 of this final rule. 

DOE recognizes the opportunity cost 

associated with any investment, and 

agrees that manufacturers would need to 

spend capital and company resources to 

meet today’s standards that they would 

not have to spend in the absence of 

standards. As a result, manufacturers 

must determine the extent to which they 

will balance investment in the MH 

market with investment in emerging 

technologies, such as LEDs. These 

companies will have to weigh tradeoffs 

between deferring investments and 

deploying additional capital. DOE 

includes the costs of meeting today’s 

standard in the conversion costs portion 

of the MIA. 

d. Replacement Ballast Market 

As noted in the scope of coverage 

section, this rulemaking covers new 

MHLFs. Even though the metric being 

regulated is ballast efficiency, the 

standards set in this rulemaking only 

apply to ballasts sold with new fixtures. 

Ballasts sold separately, to be used as 

replacement ballasts for existing 

fixtures, are not required to comply with 

these standards. 

There was some concern among 

stakeholders that manufacturers might 

not choose to manufacture similar 

wattage ballasts at multiple efficiency 

levels due to lack of economic viability. 

ULT and Cooper both commented that 

the proposed standard for new MHLFs 

would affect all MH ballasts and not just 

new MHLFs because it is economically 

infeasible to maintain two different 

ballast product lines—one that services 

the replacement market that would not 

be subject to standards and another that 

services the new MHLF market that 

would be subject to standards. (ULT, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at 

p. 65–66; Cooper, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 67) NEEA 

argued that while this was probably 

true, as long as there is a market for 

replacement MH ballasts, some 

companies would manufacture those 

replacement ballasts to fulfill that 

market. According to NEEA, a 

manufacturer could continue their 

current MH ballast production line 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7794 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

48 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 todipsweb@bls.gov. 

Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/

prin1.nr0.htm. (Last accessed October 2013.) 

49See 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. 

which would only service the 

replacement MH ballast market and not 

manufacture ballasts for new MHLFs. 

(NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 72) ULT responded by 

commenting that manufacturers are not 

going to want to redesign and 

manufacture two production lines for 

MH ballasts which would increase their 

inventory and carrying costs for MH 

ballasts and rather will continue to 

focus on solid state lighting. ULT 

believes this could open up the 

replacement ballasts market to offshore 

MH ballast manufacturers and result in 

an increase in products that will have 

quality and warranty problems, which is 

bad for end-users. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 73) 

Also several organizations 

commented on the impact of MHLF 

standards on the portfolio of ballasts 

available for the replacement market. 

APPA requested confirmation that the 

standards proposed in the NOPR would 

not eliminate the production of 

replacement ballasts for existing and 

future MHLFs. (APPA, No. 51 at p. 1) 

NEMA, ULT, and APPA stated 

manufacturers could not be expected to 

maintain product lines for both new 

fixture ballasts and for the replacement 

or repair of old fixtures. Therefore, 

customers with MHLFs currently 

installed might be left with stranded 

assets. However, NEMA, ULT, and 

APPA noted that if standards do not 

force customers to switch to electronic 

ballasts or magnetic ballasts to incur 

physical changes, the market could 

continue to be adequately serviced by 

manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 

10, 24; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 17–18; APPA, 

No. 51 at p. 8) GE noted that if the 

standard were to require larger ballasts, 

it would mean having no direct 

replacement for the installed base, 

especially in a situation such as a 

natural disaster, where the majority of 

lighting in a subdivision would need to 

be replaced. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 89) Conversely, 

the Joint Comment stated that there will 

always be a market for these 

replacement ballasts, regardless of the 

efficiency requirements, and that it 

would be a business decision whether 

manufacturers would want to fill that 

niche market. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at 

p. 7) 

DOE’s market analysis found that 

several of the largest manufacturers of 

MH ballasts responded to the standards 

mandated by EISA 2007 for 150 W–500 

W ballasts sold with new fixtures by 

offering ballasts with efficiencies that 

comply with EISA 2007 standard levels, 

and replacement ballasts with 

efficiencies that do not comply with 

EISA 2007, at the same wattages. While 

DOE predicts a similar response to the 

standards adopted in this final rule, the 

financial viability of offering ballasts 

that fall above and below these 

standards will be a business decision for 

each manufacturer. For the MIA, DOE 

includes the costs of upgrading MH 

ballast production for new MHLFs (and 

not upgrading replacement ballasts) to 

meet the standards in its analysis and 

any other course of action would be a 

business decision made by 

manufacturers which is not modeled by 

DOE. 

e. Potential Impact on Metal Halide 

Lamp Manufacturers 

Philips commented that there could 

be a negative impact on MH lamp 

manufacturers due to MHLF standards. 

Philips stated as the cost of MHLFs 

increase due to standards more people 

are going to purchase LEDs and as a 

result, the volume of MHLFs and MH 

lamps will decrease. Therefore, Philips 

believes that DOE should take into 

account costs imposed on MH lamp 

manufacturers associated with MHLF 

standards. (Philips, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 277) DOE 

recognizes that LEDs are continuing to 

capture more and more of the lighting 

markets serviced by MHLFs and 

accounts for this shift to LEDs in the 

shipment analysis for this rulemaking. 

DOE does not believe that MHLF 

standards will hasten this shift to LEDs, 

as LEDs are not appropriate substitutes 

for all MHLFs given the large lumen 

output of the higher wattage MHLFs. 

Therefore, this market shift to LEDs is 

captured in the base case shipment 

scenario and is not modeled as a 

standards-induced market shift. 

6. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

representing more than 65 percent of 

MHLF sales and 90 percent of MH 

ballast sales. The NOPR interviews were 

in addition to the preliminary 

interviews DOE conducted as part of the 

interim analysis. DOE outlined the key 

issues for the rulemaking for 

manufacturers in the NOPR. DOE 

considered the information received 

during these interviews in the 

development of the NOPR and this final 

rule. Comments on the NOPR regarding 

the impact of standards on 

manufacturers were discussed in the 

preceding sections. DOE did not 

conduct interviews with manufacturers 

between the publication of the NOPR 

and this final rule. 

J. 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 equipment subject to standards, 

their suppliers, and related service 

firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, caused by: (1) Reduced 

spending by end users on energy; (2) 

reduced spending on new energy 

supplies by the utility industry; (3) 

increased spending on new equipment 

to which the new standards apply; and 

(4) the effects of those three factors 

throughout the economy. 

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).48 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 

the BLS indicate that expenditures in 

the utility sector generally create fewer 

jobs (both directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy.49 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. 

Energy conservation standards have the 

effect of reducing customer utility bills. 

Because reduced customer 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 laborintensive sectors (e.g., the retail and 

manufacturing sectors). Thus, based on 

the BLS data alone, DOE believes that 

net national employment will increase 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7795 

50Roop, J. M., M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, 

ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies 

(PNNL–18412 Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory) (2009). Available at www.pnl.gov/main/ 

publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL18412.pdf. (Last accessed October 2013.) 

51See www.epa.gov/climateleadership/guidance/

ghg-emissions.html. 52U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP– 

42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and 

Area Sources. 1998. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/

index.html. 

53Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. 

Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, 

D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, 

M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland. 2007: Changes in 

Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. 

In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. 

Tignor and H.L. Miller, Editors. 2007. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and 

New York, NY, USA. p. 212. 

due to shifts in economic activity 

resulting from new and amended 

standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. 

For the standard levels considered in 

today’s final rule, DOE estimated 

indirect national employment impacts 

using an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies (ImSET), version 3.1.1.50

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model, which was 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among 187 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE received several general 

comments at the NOPR public meeting 

questioning the validity of its 

employment analysis results. (Acuity, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

306; EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at pp. 298–301; GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 306; NEEA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 

304–305; NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 302) DOE notes 

that ImSET is not a general equilibrium 

projection model and understands the 

uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may overestimate 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-term employment 

impacts. DOE also notes that the 

indirect employment impacts estimated 

with ImSET for the entire economy 

differ from the direct employment 

impacts in the lighting manufacturing 

sector estimated using the GRIM in the 

MIA, as described at the beginning of 

this section. The methodologies used 

and the sectors analyzed in the ImSET 

and GRIM models are different. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis, see chapter 14 of the 

final rule TSD. 

K. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several important effects on the utility 

industry of the adoption of new or 

amended standards. For this analysis, 

DOE used the NEMS–BT model to 

generate forecasts of electricity 

consumption, electricity generation by 

plant type, and electric generating 

capacity by plant type, that would result 

from each considered TSL. DOE 

obtained the energy savings inputs 

associated with efficiency 

improvements to considered equipment 

from the NIA. DOE conducts the utility 

impact analysis as a scenario that 

departs from the latest AEO Reference 

Case. For the August 2013 NOPR 

analysis, the estimated impacts of 

standards were the differences between 

values forecasted by NEMS–BT and the 

values in the AEO2013 Reference Case. 

78 FR 51464, 51512 (Aug. 20, 2013). 

DOE received no comments related to 

its utility impact analysis and retained 

its approach for this final rule. Chapter 

15 of the final rule TSD describes the 

utility impact analysis. 

L. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

from potential energy conservation 

standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. 

In addition to estimating impacts of 

standards on power sector emissions, 

DOE estimated emissions impacts in 

production activities that provide the 

energy inputs to power plants. These are 

referred to as ‘‘upstream’’ emissions. In 

accordance with the FFC Statement of 

Policy (76 FR 51281 [August 18, 2011]), 

as amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 

2012), this FFC analysis includes 

impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) 

and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which 

are recognized as greenhouse gases. 

DOE primarily conducted the 

emissions analysis using emissions 

factors for CO2 and most of the other 

gases derived from data in AEO2013. 

Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O 

were estimated using emissions 

intensity factors published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), GHG Emissions Factors Hub.51

Site emissions of CO2 and NOX were 

estimated using emissions intensity 

factors from an EPA publication.52 DOE 

developed separate emissions factors for 

power sector emissions and upstream 

emissions. The method that DOE used 

to derive emissions factors is described 

in chapter 16 of the final rule TSD. 

For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated 

emissions reduction in tons and also in 

terms of units of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted 

to CO2eq by multiplying the physical 

units by the gas’ global warming 

potential (GWP) over a 100-year time 

horizon. Based on the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change,53 DOE used GWP values of 25 

for CH4 and 298 for N2O. 

EIA prepares the Annual Energy 

Outlook using NEMS. Each annual 

version of NEMS incorporates the 

projected impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO2013 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, for 

which implementing regulations were 

available as of December 31, 2012. 

SO2 emissions from affected 

electricity-generating units (EGUs) are 

subject to nationwide and regional 

emissions cap-and-trade programs. 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 

were also limited under the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR; 70 FR 25162 [May 

12, 2005]), which created an allowancebased trading program. CAIR was 

remanded to the EPA by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit, but it remained in effect. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(D.C. Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 

6, 2011 EPA issued a replacement for 

CAIR, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision to vacate CSAPR. See 

EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 

696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The 

court ordered EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. The AEO2013 

emissions factors used for today’s NOPR 

assume that CAIR remains a binding 

regulation through 2040. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7796 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

54Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units—Proposed Rule 

(September 20, 2013); pre-publication version at 

www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/

documents/20130920proposal.pdf (Last accessed 

November 22, 2013). 

55Cosignatories include the American Forest & 

Paper Association, American Fuel & Petrochemical 

Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, 

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, National 

Association of Manufacturers, National Mining 

Association, and the Portland Cement Association. 

56APPA commented that EPA new source 

performance standards are effective upon issuance 

of the proposed rule. (APPA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 310) DOE disagrees, citing 

section III.B of the proposed rule that states the 

emission limit would apply to affected sources on 

the effective date of the final action. 

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. In past 

rulemakings, DOE recognized that there 

was uncertainty about the effects of 

efficiency standards on SO2 emissions 

covered by the existing cap-and-trade 

system, but it concluded that negligible 

reductions in power sector SO2

emissions would occur as a result of 

standards. 

Beginning in 2015, however, SO2

emissions will fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). In the final MATS rule, 

EPA established a standard for hydrogen 

chloride as a surrogate for acid gas 

hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also 

established a standard for SO2 (a nonHAP acid gas) as an alternative 

equivalent surrogate standard for acid 

gas HAP. The same controls are used to 

reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; 

thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as 

a result of the control technologies 

installed on coal-fired power plants to 

comply with the MATS requirements 

for acid gas. AEO2013 assumes that, in 

order to continue operating, coal plants 

must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed by 2015. Both 

technologies, which are used to reduce 

acid gas emissions, also reduce SO2

emissions. Under the MATS, NEMS 

shows a reduction in SO2 emissions 

when electricity demand decreases (e.g., 

as a result of energy efficiency 

standards). Emissions will be far below 

the cap that would be established by 

CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO2

emissions allowances resulting from the 

lower electricity demand would be 

needed or used to permit offsetting 

increases in SO2 emissions by any 

regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes 

that efficiency standards will reduce 

SO2 emissions in 2015 and beyond. 

CAIR established a cap on NOX

emissions in 28 eastern states and the 

District of Columbia. Energy 

conservation standards are expected to 

have little effect on NOX emissions in 

those states covered by CAIR because 

excess NOX emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand could be used to permit 

offsetting increases in NOX emissions. 

However, standards would be expected 

to reduce NOX emissions in the states 

not affected by the caps, so DOE 

estimated NOX emissions reductions 

from the standards considered in 

today’s final rule for these states. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE 

estimated mercury emissions reduction 

using NEMS–BT based on AEO2013, 

which incorporates the MATS. 

DOE received comments regarding the 

emissions analysis during the NOPR 

public meeting. EEI noted that the EPA 

recently proposed greenhouse gas 

emissions standards for new EGUs 54

and would issue standards for existing 

EGUs in 2014. EEI commented that 

these standards would have a significant 

effect on DOE’s emission analysis and 

that they should be considered in the 

final rule. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 307–309) In a 

joint comment, the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce and cosignatories 55

(hereafter the ‘‘U.S. Chamber et al.’’) 

agreed. (U.S. Chamber et al., No. 58 at 

p. 7) As discussed previously in this 

section, the AEO2013 emissions factors 

available for this final rule analysis 

reflect regulations implemented as of 

December 31, 2012, and DOE cannot 

consider proposed emission standards 

in setting potential equipment efficiency 

standards.56 GE encouraged DOE to 

consider the additional emissions 

produced in manufacturing the larger 

fixtures needed to meet potential 

efficiency standards, and GE indicated 

that NEMA intended to evaluate the 

‘‘carbon footprint’’ of its manufacturing 

processes. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 311–312) DOE 

received no related emissions estimates 

in written comments; further, as 

discussed previously in section V.C of 

this final rule, DOE’s engineering 

analysis indicated that higher efficiency 

fixtures would not be significantly 

larger than baseline fixtures. DOE 

believes that any incremental emissions 

increases from the manufacture of 

higher efficiency fixtures would be 

negligible in comparison to its overall 

emissions estimates, and DOE retained 

its AEO-based approach for this final 

rule emissions analysis. 

M. 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 customer 

benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the 

lifetime of equipment shipped in the 

projection 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 section, 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 

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. 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. 

Under section 1(b) of E.O. 12866, 

agencies must, to the extent permitted 

by law, ‘‘assess both the costs and the 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits 

are difficult to quantify, propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs.’’ 

The purpose of the SCC estimates 

presented here is to allow agencies to 

incorporate the monetized social 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into 

cost-benefit analyses of regulatory 

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

impacts on cumulative global emissions. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7797 

57National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC (2009). 

58See 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: www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). 59See 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: 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). 

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 

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 57 points 

out that any assessment will suffer from 

uncertainty, speculation, and lack of 

information about (1) future emissions 

of GHGs, (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. 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 

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, 

however. 

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. 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 

Economic analyses for Federal 

regulations used a wide range of values 

to estimate the benefits associated with 

reducing CO2 emissions. The model 

year 2011 Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy final rule used both a 

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

ton of CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of 

$33 per metric ton of CO2 for 2007 

emission reductions (in 2007$), 

increasing both values at 2.4 percent per 

year. It also included a sensitivity 

analysis at $80 per metric ton of CO2.58

The proposed rule for Model Years 

2011–2015 assumed a domestic SCC 

value of $7 per metric 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.59 A regulation for packaged 

terminal air conditioners and packaged 

terminal heat pumps finalized by DOE 

in 2008 used a domestic SCC range of 

$0 to $20 per metric 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 metric 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. 

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. 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. 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, socioeconomic and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7798 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

60Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United 

States Government, 2010. 

61Technical Support Document: Technical 

Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon, United States Government, May 2013 

(Revised November 2013). www.whitehouse.gov/

sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technicalupdate-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impactanalysis.pdf. 

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 socioeconomic 

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 

sets of SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three values were 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, were included 

to represent higher-than-expected 

impacts from temperature change 

further out in the tails of the SCC 

distribution. The values estimated for 

2010 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, although preference is 

given to consideration of the global 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. 

Table V.10 presents the values in the 

2010 interagency group report,60 which 

is reproduced in appendix 17A of the 

final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.10—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

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 

The SCC values used for today’s 

notice were generated using the most 

recent versions of the three integrated 

assessment models that have been 

published in the peer-reviewed 

literature.61 Table V.11 shows the 

updated sets of SCC estimates in fiveyear increments from 2010 to 2050. The 

full set of annual SCC estimates between 

2010 and 2050 is reported in appendix 

17B of the final rule TSD. The central 

value that emerges is the average SCC 

across models at the 3 percent discount 

rate. However, for purposes of capturing 

the uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, the interagency group 

emphasized the importance of including 

all four sets of SCC values. 

TABLE V.11—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate % 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2010 ............................................................................................................................. 11 32 51 89 

2015 ............................................................................................................................. 11 37 57 109 

2020 ............................................................................................................................. 12 43 64 128 

2025 ............................................................................................................................. 14 47 69 143 

2030 ............................................................................................................................. 16 52 75 159 

2035 ............................................................................................................................. 19 56 80 175 

2040 ............................................................................................................................. 21 61 86 191 

2045 ............................................................................................................................. 24 66 92 206 

2050 ............................................................................................................................. 26 71 97 220 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of CO2 emissions and 

the limits of existing efforts to model 

these effects. There are a number of 

concerns and problems should be 

addressed by the research community, 

including research programs housed in 

many of the Federal agencies 

participating in the interagency process 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7799 

62The interagency report presents SCC values 

through 2050. DOE derived values after 2050 using 

the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by the 

interagency group. 

63Available at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_

programs/pdfs/OMB_Peer_Review_Bulletin_m05– 

03.pdf 

64U.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. 

to estimate the SCC. The interagency 

group intends to periodically review 

and reconsider those estimates to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

values from the 2013 interagency report, 

adjusted to 2012$ using the Gross 

Domestic Product price deflator. For 

each of the four cases specified, the 

values used for emissions in 2015 were 

$11.8, $39.7, $61.2, and $117 per metric 

ton avoided (values expressed in 

2012$).62 DOE derived values after 2050 

using the growth rate for the 2040–2050 

period in the interagency update. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SCC value for that year in each of the 

four cases. 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. 

In responding to the MHLF NOPR, 

many commenters questioned the 

scientific and economic basis of the SCC 

values. These commenters made 

extensive comments about: The alleged 

lack of economic theory underlying the 

models; the sufficiency of the models 

for policy-making; potential flaws in the 

models’ inputs and assumptions 

(including the discount rates and 

climate sensitivity chosen); whether 

there was adequate peer review of the 

three models; whether there was 

adequate peer review of the TSD 

supporting the 2013 SCC values; 

whether the SCC estimates comply with 

OMB’s ‘‘Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review’’ 63 and DOE’s 

own guidelines for ensuring and 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility and integrity of information 

disseminated by DOE; whether DOE’s 

use of the updated SCC values has 

precedential effect for other agency 

rulemakings; and why DOE is 

considering global benefits of carbon 

dioxide emission reductions rather than 

solely domestic benefits. (Mercatus 

Center, No. 57 at pp. 1–6; NEMA, No. 

56 at pp. 25–31, U.S. Chamber et al., No. 

58 at pp. 4–8) 

On November 26, 2013, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

announced minor technical corrections 

to the 2013 SCC values and a new 

opportunity for public comment on the 

revised TSD underlying the SCC 

estimates. Comments regarding the 

underlying science and potential 

precedential effect of the SCC estimates 

resulting from the interagency process 

should be directed to that process. See 

78 FR 70586. Additionally, several 

current rulemakings also use the 2013 

SCC values and the public is welcome 

to comment on the values as applied in 

those rulemakings just as the public was 

welcome to comment on the use and 

application of the 2010 SCC values in 

the many rules that were published 

using those values in the past three 

years. 

The U.S. Chamber et al. also stated 

that DOE calculates the present value of 

the costs of the NOPR to customers and 

manufacturers over a 30-year period. 

The SCC values, on the other hand, 

reflect the present value of future 

climate related impacts well beyond 

2100. According to the U.S. Chamber et 

al., DOE’s comparison of 30 years of 

cost to hundreds of years of presumed 

future benefits is inconsistent and 

improper. (U.S. Chamber et al., No. 58 

at pp. 5–6) 

For the analysis of national impacts of 

the adopted standards, DOE considered 

the lifetime impacts of fixtures shipped 

in a 30-year period. With respect to 

energy and energy cost savings, impacts 

continue past 30 years until all of the 

fixtures shipped in the 30-year period 

are retired. With respect to the valuation 

of CO2 emissions reductions, DOE 

considers the avoided emissions over 

the same period as the energy savings. 

CO2 emissions have on average a very 

long residence time in the atmosphere. 

Thus, emissions in the period 

considered by DOE would contribute to 

global climate change over a very long 

time period, with associated social 

costs. The SCC for any given year 

represents the discounted present value, 

in that year and expressed in constant 

dollars, of a lengthy stream of future 

costs estimated to result from emission 

of a ton of CO2. It is worth pointing out 

that because of discounting, the present 

value of costs in the distant future is 

very small. DOE’s accounting of energy 

cost savings and the value of avoided 

CO2 emissions reductions is consistent: 

Both consider the complete impacts 

associated with products shipped in the 

30-year period. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the TSLs it considered. 

As noted in section V.L, DOE has taken 

into account how new energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

NOX emissions in those 28 states that 

are not affected by emissions caps. DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX

emissions reductions resulting from 

each of the TSLs considered for today’s 

final rule based on estimates found in 

the relevant scientific literature. 

Estimates of monetary value for 

reducing NOX from stationary sources 

range from $468 to $4,809 per ton (in 

2012$).64 DOE calculated the monetary 

benefits using a medium value for NOX

emissions of $2,639 per short ton (in 

2012$) and real discount rates of 3 

percent and 7 percent. 

DOE is evaluating appropriate 

monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg 

emissions in energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. It has not 

included monetization in the current 

analysis. 

VI. Other Issues for Discussion 

A. Proposed Standard Levels in August 

2013 NOPR 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed new and 

revised energy conservation standards 

for all equipment classes. Specifically, 

DOE proposed TSL 3, which comprised 

EL2 for all equipment classes except the 

100 W–150 W indoor and outdoor 

equipment classes, for which DOE 

proposed EL4. DOE received comment 

from several interested parties regarding 

these proposals. 

ULT noted the proposal that 150 W 

MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007 

(fixtures designed for use in high 

temperature and wet environments) 

were subject to EL4, while 150 W 

MHLFs not exempted by EISA 2007 

were only subject to EL2. ULT 

questioned why the NOPR proposed 

lower efficiencies for fixtures that 

operate in less severe conditions. (ULT, 

No. 50 at p. 2) As discussed previously 

in section V.A.2 of this notice, the EISA 

2007 exemption for certain 150 W 

MHLFs led to a difference in the 

commercially available efficiencies in 

MH ballasts that are exempt or are not 

exempt from EISA 2007. As a result, 

DOE proposed that 150 W MHLFs 

previously exempt by EISA 2007 be 

included in the 101 W–150 W range, 

while 150 W MHLFs subject to EISA 

2007 standards continue to be included 

in the 150 W–250 W range. For the 101 

W–150 W MHLFs, DOE found that EL4, 

the max-tech level, was economically 

justified. However, for the 150 W–250 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7800 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

W MHLFs, DOE found that the 

maximum EL achievable with positive 

NPV was the magnetic ballast max-tech 

level, EL2 at 88.0 percent. Therefore, in 

the NOPR, the economic results for the 

nation supported a higher standard for 

MHLFs included in the 101 W–150 W 

range. 

ULT commented that NOPR TSL 3 

requires a shift to electronic ballasts, 

which will not work very well in 

outdoor applications. Further, ULT 

noted that the NOPR TSLs all appeared 

to be modeled or mandated without 

regard to the application, and seemed 

not to make practical sense. (ULT, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

215). NEMA and ULT commented that 

NOPR TSL 3 would require a shift to 

electronic ballasts in 70 W, 150 W, and 

250 W fixtures, ban probe-start ballasts, 

and eliminate many of the magnetic 

ballast performance features, as these 

are not feasible in the mandated 

electronic HF ballasts. (NEMA, No. 56 at 

p. 24; ULT, No. 50 at p. 16). ULT 

commented that there should be some 

way to validate the TSLs. ULT suggested 

that DOE should build these models, 

and then allow the manufacturers to test 

them. They explained that results are 

much different in a lab environment 

with more resources and time than in 

manufacturing facilities that make 

hundreds of ballasts every 15 minutes. 

In situations with many variable 

materials, modeled and laboratory 

efficiencies differ greatly from those 

feasibly possible in a manufacturing 

facility. (ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 216, 218) ULT 

stated that overall the NOPR TSLs are 

too stringent, and proposed different 

standards. (ULT, No. 50 at p. 16) 

DOE acknowledges that standards 

proposed for 100 W–150 W MHLFs in 

the NOPR would require a shift to 

electronic ballasts. While DOE 

recognizes that magnetic ballasts are 

inherently more robust than electronic 

ballasts, the NOPR accounted for the 

cost of added protection to electronic 

ballasts in outdoor applications. DOE 

continues to use this methodology in 

this final rule. For details of the 

determination that electronic ballasts 

could be used in these same 

applications with certain cost adders, 

see section V.C.8.b. For details of the 

cost adders required by electronic 

ballasts being used in the same 

application as magnetic ballasts, see 

section V.C.12. 

DOE has modeled ballasts in both the 

NOPR and final rule, utilizing teardown 

data and manufacturer input. Further 

research and refinement was performed 

for the modeled ballasts for this final 

rule in response to comments. See 

section V.C.8 for discussion of these 

models. DOE has not included highfrequency electronic ballasts in the 

scope of this rulemaking because there 

is no test method for them. See section 

III.A.4 for more details. As a result, none 

of the ELs analyzed in this final rule 

require high-frequency electronic 

ballasts. A more detailed discussion of 

the TSLs newly analyzed and chosen in 

this final rule is available later in this 

section. 

ASAP urged DOE to adopt the 

maximum cost-effective ELs. (ASAP, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

17) DOE analyzed several combinations 

of ELs in the NOPR and in the final rule. 

These combinations of ELs, called TSLs, 

can represent many criteria, including 

maximum energy savings, technology 

descriptions (such as all max-tech 

magnetic ELs), or maximum energy 

savings with cost effective ELs. As 

discussed in section VII.C of this notice, 

DOE adopted the TSL that saved the 

most energy and was economically 

justified for customers, manufactures, 

and the nation based on a weighing of 

costs and benefits. 

ULT commented that NOPR TSL 3 

did not meet the requirement of a threeyear PBP, but instead PBPs seemed to 

range from 4 to 14 years (ULT, No. 50 

at p. 15). DOE does not have a specific 

minimum PBP requirement. Each 

equipment class is analyzed 

individually based on the market and 

economic analyses and the cost and 

benefits of all results are weighted. See 

section VII.B.1.a for discussions of the 

PBPs associated with the levels 

analyzed in this final rule. 

NEMA commented that it is very 

difficult to determine the final net 

benefit of TSL 3 from NOPR Tables 

VI.47 and VI.48, and DOE has not aided 

the reader in understanding its 

conclusion. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 25). 

NEMA commented that DOE 

appropriately considered a range of 

values for carbon emissions reductions, 

but noted that these values are only 

informative and should not be used for 

regulatory decision-making. (NEMA, 

No. 56 at p. 26). 

In this final rule, DOE analyzed the 

benefits and burdens of a number of 

TSLs for the metal halide lamp fixtures 

that are the subject of today’s final rule. 

In accordance with (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)), DOE must weigh the 

cost and benefits of seven factors, 

including other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. DOE continues to 

present and consider a range of carbon 

emission reduction values in its 

weighing of the costs and benefits of any 

adopted standard. Regarding 

presentation of a final net benefit value, 

DOE directs NEMA to Table I.4. 

The Joint Comment suggested that 

DOE evaluate an additional TSL, 

identical to NOPR TSL 5 except that 

efficiency levels for 250–500 W ballasts 

would be based on EL3, which 

represents low-frequency electronic 

ballasts. (Joint Comment, No. 62 at p. 5). 

As discussed in section III.A.4, DOE is 

no longer considering standards that 

require use of high-frequency electronic 

ballasts because they are not in the 

scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, the 

max-tech levels for 50 W–1000 W 

fixtures are all represented by lowfrequency ballasts, removing the need 

for the additional TSL suggested by the 

Joint Comment. 

B. Reported Value 

The sampling and reporting for the 

testing of MHLFs and, by extension, MH 

ballasts are provided for in 10 CFR 

429.54. The reported value for the tested 

ballast efficiency of a model must be 

less than or equal to the lower of the 

mean of the samples tested or the lower 

99 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the 

true mean divided by 0.99. 

CA IOUs supported DOE’s proposal to 

apply a confidence interval, which is 

consistent with the approach used for 

other products and accounts for 

variation in product testing and 

manufacturing. (CA IOUs, No. 54 at p. 

3). Some stakeholders commented that 

because of the variation present in 

MHLFs, standard levels should be 

rounded to the nearest whole number 

rather than tenth of a percent (i.e., 88 

percent rather than 88.0 percent). ULT 

and NEMA noted the variations in wire 

cross sections (up to 3 percent) and core 

lamination thickness (up to 10 percent) 

create efficiency losses in the ballasts. 

The combination of efficiency losses in 

these two areas and variability in 

manufacturing combined with the 99 

percent confidence factor, makes the 

precise proposed levels unachievable in 

full-scale manufacturing facilities. (ULT, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 

34, 90; NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 34; NEMA, No. 

44 at pp. 10, 13; ULT, No. 50 at pp. 3– 

4, 25–29). Further, NEMA noted that its 

white paper NEMA LSD–63–2012 on 

variability estimated the tolerance for a 

sample of four magnetic ballasts to be 

4.7 percent when a confidence factor of 

99 percent is required. (NEMA, No. 56 

at p. 8) Due to the variability of raw 

material properties resulting in varied 

efficiencies, NEMA, Musco Lighting, 

and ULT suggested a less precise 

designation of the efficiency threshold. 

NEMA and ULT suggested carrying out 

all calculations to the tenth of a decimal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7801 

place, with the result then rounded to 

the nearest integer using the round half 

up rule. Musco Lighting agreed, 

suggesting reporting ballast efficiency as 

a whole integer. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 8; 

Musco Lighting, No. 55 at p. 4; ULT, No. 

50 at pp. 3, 4, 25; ULT, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 38). NEMA also 

commented that it would be better to 

have less precise standards initially, so 

that tolerances would not have to be 

created when verification and 

enforcement actions are made by DOE. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 82) 

ULT and NEMA noted that certain 

ballasts they manufacture, which are 

currently compliant with EISA 2007, 

would not meet the same requirements 

under the proposed rounding system (to 

the nearest tenth of a percent). (ULT, 

No. 50 at pp. 3–4; ULT, No. 50 at p. 25; 

ULT, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 

at p. 38; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 14). 

Earthjustice asserted that current 

equipment that would not meet 

standards with the new rounding 

regulations should not be grandfathered 

in under the new statute. (Earthjustice, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

86). 

As discussed in section IV.A of this 

notice, DOE has determined that the 

calculation of ballast efficiency is 

possible to the a tenth of a percent. In 

addition to information available in 

industry standards, data submitted by 

manufacturers has substantiated this 

conclusion in that it is represented to 

the tenth of a percent for some ballasts 

and fixtures in DOE’s CCE database. 

DOE will establish energy conservation 

standards using the same number of 

significant figures (three) as the test 

procedure provides. Test data collected 

in support of the energy conservation 

standard was conducted in accordance 

with the test procedure in 10 CFR 

431.324. The certification requirements 

of 10 CFR 429.54 includes sampling 

plans that are designed to create 

conservative ratings, which ensures that 

customers get—at a minimum—the 

efficiency indicated by the certified 

rating. Therefore, DOE’s analysis 

considers levels of efficiency achievable 

given current manufacturing and 

material variability. Thus, standards are 

established and compliance with the 

standards determined by rounding the 

reported value to three significant 

figures. For 150 W–200 W fixtures that 

will be subject to a standard of 88.0 

percent, DOE has accounted for redesign 

and retesting costs in the MIA by 

estimating that all MH ballasts at the 

baseline efficiency level for this wattage 

range will need to be redesigned if 

higher efficiency standards are adopted. 

DOE includes the redesign, retesting, 

and recertification costs as part of 

conversion costs of the MIA (see section 

V.I.4 of this notice for a complete 

description of the conversion costs used 

in the MIA). 

C. Three-Year Compliance Date 

In the NOPR, DOE noted that EPCA, 

as amended by EISA 2007, contains 

guidelines for the compliance date of 

the standards adopted by this 

rulemaking. EPCA required DOE to 

determine whether to amend the 

standards in effect for metal halide lamp 

fixtures and whether any amended 

standards should apply to additional 

metal halide lamp fixtures. The 

Secretary was directed to publish a final 

rule no later than January 1, 2012 to 

determine whether the energy 

conservation standards established by 

EISA 2007 for metal halide lamp 

fixtures should be amended, with any 

amendment applicable to products 

manufactured after January 1, 2015. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(B)) In the NOPR 

public meeting, DOE presented the 

planned publication date of the final 

rule to be in January 2014 and proposed 

a compliance date of January 1, 2015. 

Several stakeholders commented on 

DOE’s plan to publish a final rule in 

January 2014. APPA noted that the 

compliance date proposed in the NOPR 

is unreasonable from a process 

standpoint. DOE would have three 

months between the end of the NOPR 

comment period to the publication of 

the final rule, which is a much faster 

turnaround than previous rules. (APPA, 

No. 51 at p. 3) EEI also clarified that 

based on a January 2014 publication, 

DOE is only giving itself three months 

between receiving comments and 

issuing a final rule. (EEI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 44) Musco 

Lighting commented that issuing the 

final rule in January 2014 would not 

provide sufficient time to appropriately 

review comments and modify analyses. 

(Musco Lighting, No. 55 at p. 4) APPA 

commented that it is important to 

consider how long the review processes 

of the Office of Management and Budget 

have taken in previous rulemakings. 

(APPA, No. 51 at p. 3) 

DOE has had sufficient time for this 

particular rulemaking to consider and 

develop responses to the comments 

received on the NOPR and complete the 

final rule analyses. 

DOE received several comments 

regarding the proposed amount of time 

between the publication of the final rule 

and the date manufacturers are required 

to comply with any amended standards. 

APPA and EEI commented that, 

according to workshop handouts and 

based on language in EISA 2007, DOE 

plans to issue a final rule in January 

2014 with an effective date of January 1, 

2015. (APPA, No. 51 at p. 3; EEI, No. 53 

at p. 2, 3) Considering this, APPA and 

Musco Lighting found that 

manufacturers could possibly be given 

less than 11 months to comply with the 

new final rule. (APPA, No. 51 at p. 3; 

Musco Lighting, No. 55 at p. 4) NEMA, 

ASAP, and NRCA noted that, while the 

2015 date was stipulated by 42 U.S.C. 

6295(hh)(2), this was assuming the final 

rule would be completed by January 1, 

2012 and the intent of EISA 2007 was 

to provide manufacturers with a threeyear period before compliance to allow 

for investments and manufacturing 

conversion, as well as allowing 

customers sufficient time to make any 

necessary changes. NEMA, APPA, and 

NRCA stated that adopting anything 

shorter than three years is not 

reasonable. (NEMA, No. 56 at p. 3, 20; 

NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 21; NEMA, No. 44 at p. 2; 

APPA, No. 51 at p. 3; NRCA, No. 61 at 

p. 1) ASAP agreed that it is not 

reasonable to provide less than one year 

for manufacturers to adjust for 

compliance, especially considering DOE 

did not comply with the provisions 

included in EISA 2007 by not issuing a 

final rule by January 1, 2012. (APPA, 

No. 51 at p. 3) ULT commented that 

standard practice is three years after 

final rule and APPA urged DOE to 

provide manufacturers and customers 

with a three-year period between 

publication of the final rule and the 

effective date. (ULT, No. 50 at p. 14; 

APPA, No. 51 at p. 3) 

Stakeholders provided several reasons 

to support the need for a three-year 

interval between the publication of the 

final rule and the date of compliance. 

NEMA and UL noted this standard is 

much more complex and has a broader 

scope than the ones specified in EISA 

2007, and that this standard has 

implications on both ballast and fixture 

manufacturers. (NEMA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at p. 19; NEMA, No. 

44 at p. 2; ULT, No. 50 at p. 14) NEMA 

noted that, with this rulemaking’s 

expanded scope, manufacturers would 

have to evaluate products not 

previously covered by EISA 2007, 

determine what products can be 

redesigned and which need to be 

eliminated, test new and modified 

ballasts for performance and safety, 

educate internal staff and customers, 

reevaluate inventory management, 

reevaluate manufacturing strategies, 

modify marketing materials, and work 

with suppliers and sellers. All of those 

logistics are required to take place and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7802 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

65The 501 W–1000 W equipment class requires 

modeled 1000 W ballasts, but 875 W ballasts are 

commercially available. 

make January 2015 an unreasonable 

compliance date, according to NEMA. 

(NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at pp. 21, 27; NEMA, No. 44 at pp. 

2–3, 5) NEMA also commented that 

while the standards specified in EISA 

2007 primarily impacted industrial and 

outdoor channels, this rulemaking 

would impact new channels, such as 

retail consumer products and 

commercial offices with the lower 

wattage products. (NEMA, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 19; 

NEMA, No. 44 at p. 2) 

NEMA and Musco Lighting noted that 

with any increased efficiency numbers 

there are numerous product redesigns 

required, so it is imperative that DOE 

provide industry with the full three 

years to bring their products to 

compliance. (NEMA, No. 56 at pp. 20– 

21; Musco Lighting, No. 55 at p. 4) ULT 

noted the commercial market is far from 

the NOPR proposed levels, so there will 

need to be time for R&D and to 

prototype potential solutions. ULT 

commented that typical design time, 

taking into consideration Design 

Validation Testing, Life Test, UL, and 

other aspects of the process, is typically 

eight to twelve months. Even if they 

were moving three projects at once they 

would not be able to fully redesign the 

necessary products before January 2015, 

and they would run out of raw 

materials. (ULT, No. 50 at p. 14) NEMA 

and ULT also commented that DOE has 

to account for fixture manufacturers 

who would not be able to redesign their 

products until they had samples 

produced on a commercial scale from 

the ballast manufacturers. (NEMA, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 48 at p. 

19; ULT, No. 50 at p. 14) 

NEMA noted that the difficulties with 

completing all of these redesigns with 

such a short compliance period include 

having fewer employees working on 

MHLFs than there were in 2007 and 

having resources focused on R&D for 

other technologies. Taking resources 

from these areas to complete the 

necessary redesigns would also divert 

the speed of the market transition to 

more efficient technologies. (NEMA; No. 

44 at p. 2) Southern Company also 

expressed concern that a compliance 

date of January 1, 2015, would force 

manufacturers to divert resources from 

the development and implementation of 

energy efficient technologies, such as 

LED, and this would increase the cost to 

customers and slow the conversion to 

LED. (Southern Company, No. 64 at p. 

3) 

The Joint Comment noted that if the 

compliance date of the rulemaking is 

three years after the final rule is 

published, the delayed compliance date 

would decrease the potential energy 

savings from the rulemaking. While the 

Joint Comment recognizes that 

compliance with standards with a oneyear compliance period may not be 

feasible, the Joint Comment urged DOE 

to attempt to balance additional energy 

savings from an earlier effective date 

with the impacts on manufacturers. 

(Joint Comment, No. 62 at p. 10) 

DOE recognizes that any compliance 

date subsequent to January 1, 2015, will 

lead to reduced energy savings 

compared to the NOPR. However, DOE 

believes that it would be difficult for 

both ballast and fixture manufacturers 

to redesign their product lines given the 

compliance date proposed in the NOPR. 

As such, this final rule has revised the 

compliance date to be three years after 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

VII. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In the following sections, DOE 

presents the analytical results for the 

TSLs of the equipment classes that DOE 

analyzed directly. DOE scaled the ELs 

for these representative equipment 

classes to create ELs for other 

equipment classes that were not directly 

analyzed as set forth in chapter 5 of the 

TSD. For more details on the 

representative equipment classes, please 

see section V.C.2. 

TABLE VII.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

Rep. Wattage TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

70 W Indoor ...................................... EL1 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL3 ....................... EL4. 

70 W Outdoor .................................... EL1 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL3 ....................... EL4. 

150 W Indoor .................................... EL1 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL3 ....................... EL4. 

150 W Outdoor .................................. EL1 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL3 ....................... EL4. 

250 W Indoor .................................... EL1 ....................... EL1 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL3 ....................... EL4. 

250 W Outdoor .................................. EL1 ....................... EL1 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL3 ....................... EL4. 

400 W Indoor .................................... EL1 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL3 ....................... EL4. 

400 W Outdoor .................................. EL1 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL2 ....................... EL3 ....................... EL4. 

1000 W Indoor .................................. EL2+DS ................ EL2+DS ................ EL2+DS ................ EL2+DS ................ EL2+DS. 

1000 W Outdoor ................................ EL2+DS ................ EL2+DS ................ EL2+DS ................ EL2+DS ................ EL2+DS. 

1500 W Indoor .................................. Baseline ................ Baseline ................ Baseline ................ EL1 ....................... EL2. 

1500 W Outdoor ................................ Baseline ................ Baseline ................ Baseline ................ EL1 ....................... EL2 

* DS is a design standard that bans the use of probe-start ballasts in new metal halide lamp fixtures. 

TSL 5 represents the max-tech 

efficiency levels available. TSL 5 would 

set energy conservation standards at EL4 

for indoor and outdoor fixtures at 70 W, 

150 W, 250 W, and 400 W. Energy 

conservation standards for indoor and 

outdoor fixtures at 1000 W, and 1500 W 

are set at EL2. TSL 5 also includes a 

design standard for indoor and outdoor 

1000 W fixtures that prohibits the sale 

of probe-start ballasts in new fixtures. 

Standards included in TSL 5 require 

fixtures that contain max-tech electronic 

ballasts using high-grade electronic 

components, while indoor and outdoor 

fixtures at 1000 and 1500 W require 

max-tech magnetic ballasts using highgrade steel and copper windings. All 

ballasts required by TSL 5 are 

commercially available, except indoor 

and outdoor 1000 W and 1500 W 

ballasts, which are modeled.65 TSL 5 

sets the same standards for indoor and 

outdoor representative equipment 

classes at the same wattage. 

TSL 4 represents the next highest 

efficiency levels in classes where 

efficiency levels were not justified at 

TSL 5. TSL 4 would set energy 

conservation standards at EL3 for indoor 

and outdoor fixtures at 70 W, 150 W, 

250 W, and 400 W. Energy conservation 

standards for indoor and outdoor 

fixtures at 1000 W are set at EL2, and 

standards for indoor and outdoor 

fixtures at 1500 W are set at EL1. TSL 

4 also includes a design standard for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7803 

indoor and outdoor 1000 W fixtures that 

prohibits the sale of probe-start ballasts 

in new fixtures. Standards included in 

TSL 4 require fixtures that include 

standard-grade electronic ballasts, while 

indoor and outdoor fixtures at 1000 W 

require max-tech magnetic ballasts 

using high grade steel and copper 

windings, and 1500 W ballasts are midgrade magnetic ballasts requiring midgrade steel and copper wiring. At TSL 

4, all ballasts are commercially 

available, with the exception of the 1000 

W ballasts, which are modeled.65 TSL 4 

sets the same standards for indoor and 

outdoor representative equipment 

classes at the same wattage. 

TSL 3 represents the next highest 

efficiency levels in classes where 

efficiency levels were not justified at 

TSL 4, while also requiring the same EL 

for both indoor and outdoor fixtures at 

the same wattage. TSL 3 would set 

energy conservation standards at EL2 for 

all classes except 1500 W, which would 

remain at baseline levels. TSL 3 also 

includes a design standard for indoor 

and outdoor 1000 W fixtures that 

prohibits the sale of probe-start ballasts 

in new fixtures. Except for 1500 W 

fixtures, the standards included in TSL 

3 require fixtures that include max-tech 

magnetic ballasts using high-grade steel 

and copper windings. Any ballast could 

be used with 1500 W fixtures because 

no efficiency level is proposed for them. 

At TSL 3 only the 1500 W ballasts are 

commercially available, while the other 

wattages were modeled.65 TSL 3 sets the 

same standards for indoor and outdoor 

representative equipment classes at the 

same wattage. 

TSL 2 represents the highest magnetic 

ELs that have positive NPVs, and also 

requires the same EL for both indoor 

and outdoor fixtures at the same 

wattage. TSL 2 would set energy 

conservation standards at EL2 for indoor 

and outdoor fixtures at 70 W, 150 W, 

400 W, and 1000 W. TSL 2 would 

require EL1 for 250 W indoor and 

outdoor fixtures, while all 1500 W 

fixtures would have no energy 

conservation standards (baseline). TSL 2 

also includes a design standard for 

indoor and outdoor 1000 W fixtures that 

prohibits the sale of probe-start ballasts 

in new fixtures. Standards included in 

TSL 2 require fixtures that include maxtech magnetic ballasts requiring highgrade steel and copper windings, 

although 250 W ballasts typically 

require mid-grade steel and copper 

windings, and any ballast could be used 

with the unregulated 1500 W fixtures. 

At TSL 2 the 70 W, 150 W, 400 W, and 

1000 W indoor and outdoor ballasts are 

not commercially available, and have 

been modeled,65 while 250 W and 1500 

W indoor and outdoor ballasts are 

commercially available. TSL 2 sets the 

same standards for indoor and outdoor 

representative equipment classes at the 

same wattage. 

TSL 1 represents EL1 at all equipment 

classes, except at 1000 W, in which EL2 

and a design standard is required, and 

1500 W, in which no standards are 

established. TSL 1 would set energy 

conservation standards at EL1 for indoor 

and outdoor fixtures at 70 W, 150 W, 

250 W, and 400 W, while setting 

standards at EL2 for indoor and outdoor 

1000 W fixtures, and no standards for 

1500 W fixtures. TSL 1 also includes a 

design standard for indoor and outdoor 

1000 W fixtures that prohibits the sale 

of probe-start ballasts in new fixtures. 

TSL 1 requires fixtures that include 

magnetic ballasts using mid-grade steel 

and copper windings, although 1000 W 

will require max-tech ballasts using 

high-grade steel and copper windings. 

At TSL 1 the only ballasts that are not 

commercially available are in the 400 W 

and 1000 W classes, which have been 

modeled.65 TSL 1 sets the same 

standards for indoor and outdoor 

representative equipment classes at the 

same wattage. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Customers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

To evaluate the net economic impact 

of standards on customers, DOE 

conducted LCC and PBP analyses for 

each TSL. In general, a higher efficiency 

product would affect consumers in two 

ways: (1) Annual operating expense 

would decrease; and (2) purchase price 

would increase. Section V.F of this 

rulemaking discusses the inputs DOE 

used for calculating the LCC and PBP. 

The key outputs of the LCC analysis 

are a mean LCC savings relative to the 

baseline case, as well as a probability 

distribution or likelihood of LCC 

reduction or increase, for each TSL and 

equipment class. These values are 

reported by equipment class in Table 

VII.2 through Table VII.15. The LCC 

analysis also estimates the fraction of 

customers for which the LCC will 

decrease (net benefit) or increase (net 

cost) relative to the baseline case. The 

last column in each table contains the 

median PBPs for the customer 

purchasing a design compliant with the 

TSL. DOE assumed that, on average, 

indoor and outdoor fixtures have 20- 

and 25-year lifetimes, respectively. 

TABLE VII.2—EQUIPMENT CLASS 1—70 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR, MAGNETIC BASELINE): LCC AND

PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 442.74 955.48 1398.23 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 445.68 925.58 1371.26 26.97 0 100 1.4 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 454.07 917.16 1371.23 27.00 0 100 4.5 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 459.38 896.35 1355.72 42.50 18 82 3.7 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 472.78 888.19 1360.97 37.25 21 79 6.0 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7804 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.3—EQUIPMENT CLASS 1—70 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR, ELECTRONIC BASELINE): LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

1, 2, 3, 4 ............................. Baseline/3 459.38 896.35 1355.72 .................... .................... .................... ....................

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 472.78 888.19 1360.97 ¥5.25 90 10 31.5 

TABLE VII.4—EQUIPMENT CLASS 1—70 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR, MAGNETIC BASELINE): LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 793.69 2195.72 2989.41 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 796.50 2158.67 2955.17 34.24 2 98 1.4 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 804.53 2149.99 2954.53 34.88 3 97 4.5 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 834.98 2159.40 2994.38 ¥4.98 49 51 12.0 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.83 2152.73 3000.55 ¥11.15 51 49 14.7 

TABLE VII.5—EQUIPMENT CLASS 1—70 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR, ELECTRONIC BASELINE): LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

1, 2, 3, 4 ............................. Baseline/3 834.98 2159.40 2994.38 .................... .................... .................... ....................

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.83 2152.73 3000.55 ¥6.17 88 12 55.8 

TABLE VII.6—EQUIPMENT CLASS 2—150 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 483.03 1521.22 2004.25 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 491.93 1489.89 1981.82 22.43 0 100 4.3 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 504.66 1474.96 1979.62 24.63 1 99 7.3 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 503.20 1411.38 1914.58 89.67 6 94 2.5 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 522.42 1405.72 1928.14 76.11 11 89 4.8 

TABLE VII.7—EQUIPMENT CLASS 2—150 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 808.79 2679.99 3488.78 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 817.32 2644.09 3461.41 27.37 3 97 4.5 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 829.51 2628.57 3458.08 30.70 3 97 8.1 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 855.33 2581.21 3436.54 52.23 34 66 7.5 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7805 

TABLE VII.7—EQUIPMENT CLASS 2—150 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS— 

Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 873.73 2578.45 3452.18 36.60 38 62 10.3 

TABLE VII.8—EQUIPMENT CLASS 3—250 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 541.02 2122.17 2663.19 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 564.55 2094.13 2658.68 4.51 40 60 14.2 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 581.65 2082.60 2664.26 ¥1.07 63 37 17.9 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 611.53 2111.32 2722.85 ¥59.67 82 18 113.2 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 604.31 2099.21 2703.52 ¥40.33 71 29 38.4 

TABLE VII.9—EQUIPMENT CLASS 3—250 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 1009.36 3153.36 4162.72 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 1031.89 3124.09 4155.98 6.74 33 67 17.4 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 1048.27 3112.97 4161.24 1.48 55 45 22.8 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1109.39 3172.98 4282.37 ¥119.65 76 24 326.7 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1102.47 3158.11 4260.58 ¥97.86 71 29 135.1 

TABLE VII.10—EQUIPMENT CLASS 4—400 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 628.46 3120.84 3749.31 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 669.22 3077.26 3746.48 2.83 53 47 16.2 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 686.23 3055.12 3741.36 7.95 46 54 15.0 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 756.96 3100.09 3857.05 ¥107.74 92 8 369.2 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 798.21 3081.70 3879.91 ¥130.60 94 6 137.2 

TABLE VII.11—EQUIPMENT CLASS 4—400 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 1077.56 4040.60 5118.16 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 1116.59 3995.41 5112.00 6.16 45 55 19.9 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 1132.88 3972.13 5105.01 13.15 38 62 18.4 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1229.74 4053.72 5283.46 ¥165.30 81 19 Never 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7806 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.11—EQUIPMENT CLASS 4—400 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS— 

Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1269.24 4036.62 5305.85 ¥187.69 84 16 Never 

TABLE VII.12—EQUIPMENT CLASS 5—1000 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 760.77 7861.06 8621.83 .................... .................... .................... ....................

Base+DS* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.0 

Base+DS** 810.04 8025.13 8835.17 ¥213.34 100 0 N/A 

1 ............... 816.70 7795.42 8612.12 9.71 45 55 15.2 

1 + DS* .... 801.73 6617.67 7419.40 1202.43 0 100 0.5 

1 + DS** .. 865.97 7959.48 8825.46 ¥203.63 100 0 Never 

2 ............... 837.75 7770.63 8608.38 13.45 45 55 15.2 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ........................ 2 + DS* .... 830.98 6569.31 7400.29 1221.54 0 100 0.8 

2 + DS** .. 887.02 7934.70 8821.72 ¥199.89 100 0 Never 

* DS = Design Standard prohibits fixtures from containing a probe-start ballast. A percentage of customers in this equipment class will migrate 

to these fixtures, which are reduced-wattage 875 W systems. 

** Design Standard 1000 W pulse-start fixtures. Customers who do not migrate to 875 W systems will choose these 1000 W systems. 

TABLE VII.13—EQUIPMENT CLASS 5—1000 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Baseline ... 1184.62 9152.48 10,337.10 .................... .................... .................... ....................

Base+DS* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.0 

Base+DS** 1239.95 9435.92 10,675.88 ¥338.78 100 0 N/A 

1 ............... 1238.18 9081.54 10,319.72 17.37 30 70 17.0 

1 + DS* .... 1231.48 7497.64 8729.12 1607.97 0 100 0.5 

1 + DS** .. 1293.52 9364.98 10,658.50 ¥321.40 100 0 Never 

2 ............... 1258.34 9054.76 10,313.10 24.00 30 70 17.0 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ........................ 2 + DS* .... 1259.49 7445.67 8705.16 1631.94 2 98 0.8 

2 + DS** .. 1313.68 9338.20 10,651.88 ¥314.78 100 0 Never 

* DS = Design Standard prohibits fixtures from containing a probe-start ballast. A percentage of customers in this equipment class will migrate 

to these fixtures, which are reduced-wattage 875 W systems. 

** Design Standard 1000 W pulse-start fixtures. Customers who do not migrate to 875 W systems will choose these 1000 W systems. 

TABLE VII.14—EQUIPMENT CLASS 6—1500 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

1, 2, 3 ................................. Baseline ... 908.54 914.31 1822.86 0.00 .................... .................... ....................

4 ......................................... 1 ............... 980.76 909.25 1890.01 ¥67.15 100 0 209.4 

5 ......................................... 2 ............... 1010.83 905.09 1915.92 ¥93.06 100 0 162.7 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7807 

TABLE VII.15—EQUIPMENT CLASS 6—1500 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of 

customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

1, 2, 3 ................................. Baseline ... 1276.71 1203.04 2479.75 0.00 .................... .................... ....................

4 ......................................... 1 ............... 1345.86 1197.60 2543.46 ¥63.71 100 0 244.5 

5 ......................................... 2 ............... 1374.66 1193.11 2567.78 ¥88.03 100 0 190.0 

b. Customer Subgroup Analysis 

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, 

DOE determined the effect of the trial 

standard levels on the following 

customer subgroups: utilities, owners of 

transportation facilities, warehouse 

owners, owners of transient-prone 

outdoor lighting, and owners of 

transient-prone indoor lighting in heavy 

industrial facilities. DOE adjusted 

particular inputs to the LCC model to 

reflect conditions faced by the identified 

subgroups. For utilities, DOE assumed 

that maintenance costs would be higher 

than average maintenance costs because 

utilities have to maintain more 

equipment than the other subgroups do, 

and that operating costs are lower than 

average because utilities pay wholesale 

rates for electricity instead of retail 

rates. DOE assumed that owners of 

transportation facilities face higher 

annual operating hours than the average 

used in the main LCC analysis. For 

warehouse owners, DOE assumed lower 

annual operating hours than average 

used in the main LCC analysis. DOE 

assumed that owners of transient-prone 

outdoor lighting face more frequent 

surge protection and ballast 

replacements because of lightning than 

the average used in the main LCC 

analysis. Finally, for owners of heavy 

industrial facilities, DOE assumed that 

indoor lighting equipment (250 W and 

400 W equipment classes only) faced 

more frequent surge protection and 

ballast replacements because of voltage 

transients than the average used in the 

main LCC analysis. 

Table VII.16 through Table VII.27 

show the LCC effects and PBPs for 

identified subgroups that purchase 

metal halide lamp fixtures. In general, 

the average LCC savings for the 

identified subgroups at the considered 

efficiency levels are significantly 

different from the average for all 

customers. 

TABLE VII.16—EQUIPMENT CLASS 1—70 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR, MAGNETIC BASELINE): LCC 

SUBGROUP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

Savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ... 442.76 444.35 887.11 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 445.70 444.92 890.62 ¥3.50 100.0 0.0 Never 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 454.09 446.85 900.94 ¥13.82 100.0 0.0 Never 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 459.40 477.98 937.38 ¥50.26 93.7 6.3 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 472.80 483.06 955.86 ¥68.75 98.0 2.0 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ... 442.76 979.64 1,422.40 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 445.70 948.60 1,394.30 28.10 0.0 100.0 1.4 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 454.09 939.88 1,393.97 28.43 0.0 100.0 4.3 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 459.40 923.95 1,383.35 39.05 17.4 82.6 3.8 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 472.80 915.84 1,388.64 33.76 20.9 79.1 6.3 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ... 442.76 936.53 1,379.29 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 445.70 906.98 1,352.68 26.61 0.0 100.0 1.5 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 454.09 898.53 1,352.62 26.67 0.1 99.9 4.6 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 459.40 878.47 1,337.87 41.42 17.4 82.6 3.5 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 472.80 870.24 1,343.05 36.25 19.9 80.1 5.9 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7808 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.17—EQUIPMENT CLASS 1—70 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR, ELECTRONIC BASELINE): LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

Savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

1, 2, 3, 4 ............................. Baseline/3 459.40 477.98 937.38 .................... .................... .................... ....................

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 472.80 483.06 955.86 ¥18.49 100.0 0.0 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

1, 2, 3, 4 ............................. Baseline/3 459.40 923.95 1,383.35 .................... .................... .................... ....................

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 472.80 915.84 1,388.64 ¥5.29 88.8 11.2 31.9 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

1, 2, 3, 4 ............................. Baseline/3 459.40 878.47 1,337.87 .................... .................... .................... ....................

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 472.80 870.24 1,343.05 ¥5.17 89.5 10.5 30.5 

TABLE VII.18—EQUIPMENT CLASS 1—70 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR, MAGNETIC BASELINE): LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ... 793.71 1,536.88 2,330.59 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 796.52 1,538.23 2,334.75 ¥4.16 100.0 0.0 Never 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 804.56 1,542.56 2,347.12 ¥16.52 100.0 0.0 Never 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 835.01 1,620.58 2,455.59 ¥125.00 87.2 12.8 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.86 1,630.51 2,478.36 ¥147.77 89.9 10.1 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ... 793.69 2,195.72 2,989.41 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 796.50 2,158.67 2,955.17 34.24 1.6 98.4 1.4 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 804.53 2,149.99 2,954.53 34.88 2.9 97.1 4.5 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 834.98 2,159.40 2,994.38 ¥4.98 49.0 51.0 12.0 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.83 2,152.73 3,000.55 ¥11.15 51.3 48.7 14.7 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ... 793.69 2,195.72 2,989.41 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 796.50 2,158.67 2,955.17 34.24 1.6 98.4 1.4 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 804.53 2,149.99 2,954.53 34.88 2.9 97.1 4.5 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 834.98 2,159.40 2,994.38 ¥4.98 49.0 51.0 12.0 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.83 2,152.73 3,000.55 ¥11.15 51.3 48.7 14.7 

Subgroup: Owners of Transient-Prone Outdoor Lighting 

Baseline ... 793.71 2,179.70 2,973.41 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 796.52 2,142.44 2,938.97 34.44 1.8 98.2 1.4 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 804.56 2,133.66 2,938.22 35.20 2.9 97.1 4.5 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 835.01 2,167.47 3,002.48 ¥29.07 59.2 40.8 31.3 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.86 2,163.21 3,011.07 ¥37.66 62.2 37.8 41.0 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7809 

TABLE VII.19—EQUIPMENT CLASS 1—70 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR, ELECTRONIC BASELINE): LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

1, 2, 3, 4 ............................. Baseline/3 835.01 1,620.58 2,455.59 .................... .................... .................... ....................

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.86 1,630.51 2,478.36 ¥22.77 100.0 0.0 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

1, 2, 3, 4 ............................. Baseline/3 834.98 2,159.40 2,994.38 .................... .................... .................... ....................

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.83 2,152.73 3,000.55 ¥6.17 87.8 12.2 55.8 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

1, 2, 3, 4 ............................. Baseline/3 834.98 2,159.40 2,994.38 .................... .................... .................... ....................

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.83 2,152.73 3,000.55 ¥6.17 87.8 12.2 55.8 

Subgroup: Owners of Transient-Prone Outdoor Lighting 

1, 2, 3, 4 ............................. Baseline/3 835.01 2,167.47 3,002.48 .................... .................... .................... ....................

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 847.86 2,163.21 3,011.07 ¥8.59 94.9 5.1 161.5 

TABLE VII.20—EQUIPMENT CLASS 2—150 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ... 483.05 466.08 949.13 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 491.95 468.47 960.43 ¥11.29 100.0 0.0 Never 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 504.68 472.02 976.71 ¥27.57 100.0 0.0 Never 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 503.23 513.09 1,016.31 ¥67.18 97.0 3.0 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 522.45 521.74 1,044.18 ¥95.05 99.6 0.4 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ... 483.05 1,636.83 2,119.88 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 491.95 1,603.44 2,095.39 24.49 0.0 100.0 4.1 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 504.68 1,587.84 2,092.53 27.35 0.7 99.3 7.0 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 503.23 1,521.09 2,024.32 95.56 7.2 92.8 2.4 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 522.45 1,515.71 2,038.15 81.73 11.1 88.9 4.6 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ... 483.05 1,494.69 1,977.73 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 491.95 1,463.62 1,955.58 22.16 0.0 100.0 4.4 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 504.68 1,448.78 1,953.46 24.27 0.8 99.2 7.5 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 503.23 1,382.65 1,885.88 91.86 5.5 94.5 2.4 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 522.45 1,376.64 1,899.08 78.65 11.2 88.8 4.5 

TABLE VII.21—EQUIPMENT CLASS 2—150 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ... 808.82 1,406.87 2,215.69 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 817.35 1,411.33 2,228.68 ¥12.99 100.0 0.0 Never 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7810 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.21—EQUIPMENT CLASS 2—150 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS— 

Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 829.54 1,417.89 2,247.43 ¥31.74 100.0 0.0 Never 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 855.36 1,499.15 2,354.52 ¥138.83 87.1 12.9 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 873.77 1,513.42 2,387.18 ¥171.49 90.7 9.3 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ... 808.79 2,679.99 3,488.78 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 817.32 2,644.09 3,461.41 27.37 2.9 97.1 4.5 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 829.51 2,628.57 3,458.08 30.70 3.3 96.7 8.1 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 855.33 2,581.21 3,436.54 52.23 33.8 66.2 7.5 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 873.73 2,578.45 3,452.18 36.60 38.2 61.8 10.3 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ... 808.79 2,679.99 3,488.78 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 817.32 2,644.09 3,461.41 27.37 2.9 97.1 4.5 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 829.51 2,628.57 3,458.08 30.70 3.3 96.7 8.1 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 855.33 2,581.21 3,436.54 52.23 33.8 66.2 7.5 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 873.73 2,578.45 3,452.18 36.60 38.2 61.8 10.3 

Subgroup: Owners of Transient-Prone Outdoor Lighting 

Baseline ... 808.82 2,671.89 3,480.71 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 817.35 2,635.75 3,453.09 27.62 2.9 97.1 4.5 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 829.54 2,620.05 3,449.58 31.13 3.2 96.8 8.1 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 855.36 2,608.06 3,463.42 17.29 47.8 52.2 11.8 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 873.77 2,608.78 3,482.55 ¥1.84 52.3 47.7 17.4 

TABLE VII.22—EQUIPMENT CLASS 3—250 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net 

cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ... 541.05 490.86 1,031.91 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 564.58 498.98 1,063.56 ¥31.66 100.0 0.0 Never 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 581.69 504.93 1,086.62 ¥54.71 100.0 0.0 Never 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 611.57 572.99 1,184.56 ¥152.65 100.0 0.0 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 604.35 569.07 1,173.42 ¥141.51 99.9 0.1 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ... 541.05 2,361.30 2,902.35 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 564.58 2,330.88 2,895.46 6.89 30.2 69.8 13.0 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 581.69 2,318.58 2,900.26 2.08 56.2 43.8 16.6 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 611.57 2,354.22 2,965.79 ¥63.44 81.4 18.6 147.2 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 604.35 2,340.54 2,944.89 ¥42.54 70.6 29.4 39.2 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ... 541.05 2,096.87 2,637.92 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 564.58 2,068.76 2,633.35 4.57 39.4 60.6 14.2 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 581.69 2,057.12 2,638.80 ¥0.89 62.7 37.3 17.9 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 611.57 2,086.19 2,697.76 ¥59.84 82.0 18.0 133.3 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 604.35 2,074.29 2,678.63 ¥40.72 72.1 27.9 40.0 

Subgroup: Owners of Transient-Prone Indoor Lighting 

Baseline ... 541.05 2,125.94 2,666.98 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 564.58 2,097.72 2,662.30 4.68 39.7 60.3 14.1 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 581.69 2,086.10 2,667.79 ¥0.80 63.0 37.0 17.7 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7811 

TABLE VII.22—EQUIPMENT CLASS 3—250 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS— 

Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net 

cost Net benefit 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 633.04 2,202.92 2,835.96 ¥168.97 99.5 0.5 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 625.82 2,189.03 2,814.85 ¥147.86 99.0 1.0 Never 

TABLE VII.23 EQUIPMENT CLASS 3—250 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net 

cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ... 1,009.40 1,274.00 2,283.40 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 1,031.93 1,286.12 2,318.06 ¥34.66 100.0 0.0 Never 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 1,048.32 1,294.99 2,343.30 ¥59.91 100.0 0.0 Never 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1,109.44 1,402.28 2,511.72 ¥228.33 94.7 5.3 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1,102.53 1,396.84 2,499.37 ¥215.97 93.4 6.6 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ... 1,009.36 3,153.36 4,162.72 ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 1,031.89 3,124.09 4,155.98 6.74 32.6 67.4 17.4 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 1,048.27 3,112.97 4,161.24 1.48 55.2 44.8 22.8 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1,109.39 3,172.98 4,282.37 ¥119.65 76.4 23.6 326.7 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1,102.47 3,158.11 4,260.58 ¥97.86 71.2 28.8 135.1 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ... 1,009.36 3,153.36 4,162.72 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 1,031.89 3,124.09 4,155.98 6.74 32.6 67.4 17.4 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 1,048.27 3,112.97 4,161.24 1.48 55.2 44.8 22.8 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1,109.39 3,172.98 4,282.37 ¥119.65 76.4 23.6 326.7 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1,102.47 3,158.11 4,260.58 ¥97.86 71.2 28.8 135.1 

Subgroup: Owners of Transient-Prone Outdoor Lighting 

Baseline ... 1,009.40 3,152.36 4,161.76 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1, 2 ..................................... 1 ............... 1,031.93 3,122.75 4,154.68 7.08 32.0 68.0 17.3 

3 ......................................... 2 ............... 1,048.32 3,111.43 4,159.74 2.02 54.7 45.3 22.7 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1,109.44 3,240.29 4,349.73 ¥187.97 90.0 10.0 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1,102.53 3,224.03 4,326.55 ¥164.79 86.7 13.3 Never 

TABLE VII.24—EQUIPMENT CLASS 4—400 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net 

cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ... 628.50 448.11 1,076.61 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 669.26 463.69 1,132.95 ¥56.34 100.0 0.0 Never 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 686.28 470.18 1,156.45 ¥79.84 100.0 0.0 Never 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 757.01 568.72 1,325.74 ¥249.13 100.0 0.0 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 798.27 592.98 1,391.25 ¥314.64 100.0 0.0 Never 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7812 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.24—EQUIPMENT CLASS 4—400 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS— 

Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net 

cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ... 628.50 3,542.88 4,171.38 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 669.26 3,496.08 4,165.34 6.04 46.9 53.1 15.2 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 686.28 3,472.11 4,158.39 13.00 38.9 61.1 14.1 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 757.01 3,527.12 4,284.13 ¥112.75 89.5 10.5 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 798.27 3,508.32 4,306.59 ¥135.20 91.9 8.1 166.6 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ... 628.50 3,097.26 3,725.76 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 669.26 3,053.68 3,722.95 2.82 54.0 46.0 16.1 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 686.28 3,031.58 3,717.85 7.91 46.7 53.3 15.0 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 757.01 3,077.37 3,834.39 ¥108.63 92.0 8.0 905.6 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 798.27 3,058.66 3,856.92 ¥131.16 93.8 6.2 151.6 

Subgroup: Owners of Transient-Prone Indoor Lighting 

Baseline ... 628.50 3,125.34 3,753.84 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 669.26 3,081.43 3,750.69 3.15 53.2 46.8 16.0 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 686.28 3,059.14 3,745.42 8.42 45.9 54.1 15.0 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 778.48 3,212.60 3,991.09 ¥237.25 99.6 0.4 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 819.73 3,204.61 4,024.35 ¥270.51 99.7 0.3 Never 

TABLE VII.25—EQUIPMENT CLASS 4—400 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency 

level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net 

cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ... 1,077.60 1,039.14 2,116.75 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 1,116.64 1,060.17 2,176.81 ¥60.06 100.0 0.0 Never 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 1,132.93 1,068.93 2,201.86 ¥85.11 100.0 0.0 Never 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1,229.80 1,210.75 2,440.55 ¥323.80 98.7 1.3 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1,269.31 1,241.30 2,510.61 ¥393.86 99.6 0.4 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ... 1,077.56 4,040.60 5,118.16 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 1,116.59 3,995.41 5,112.00 6.16 44.6 55.4 19.9 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 1,132.88 3,972.13 5,105.01 13.15 38.1 61.9 18.4 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1,229.74 4,053.72 5,283.46 ¥165.30 80.7 19.3 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1,269.24 4,036.62 5,305.85 ¥187.69 83.9 16.1 Never 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ... 1,077.56 4,040.60 5,118.16 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 1,116.59 3,995.41 5,112.00 6.16 44.6 55.4 19.9 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 1,132.88 3,972.13 5,105.01 13.15 38.1 61.9 18.4 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1,229.74 4,053.72 5,283.46 ¥165.30 80.7 19.3 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1,269.24 4,036.62 5,305.85 ¥187.69 83.9 16.1 Never 

Subgroup: Owners of Transient-Prone Outdoor Lighting 

Baseline ... 1,077.60 4,044.53 5,122.13 .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ......................................... 1 ............... 1,116.64 3,998.77 5,115.41 6.72 44.2 55.8 19.9 

2, 3 ..................................... 2 ............... 1,132.93 3,975.23 5,108.17 13.97 37.6 62.4 18.3 

4 ......................................... 3 ............... 1,229.80 4,159.95 5,389.75 ¥267.62 96.3 3.7 Never 

5 ......................................... 4 ............... 1,269.31 4,150.29 5,419.60 ¥297.47 97.3 2.7 Never 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7813 

TABLE VII.26—EQUIPMENT CLASS 5—1000 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (INDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 

2012$ 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net 

cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ............ 760.82 1,091.41 1,852.22 .................... .................... .................... ....................

Baseline+DS* ... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Baseline+DS** .. 810.09 1,258.76 2,068.85 ¥216.63 100.0 0.0 N/A 

EL1 ................... 816.76 1,119.70 1,936.46 ¥84.23 100.0 0.0 Never 

EL1+DS* ........... 801.78 720.57 1,522.35 329.87 4.0 96.0 1.5 

EL1+DS** ......... 866.04 1,287.05 2,153.09 ¥300.86 100.0 0.0 Never 

EL2 ................... 837.81 1,130.34 1,968.16 ¥115.93 100.0 0.0 Never 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS* ........... 831.04 735.29 1,566.33 285.90 4.1 95.9 2.7 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS** ......... 887.09 1,297.70 2,184.79 ¥332.57 100.0 0.0 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ............ 760.82 9,226.73 9,987.55 .................... .................... .................... ....................

Baseline+DS* ... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Baseline+DS** .. 810.09 9,426.57 10,236.67 ¥249.12 100.0 0.0 N/A 

EL1 ................... 816.76 9,153.37 9,970.13 17.41 34.0 66.0 13.7 

EL1+DS* ........... 801.78 7,781.69 8,583.47 1,404.08 0.0 100.0 0.4 

EL1+DS** ......... 866.04 9,353.22 10,219.25 ¥231.71 99.7 0.3 Never 

EL2 ................... 837.81 9,125.67 9,963.48 24.06 33.9 66.1 13.6 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS* ........... 831.04 7,726.91 8,557.95 1,429.60 0.0 100.0 0.7 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS** ......... 887.09 9,325.51 10,212.60 ¥225.06 99.6 0.4 Never 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ............ 760.82 7,821.14 8,581.96 .................... .................... .................... ....................

Baseline+DS* ... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Baseline+DS** .. 810.09 7,990.69 8,800.78 ¥218.83 100.0 0.0 N/A 

EL1 ................... 816.76 7,755.53 8,572.29 9.66 45.6 54.4 15.4 

EL1+DS* ........... 801.78 6,584.62 7,386.40 1,195.55 0.0 100.0 0.5 

EL1+DS** ......... 866.04 7,925.08 8,791.12 ¥209.16 99.7 0.3 Never 

EL2 ................... 837.81 7,730.76 8,568.58 13.38 45.5 54.5 15.4 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS* ........... 831.04 6,536.33 7,367.37 1,214.59 0.0 100.0 0.8 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS** ......... 887.09 7,900.31 8,787.40 ¥205.45 99.6 0.4 Never 

* DS = Design Standard prohibits fixtures from containing a probe-start ballast. A percentage of customers in this equipment class will migrate 

to these fixtures, which are reduced-wattage 875 W systems. 

** Design Standard 1000 W pulse-start fixtures. Customers who do not migrate to 875 W systems will choose these 1000 W systems. 

TABLE VII.27—EQUIPMENT CLASS 5—1000 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

Subgroup: Utilities 

Baseline ............ 1,184.66 1,966.58 3,151.25 

Baseline+DS* ...

Baseline+DS** .. 1,240.01 2,251.71 3,491.72 ¥340.47 100.0 0.0 N/A 

EL1 ................... 1,238.24 1,995.40 3,233.63 ¥82.38 100.0 0.0 Never 

EL1+DS* ........... 1,231.53 1,229.54 2,461.07 690.17 4.3 95.7 1.2 

EL1+DS** ......... 1,293.58 2,280.52 3,574.10 ¥422.86 100.0 0.0 Never 

EL2 ................... 1,258.40 2,006.24 3,264.64 ¥113.39 100.0 0.0 Never 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS* ........... 1,259.55 1,244.54 2,504.08 647.16 5.4 94.6 2.1 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS** ......... 1,313.74 2,291.37 3,605.11 ¥453.86 100.0 0.0 Never 

Subgroup: Transportation Facility Owners 

Baseline ............ 1,184.62 9,152.48 10,337.10 

Baseline+DS* ...

Baseline+DS** .. 1,239.95 9,435.92 10,675.88 ¥338.78 100.0 0.0 N/A 

EL1 ................... 1,238.18 9,081.54 10,319.72 17.37 30.4 69.6 17.0 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7814 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.27—EQUIPMENT CLASS 5—1000 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES (OUTDOOR): LCC AND PBP 

RESULTS—Continued 

Trial standard level Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percent of customers that 

experience 

Net cost Net benefit 

EL1+DS* ........... 1,231.48 7,497.64 8,729.12 1,607.97 0.1 99.9 0.5 

EL1+DS** ......... 1,293.52 9,364.98 10,658.50 ¥321.40 99.7 0.3 Never 

EL2 ................... 1,258.34 9,054.76 10,313.10 24.00 30.3 69.7 17.0 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS* ........... 1,259.49 7,445.67 8,705.16 1,631.94 1.6 98.4 0.8 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS** ......... 1,313.68 9,338.20 10,651.88 ¥314.78 99.7 0.3 Never 

Subgroup: Warehouse Owners 

Baseline ............ 1,184.62 9,152.48 10,337.10 

Baseline+DS* ...

Baseline+DS** .. 1,239.95 9,435.92 10,675.88 ¥338.78 100.0 0.0 N/A 

EL1 ................... 1,238.18 9,081.54 10,319.72 17.37 30.4 69.6 17.0 

EL1+DS* ........... 1,231.48 7,497.64 8,729.12 1,607.97 0.1 99.9 0.5 

EL1+DS** ......... 1,293.52 9,364.98 10,658.50 ¥321.40 99.7 0.3 Never 

EL2 ................... 1,258.34 9,054.76 10,313.10 24.00 30.3 69.7 17.0 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS* ........... 1,259.49 7,445.67 8,705.16 1,631.94 1.6 98.4 0.8 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS** ......... 1,313.68 9,338.20 10,651.88 ¥314.78 99.7 0.3 Never 

Subgroup: Owners of Transient-Prone Outdoor Lighting 

Baseline ............ 1,184.66 9,169.03 10,353.69 

................................... Baseline+DS* ...

Baseline+DS** .. 1,240.01 9,454.15 10,694.16 ¥340.47 100.0 0.0 N/A 

EL1 ................... 1,238.24 9,097.27 10,335.50 18.19 29.8 70.2 16.9 

EL1+DS* ........... 1,231.53 7,511.15 8,742.68 1,611.01 0.1 99.9 0.5 

EL1+DS** ......... 1,293.58 9,382.40 10,675.98 ¥322.29 99.7 0.3 Never 

EL2 ................... 1,258.40 9,070.18 10,328.57 25.12 29.7 70.3 16.8 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS* ........... 1,259.55 7,458.67 8,718.22 1,635.47 1.8 98.2 0.8 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ............... EL2+DS** ......... 1,313.74 9,355.30 10,669.04 ¥315.35 99.7 0.3 Never 

* DS = Design Standard prohibits fixtures from containing a probe-start ballast. A percentage of customers in this equipment class will migrate 

to these fixtures, which are reduced-wattage 875 W systems. 

** Design Standard 1000 W pulse-start fixtures. Customers who do not migrate to 875 W systems will choose these 1000 W systems.

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section IV.D.2, EPCA 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that, in essence, 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

DOE calculated a rebuttable 

presumption payback period for each 

TSL to determine whether DOE could 

presume that a standard at that level is 

economically justified. Table VII.28 

shows the rebuttable-presumption 

payback periods for the fixture TSLs. 

Because only a single, average value is 

necessary for establishing the 

rebuttable-presumption payback period, 

rather than using distributions for input 

values, DOE used discrete values. As 

required by EPCA, DOE based the 

calculation on the assumptions in the 

DOE test procedures for microwave 

ovens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) As a 

result, DOE calculated a single 

rebuttable presumption payback value, 

and not a distribution of payback 

periods, for each TSL. 

TABLE VII.28—FIXTURE EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH A REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD OF LESS THAN THREE YEARS

Equipment class Efficiency level 

Mean payback period 

years 

70 W (indoor, magnetic baseline) .................................................................................................................. 1 ....................... 1.3 

70 W (outdoor, magnetic baseline) ................................................................................................................ 1 ....................... 1.4 

1000 W (indoor) .............................................................................................................................................. 1 + DS* ............. 0.4 

2 + DS* ............. 0.7 

1000 W (outdoor) ............................................................................................................................................ 1 + DS* ............. 0.6 

2 + DS* ............. 1.0 

* DS = Design standard requiring that all fixtures shall not contain a probe-start ballast. 

All the fixture efficiency levels in the 

LCC and PBP results tables have 

rebuttable-presumption payback periods 

of less than 3 years. DOE believes that 

the rebuttable-presumption payback 

period criterion (i.e., a limited payback 

period) is not sufficient for determining 

economic justification. Therefore, DOE 

has considered a full range of impacts, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7815 

including those to consumers, 

manufacturers, the Nation, and the 

environment. Section IV of this 

rulemaking provides a complete 

discussion of how DOE considered the 

range of impacts to select the standards 

in today’s final rule. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of MHLFs and ballasts. 

The section below describes the 

expected impacts on manufacturers at 

each TSL. Chapter 13 of this final rule 

TSD explains the analysis in further 

detail. 

a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

The tables below depict the financial 

impacts (represented by changes in 

INPV) of new and amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers as well as the conversion 

costs that DOE estimates manufacturers 

would incur at each TSL. DOE reports 

the impacts on manufacturers of MHLFs 

and ballasts separately. Within each 

industry, DOE presents the results for 

all equipment classes in one group 

because most equipment classes are 

generally made by the same 

manufacturers. To evaluate the range of 

cash-flow impacts on the MHLF and 

ballast industries, DOE modeled four 

different scenarios using different 

assumptions for markups and shipments 

that correspond to the range of 

anticipated market responses to new 

and amended standards. Each scenario 

results in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding INPV at each TSL. 

DOE presents two of these shipment 

and markup scenario combinations in 

the following section. These scenarios 

represent the upper and lower bounds 

of market responses that DOE 

anticipates could occur in the standards 

case. The INPV results presented refer to 

the difference in industry value between 

the base case and the standards case that 

result from the sum of discounted cash 

flows from the base year (2014) through 

the end of the analysis period. The cashflow results presented refer to the 

difference in cash flow between the base 

case and the standards case in 2016, the 

year before compliance is required. This 

figure represents the size of the required 

conversion costs relative to the cash 

flow generated by the industry in the 

absence of new and amended energy 

conservation standards. 

Cash-Flow Analysis Results by TSL for 

Metal Halide Ballasts 

To assess the upper (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on MH 

ballast manufacturers, DOE modeled a 

flat markup scenario. The flat markup 

scenario assumes that in the standards 

case, manufacturers would be able to 

pass along all the higher production 

costs required for more efficient 

equipment to their customers. 

Specifically, the industry would be able 

to maintain its average base case gross 

margin, as a percentage of revenue, 

despite the higher production costs in 

the standards case. In general, the larger 

the equipment price increases, the less 

likely manufacturers are to achieve the 

cash flow from operations calculated in 

this scenario because it is less likely that 

manufacturers would be able to fully 

markup these larger cost increases. 

DOE also used the high-shipment 

scenario to assess the upper bound of 

impacts. Under the high-shipment 

scenario, base case shipments of MHLFs 

decrease at a slower rate over the 

analysis period compared to the lowshipment scenario. The combination of 

the flat markup and high-shipment 

scenario provides the best conditions for 

cash flow generation than any other 

combination analyzed by DOE in the 

MIA. In this scenario, manufacturers 

experience higher annual shipment 

volumes and have the ability to preserve 

their base case gross margins. Thus, this 

combination of scenarios yields the 

greatest modeled industry profitability. 

To assess the lower (more severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on the 

MH ballast industry, DOE modeled the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. This scenario represents the 

lower end of the range of potential 

impacts on manufacturers because no 

additional operating profit is earned on 

the higher production costs, eroding 

profit margins as a percentage of total 

revenue. 

DOE also used the low-shipment 

scenario to assess the lower bound of 

impacts. Under the low-shipment 

scenario, MHLF shipments decrease at a 

faster rate over the analysis period 

compared to the high-shipment 

scenario. The combination of the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

and low-shipment scenario most 

restricts manufacturers’ ability to pass 

on costs to customers and assumes the 

lowest level of shipments. Thus, this 

combination of scenarios estimates the 

largest manufacturer impacts. 

TABLE VII.29—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR METAL HALIDE BALLASTS—FLAT MARKUP AND HIGH-SHIPMENT

SCENARIO

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ........................................... (2012$ millions) ......................... 74 71 74 75 83 89 

Change in INPV ......................... (2012$ millions) ......................... ................ (3.1) (0.4) 0 .6 9 .6 15 .0 

(%) ............................................. ................ ¥4.2 ¥0.5 0 .8 12 .9 20 .3 

Product Conversion Costs ......... (2012$ millions) ......................... ................ 11 12 12 16 20 

Capital Conversion Costs .......... (2012$ millions) ......................... ................ 9 10 11 4 5 

Total Conversion Costs ...... (2012$ millions) ......................... ................ 21 22 23 21 24 

TABLE VII.30—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR METAL HALIDE BALLASTS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT

MARKUP AND LOW-SHIPMENT SCENARIO

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ............................................. (2012$ millions) ............................ 67 50 49 48 51 48 

Change in INPV ............................ (2012$ millions) ............................ ................ (16.5) (17.9) (19.0) (16.2) (19.0) 

(%) ................................................ ¥24.6 ¥26.7 ¥28.3 ¥24.1 ¥28.3 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7816 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.30—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR METAL HALIDE BALLASTS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING PROFIT

MARKUP AND LOW-SHIPMENT SCENARIO—Continued 

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Product Conversion Costs ............ (2012$ millions) ............................ ................ 11 12 12 16 20 

Capital Conversion Costs ............. (2012$ millions) ............................ ................ 9 10 11 4 5 

Total Conversion Costs ......... (2012$ millions) ............................ ................ 21 22 23 21 24 

TSL 1 is baseline for two of the 12 

equipment classes (1500 W indoor and 

outdoor), EL1 for eight of the 12 

equipment classes (70 W indoor and 

outdoor, 150 W indoor and outdoor, 250 

W indoor and outdoor, and 400 W 

indoor and outdoor), and EL2 for the 

remaining two equipment classes (1000 

W indoor and outdoor). At TSL 1, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV range from 

¥$3.1 million to ¥$16.5 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥4.2 percent to 

¥24.6 percent. At TSL 1, industry free 

cash flow (operating cash flow minus 

capital expenditures) is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 105 percent 

to ¥$0.4 million, compared to the base 

case value of $7.2 million in 2016. 

Impacts on INPV range from slightly 

negative to moderately negative at TSL 

1. TSL 1 requires the use of more 

efficient magnetic ballasts for the 70 W 

indoor and outdoor, 150 W indoor and 

outdoor, 250 W indoor and outdoor, 400 

W indoor and outdoor, and 1000 W 

indoor and outdoor equipment classes. 

DOE projects that in 2017, 92 percent of 

70 W indoor shipments, 13 percent of 

150 W indoor shipments, 16 percent of 

250 W indoor shipments, seven percent 

of 400 W indoor shipments, one percent 

of 1000 W indoor shipments, 100 

percent of 1500 W indoor shipments, 40 

percent of 70 W outdoor shipments, two 

percent of 150 W outdoor shipments, 10 

percent of 250 W outdoor shipments, 

one percent of 1000 W outdoor 

shipments, and 100 percent of 1500 W 

outdoor shipments would meet TSL 1 or 

higher in the base case. No shipments 

from the 400 W outdoor equipment 

class would meet TSL 1 or higher in the 

base case in 2017. 

Conversion costs are expected to be 

moderate at TSL 1. DOE expects ballast 

manufacturers to incur $11 million in 

product conversion costs for model 

redesigns and testing and $9 million in 

capital conversion costs for equipment 

such as stamping dies to process more 

efficient steel cores. 

At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases by 29 percent 

relative to the base case MPC. Under the 

flat markup scenario, manufacturers are 

able to fully pass on this cost increase 

to customers under this scenario. 

Additionally, under the high-shipment 

scenario, shipments are 130 percent 

higher than shipments under the lowshipment scenario in the last year of the 

analysis period. Thus, manufacturers 

generate the most revenue under this 

combination (flat markup and highshipment) of scenarios. The fairly large 

$21 million in conversion costs 

estimated at TSL 1 outweigh the 

moderate MPC increase even when 

applied to the larger quantity of 

shipments of the high-shipment 

scenario, resulting in slightly negative 

INPV impacts at TSL 1 under the flat 

markup and high-shipment scenarios. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, manufacturers 

earn the same operating profit as they 

would in the base case in 2018, 

however, manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the 29 percent MPC 

increase is outweighed by a lower 

average markup of 1.43 (compared to 

the flat markup scenario markup of 

1.47) and $21 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in greater negative 

impacts at TSL 1. The low-shipment 

scenario exacerbates these impacts 

because the base case INPV (the figure 

against which the absolute change in 

INPV is compared) is 10 percent lower 

than the base case INPV in the highshipment scenario. 

TSL 2 is baseline for two of the 12 

equipment classes (1500 W indoor and 

outdoor), EL1 for two of the 12 

equipment classes (250 W indoor and 

outdoor), and EL2 for the remaining 

eight equipment classes (70 W indoor 

and outdoor, 150 W indoor and outdoor, 

400 W indoor and outdoor, and 1000 W 

indoor and outdoor). At TSL 2, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$0.4 million to ¥$17.9 million, 

or a change in INPV of ¥0.5 percent to 

¥26.7 percent. At this level, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 114 percent to ¥$1.0 

million, compared to the base case value 

of $7.2 million in 2016. 

For several equipment classes TSL 2 

is the highest efficiency level the 

engineering analysis assumes 

manufacturers can meet with magnetic 

ballasts. DOE projects that in 2017, 89 

percent of 70 W indoor shipments, ten 

percent of 150 W indoor shipments, 16 

percent of 250 W indoor shipments, 

seven percent of 400 W indoor 

shipments, one percent of 1000 W 

indoor shipments, 100 percent of 1500 

W indoor shipments, 10 percent of 250 

W outdoor shipments, one percent of 

1000 W outdoor shipments, and 100 

percent of 1500 W outdoor shipments 

would meet TSL 2 or higher in the base 

case. No shipments from the 70 W 

outdoor, 150 W outdoor, or 400 W 

outdoor equipment classes would meet 

TSL 2 or higher in the base case in 2017. 

At TSL 2, product conversion costs 

slightly rise to $12 million and capital 

conversion costs slightly rise to $10 

million as manufacturers need to 

purchase additional equipment and 

tooling to upgrade magnetic production 

lines. 

At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases 38 percent over 

the base case MPC. In flat markup 

scenario, INPV impacts are slightly 

negative because the $22 million in 

conversion costs outweigh the 

manufacturers’ ability to pass on the 

higher equipment costs to customers. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, the 38 percent 

MPC increase is outweighed by a lower 

average markup of 1.42 and $22 million 

in conversion costs, resulting in 

negative INPV impacts at TSL 2. 

TSL 3 is baseline for two of the 12 

equipment classes (1500 W indoor and 

outdoor) and EL2 for the remaining ten 

equipment classes (70 W indoor and 

outdoor, 150 W indoor and outdoor, 250 

W indoor and outdoor, 400 W indoor 

and outdoor, and 1000 W indoor and 

outdoor). At TSL 3, DOE estimates 

impacts on INPV to range from $0.6 

million to ¥$19.0 million, or a change 

in INPV of 0.8 percent to ¥28.3 percent. 

At this level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

120 percent to ¥$1.5 million, compared 

to the base case value of $7.2 million in 

2016. 

TSL 3 is the highest efficiency level 

the engineering analysis assumes 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7817 

manufacturers can meet with magnetic 

ballasts for all equipment classes. DOE 

projects that in 2017, 89 percent of 70 

W indoor shipments, ten percent of 150 

W indoor shipments, 12 percent of 250 

W indoor shipments, seven percent of 

400 W indoor shipments, one percent of 

1000 W indoor shipments, 100 percent 

of 1500 W indoor shipments, one 

percent of 1000 W outdoor shipments, 

and 100 percent of 1500 W outdoor 

shipments would meet TSL 3 or higher 

in the base case. No shipments from the 

70 W outdoor, 150 W outdoor, 250 W 

outdoor, or 400 W outdoor equipment 

classes would meet TSL 3 or higher in 

2016 in the base case in 2017. DOE 

expects product conversion costs to 

remain constant at $12 million and 

capital conversion costs to increase 

slightly to $11 million. 

At TSL 3 the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases 42 percent over 

the base case MPC. In the flat markup 

scenario, the additional revenues earned 

from passing on these higher MPC costs 

outweigh the $23 million in conversion 

costs and higher working capital 

requirements, resulting in slightly 

positive INPV impacts. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the 42 percent MPC increase is 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.41 and $23 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in INPV results 

remaining negative at TSL 3. 

TSL 4 is EL1 for two equipment 

classes (1500 W indoor and outdoor), 

EL2 for two equipment classes (1000 W 

indoor and outdoor), and EL3 for the 

remaining eight equipment classes (70 

W indoor and outdoor, 150 W indoor 

and outdoor, 250 W indoor and outdoor, 

and 400 W indoor and outdoor). At TSL 

4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV to 

range from $9.6 million to ¥$16.2 

million, or a change in INPV of 12.9 

percent to ¥24.1 percent. At this level, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 94 percent to 

$0.5 million, compared to the base case 

value of $7.2 million in 2016. 

The technology changes from TSL 3 to 

TSL 4 are that manufacturers must now 

use now electronic ballasts for the 70 W 

indoor and outdoor, 150 W indoor and 

outdoor, 250 W indoor and outdoor, and 

400 W indoor and outdoor equipment 

classes at TSL 4. DOE projects that in 

2017, 89 percent of 70 W indoor 

shipments, 10 percent of 150 W indoor 

shipments, 12 percent of 250 W indoor 

shipments, seven percent of 400 W 

indoor shipments, one percent of 1000 

W indoor shipments, six percent of 1500 

W indoor shipments, one percent of 

1000 W outdoor shipments, and four 

percent of 1500 W outdoor shipments 

would meet TSL 4 or higher in the base 

case. No shipments of the 70 W outdoor, 

150 W outdoor, 250 W outdoor, or 400 

W outdoor equipment classes would 

meet TSL 4 or higher in the base case 

in 2017. Total conversion costs decrease 

from $23 million at TSL 3 to $21 million 

at TSL 4, because of the flexibility of 

electronic ballast production within the 

lighting manufacturing industry. 

At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases 63 percent over 

the base case MPC. In the flat markup 

scenario, the additional revenues earned 

from passing on these higher MPC costs 

outweigh the $21 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in moderately positive 

impacts on INPV. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the MPC increase is 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.40 and $21 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in INPV results 

remaining negative at TSL 4. 

TSL 5 is EL2 for four of the 12 

equipment classes (1000 W indoor and 

outdoor and 1500 W indoor and 

outdoor) and EL4 for the remaining 

eight equipment classes (70 W indoor 

and outdoor, 150 W indoor and outdoor, 

250 W indoor and outdoor, and 400 W 

indoor and outdoor). At TSL 5, DOE 

estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from $15.0 million to ¥$19.0 million, 

or a change in INPV of 20.3 percent to 

¥28.3 percent. At this level, industry 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by approximately 109 percent to ¥$0.6 

million, compared to the base case value 

of $7.2 million in 2016. 

TSL 5 is max tech for all equipment 

classes. DOE projects that in 2017, one 

percent of 70 W indoor shipments, one 

percent of 1000 W indoor shipments, 

and one percent of 1000 W outdoor 

shipments will meet TSL 5 in the base 

case. No shipments of any of the other 

equipment classes will meet TSL 5 in 

the base case in 2017. As a result, 

product conversion costs increase to $24 

million because of the need to redesign 

and test additional models. However, 

capital conversion costs remain fairly 

low at $5 million due to the flexibility 

of electronic ballast production. 

At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases 82 percent over 

the base case MPC. In the flat markup 

scenario the additional revenues earned 

from passing on these higher MPC costs 

outweigh the increased conversion costs 

of $24 million, resulting in a moderately 

positive impact on INPV. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the MPC increase is 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.39 and $24 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in INPV results 

remaining negative at TSL 5. 

Cash Flow Analysis Results by TSL for 

Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures 

DOE incorporated the same scenarios 

to represent the upper and lower 

bounds of industry impacts for MHLFs 

as for MH ballasts: the flat markup 

scenario with the high-shipment 

scenario and the preservation of 

operating profit markup scenario with 

the low-shipment scenario. Note that 

the TSLs below represent the same sets 

of efficiency levels as discussed in the 

previous section in the description of 

impacts on MH ballast manufacturers. 

TABLE VII.31—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES—FLAT MARKUP AND HIGHSHIPMENT SCENARIO

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ......................................... (2012$ millions) ....................... 379 408 418 423 418 408 

Change in INPV ....................... (2012$ millions) ....................... 28 .4 38 .3 43 .4 38 .6 29 .1 

(%) ........................................... 7 .5 10 .1 11 .4 10 .2 7 .7 

Product Conversion Costs ....... (2012$ millions) ....................... 3 3 3 45 62 

Capital Conversion Costs ........ (2012$ millions) ....................... 0 0 0 32 50 

Total Conversion Costs .... (2012$ millions) ....................... 3 3 3 77 112 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7818 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.32—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING

PROFIT MARKUP AND LOW-SHIPMENT SCENARIO

Units Base 

case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV ............................................. (2012$ millions) ............................ 346 342 342 342 285 257 

Change in INPV ............................ (2012$ millions) ............................ (3.6) (3.6) (3.6) (60.4) (88.6) 

(%) ................................................ ¥1.0 ¥1.0 ¥1.1 ¥17.5 ¥25.6 

Product Conversion Costs ............ (2012$ millions) ............................ 3 3 3 45 62 

Capital Conversion Costs ............. (2012$ millions) ............................ 0 0 0 32 50 

Total Conversion Costs ......... (2012$ millions) ............................ 3 3 3 77 112 

At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from $28.4 million to 

¥$3.6 million, or a change in INPV of 

7.5 percent to ¥1.0 percent. At TSL 1, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 3 percent to 

$38.3 million, compared to the base case 

value of $39.3 million in 2016. 

DOE expects minimal conversion 

costs for fixture manufacturers at TSL 1. 

Fixture manufacturers would incur $3 

million in product conversion costs for 

the testing of redesigned ballasts. 

Because the stack height of magnetic 

ballasts is not expected to change in 

response to the standards, fixture 

manufacturers would not incur any 

capital conversion costs at efficiency 

levels that can be met with magnetic 

ballast such as TSL 1. 

At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases by 11 percent 

from the base case MPC. In the flat 

markup scenario manufacturers 

maximize revenue since they are able to 

fully pass on this cost increase to 

customers. The slight price increase 

applied to a large quantity of shipments 

outweighs the impact of the $3 million 

in conversion costs for TSL 1, resulting 

in positive impacts at TSL 1 under the 

flat markup and high-shipment 

scenarios. 

Under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario a lower average 

markup of 1.54 (compared to the flat 

manufacturer markup of 1.58) and $3 

million in conversion cost results in a 

slightly negative impacts at TSL 1. The 

low-shipment scenario exacerbates 

these impacts because the base case 

INPV (the figure against which the 

absolute change in INPV is compared) is 

10 percent lower than the base case 

INPV in the high-shipment scenario. 

At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from $38.3 million to 

¥$3.6 million, or a change in INPV of 

10.1 percent to ¥1.0 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

3 percent to $38.3 million, compared to 

the base case value of $39.3 million in 

2016. 

At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases 15 percent over 

the base case MPC. In the flat markup 

scenario the additional revenues earned 

from passing on these higher MPC costs 

outweigh the fairly low conversion costs 

of $3 million, resulting in a positive 

impact on INPV. Under the preservation 

of operating profit markup scenario, the 

MPC increase is outweighed by a lower 

average markup of 1.53 and $3 million 

in conversion costs, resulting in slightly 

negative INPV results at TSL 2. 

At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from $43.4 million to 

¥$3.6 million, or a change in INPV of 

11.4 percent to ¥1.1 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

3 percent to $38.3 million, compared to 

the base case value of $39.3 million in 

2016. At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases 16 percent over 

the base case MPC. In the flat markup 

scenario the additional revenues earned 

from passing on these higher MPC costs 

outweigh the fairly low conversion costs 

of $3 million, resulting in a positive 

impact on INPV. Under the preservation 

of operating profit markup scenario, the 

MPC increase is outweighed by a lower 

average markup of 1.53 and $3 million 

in conversion costs, resulting in slightly 

negative INPV results at TSL 3. 

At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from $38.6 million to 

¥$60.4 million, or a change in INPV of 

10.2 percent to ¥17.5 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

72 percent to $10.9 million, compared 

to the base case value of $39.3 million 

in 2016. 

The technology changes from TSL 3 to 

TSL 4 are that manufacturers must use 

electronic ballasts to meet the required 

efficiencies for the 70 W indoor and 

outdoor, 150 W indoor and outdoor, 250 

W indoor and outdoor, and 400 W 

indoor and outdoor equipment classes 

at TSL 4. This increases the product 

conversion costs from $3 million at TSL 

3 to $45 million at TSL 4 and increases 

the capital conversion costs from zero at 

TSL 3 to $32 million at TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases 44 percent over 

the base case MPC. In the flat markup 

scenario the additional revenue earned 

from passing on these higher MPC costs 

outweigh the increased conversion costs 

of $77 million, resulting in a positive 

impact on INPV at TSL 4. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario the MPC increase is 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.48 and $77 million in conversion 

costs, resulting in moderately negative 

INPV impacts at TSL 4. 

At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on 

INPV to range from $29.1 million to 

¥$88.6 million, or a change in INPV of 

7.7 percent to ¥25.6 percent. At this 

level, industry free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

107 percent to ¥$2.8 million, compared 

to the base case value of $39.3 million 

in 2016. 

At TSL 5, product conversion costs 

again significantly increase to $62 

million as manufacturers must redesign 

all equipment classes to accommodate 

the most efficient electronic ballasts. 

Capital conversion costs also 

significantly increase to $50 million 

because of the need for additional 

equipment and tooling, such as new 

castings to incorporate thermal 

protection in the 70 W indoor and 

outdoor, 150 W indoor and outdoor, 250 

W indoor and outdoor, and 400 W 

indoor and outdoor equipment classes. 

At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC increases 51 percent over 

the base case MPC. In the flat markup 

scenario the additional revenues earned 

from passing on these higher MPC costs 

outweigh the much larger conversion 

costs of $112 million, resulting in a 

positive impact on INPV. Under the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the MPC increase is 

outweighed by a lower average markup 

of 1.47 and $112 million in conversion 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7819 

costs, resulting in significantly negative 

INPV impacts at TSL 5. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

DOE quantitatively assessed the 

impacts of potential new and amended 

energy conservation standards on direct 

employment. DOE used the GRIM to 

estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of domestic 

production workers in the base case and 

at each TSL from 2014 to 2046. DOE 

used statistical data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s 2009 Annual Survey of 

Manufacturers (ASM), the results of the 

engineering analysis, and interviews 

with manufacturers to determine the 

inputs necessary to calculate industrywide labor expenditures and domestic 

employment levels. Labor expenditures 

involved with the manufacture of the 

equipment is a function of the labor 

intensity of the equipment, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

In the GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of the equipment and the 

manufacturing production costs to 

estimate the annual labor expenditures 

in the industry. DOE used Census data 

and interviews with manufacturers to 

estimate the portion of the total labor 

expenditures that is attributable to 

domestic labor. 

The production worker estimates in 

this section cover only workers up to 

the line-supervisor level who are 

directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling equipment within an OEM 

facility. Workers performing services 

that are closely associated with 

production operations, such as material 

handing with a forklift, are also 

included as production labor. DOE’s 

estimates account for only production 

workers who manufacture the specific 

equipment covered by this rulemaking. 

For example, a worker on a fluorescent 

lamp ballast line would not be included 

with the estimate of the number of 

MHLF or MH ballast workers. 

The employment impacts shown in 

the tables below represent the potential 

production employment that could 

result following new and amended 

energy conservation standards. The 

upper bound of the results estimates the 

maximum change in the number of 

production workers that could occur 

after compliance with new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

when assuming that manufacturers 

continue to produce the same scope of 

covered equipment in the same 

production facilities. It also assumes 

that domestic production does not shift 

to lower labor-cost countries. Because 

there is a real risk of manufacturers 

evaluating sourcing decisions in 

response to new and amended energy 

conservation standards, the lower 

bound of the employment results 

includes the estimated total number of 

U.S. production workers in the industry 

who could lose their jobs if all existing 

production were moved outside of the 

United States. While the results present 

a range of employment impacts 

following 2017, the sections below also 

include qualitative discussions of the 

likelihood of negative employment 

impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 

employment impacts shown are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 14 of this 

final rule TSD. 

Employment Impacts for Metal Halide 

Ballasts 

Based on 2009 ASM data and 

interviews with manufacturers, DOE 

estimates that less than 30 domestic 

production workers would be involved 

in manufacturing MH ballasts in 2017, 

as the vast majority of MH ballasts are 

manufactured abroad. DOE’s view is 

that manufacturers could face moderate 

positive impacts on domestic 

employment levels because increasing 

equipment costs at each TSL would 

result in higher labor expenditures per 

unit, causing manufacturers to hire 

more workers to meet demand for MH 

ballasts, assuming that production 

remains in domestic facilities. Many 

manufacturers, however, do not expect 

a significant change in total 

employment at their facilities. Although 

manufacturers are concerned that higher 

prices for MH ballasts will drive 

customers to alternate technologies, 

most manufacturers offer these alternate 

technologies and can shift their 

employees from MH ballast production 

to production of other technologies in 

their facilities. Most manufacturers 

believe that domestic employment will 

only be significantly adversely affected 

if customers shift to foreign imports, 

causing the total lighting market share 

of the major domestic manufacturers to 

decrease. 

Employment Impacts for Metal Halide 

Lamp Fixtures 

Using 2009 ASM data and interviews 

with manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 60 percent of the MHLFs 

sold in the United States are 

manufactured domestically. With this 

assumption, DOE estimates that in the 

absence of new and amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 

approximately 340 domestic production 

workers involved in manufacturing 

MHLFs in 2017. Table VII.33 and Table 

VII.34 show the range of the impacts of 

potential new and amended energy 

conservation standards on U.S. 

production workers in the MHLF 

industry. 

TABLE VII.33—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE PRODUCTION

WORKERS IN 2017 

[Flat markup and high-shipment scenario] 

Base case Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production 

Workers in 2017 (without changes in 

production locations) ............................ 345 393 408 415 419 440 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2017 * .......................... ........................ 48¥(345) 63¥(345) 70¥(345) 74¥(345) 95¥(345) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.34—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE PRODUCTION

WORKERS IN 2017 

[Preservation of operating profit markup and low-shipment scenario] 

Base case Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production 

Workers in 2017 (without changes in 

production locations) ............................ 339 386 401 408 412 432 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2017 * .......................... ........................ 47¥(339) 62¥(339) 69¥(339) 73¥(339) 93¥(339) 

At the upper end of the range, all 

examined TSLs show moderate positive 

impacts on domestic employment 

levels. The increasing equipment cost at 

each higher TSL would result in higher 

labor expenditures per unit, causing 

manufacturers to hire more workers to 

meet demand levels of MHLFs, 

assuming that production remains in 

domestic facilities. Many 

manufacturers, however, do not expect 

a significant change in total 

employment at their facilities. Although 

manufacturers are concerned that higher 

prices for MHLFs will drive customers 

to alternate technologies, most 

manufacturers offer these alternate 

technologies and can shift their 

employees from MHLF production to 

production of other technologies in their 

facilities. As with MH ballast 

manufacturers, most MHLF 

manufacturers believe that domestic 

employment will only be significantly 

adversely affected if customers shift to 

foreign imports, causing the total 

lighting market share of the major 

domestic manufacturers to decrease. 

Because of the potentially high cost of 

shipping MHLFs from overseas, many 

manufacturers believe that this shift is 

unlikely to occur, especially for the 

higher wattage MHLFs. This is 

particularly true for the significant 

portion of the market served by small 

manufacturers, for whom the per-unit 

shipping costs of sourcing products 

would be even greater because of the 

lower volumes that they sell. 

Based on the above, DOE does not 

expect the adopted energy conservation 

standards for MHLFs, at TSL 2, to have 

a significant negative impact on direct 

domestic employment levels. DOE notes 

that domestic employment levels could 

be negatively affected in the event that 

small fixture businesses choose to exit 

the market due to standards. However, 

discussions with small manufacturers 

indicated that most small businesses 

will be able to adapt to new and 

amended regulations at the adopted 

standards. The impacts on small 

businesses are discussed in section 

VIII.B. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Both MHLF and ballast manufacturers 

stated that they do not anticipate any 

capacity constraints at efficiency levels 

that can be met with magnetic ballasts, 

which are the efficiency levels adopted 

for all equipment classes in today’s final 

rule. If the production of higherefficiency magnetic ballasts decreases 

the throughput on production lines, 

manufacturers stated that they would be 

able to add shifts on existing lines and 

maintain capacity. 

At efficiency levels that require 

electronic ballasts, however, 

manufacturers are concerned about the 

current worldwide shortage of electrical 

components. The components most 

affected by this shortage are highefficiency parts, for which demand 

would increase even further following 

new and amended energy conservation 

standards. The increased demand could 

exacerbate the component shortage, 

thereby impacting manufacturing 

capacity in the near term, according to 

manufacturers. However, there are no 

equipment classes requiring electronic 

ballasts in today’s final rule. Therefore, 

DOE does not anticipate a significant 

increase in demand for electric 

components due to today’s energy 

conservation standards. While DOE 

recognizes that the premium component 

shortage is currently a significant issue 

for manufacturers, DOE views it as a 

relatively short-term phenomenon to 

which component suppliers will 

ultimately adjust. According to several 

manufacturers, suppliers have the 

ability to ramp up production to meet 

MH 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 

2017 will likely affect the duration of 

the premium component shortage. 

Mandatory standards, however, could 

create more certainty for suppliers about 

the eventual demand for these 

components. Additionally, the premium 

components at issue are not new 

technologies; rather, they have simply 

not historically been demanded in large 

quantities by MH ballast manufacturers. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

may not be adequate for assessing 

differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche equipment 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting cost structures substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

DOE analyzed the impacts to small 

businesses in section VIII.B and did not 

identify any other adversely impacted 

subgroups for MHLFs or ballasts for this 

rulemaking based on the results of the 

industry characterization. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7821 

amended energy conservation standards 

for MHLFs, that manufacturers will face 

for products and equipment they 

manufacture approximately three years 

prior to and three years after the 

compliance date of the new and 

amended standards. The following 

section briefly addresses comments DOE 

received with respect to cumulative 

regulatory burden and summarizes other 

key related concerns that manufacturers 

raised during interviews and submitted 

comments. 

Several manufacturers expressed 

concern about the overall volume of 

DOE energy conservation standards 

with which they must comply. Most 

MHLF manufacturers also make a full 

range of lighting products and share 

engineering and other resources with 

these other internal manufacturing 

divisions for different products, 

including certification testing for 

regulatory compliance. 

DOE discusses these and other 

requirements in chapter 13 of this final 

rule TSD. DOE takes into account the 

cost of compliance with other published 

Federal energy conservation standards 

in weighing the benefits and burdens of 

today’s rulemaking. DOE does not 

describe the quantitative impacts of 

standards that have not yet been 

finalized because any impacts would be 

speculative. DOE also notes that certain 

standards, such as ENERGY STAR, are 

optional for manufacturers. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

For each TSL, DOE projected energy 

savings for metal halide lamp fixtures 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the year 2017, ending in the 

year 2046. The savings are measured 

over the entire lifetime of equipment 

purchased in the 30-year period. DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. Table VII.35 presents the 

estimated primary energy savings for 

each TSL for the low- and highshipments scenarios, which represent 

the minimum and maximum energy 

savings resulting from all the scenarios 

analyzed. Table VII.36 presents the 

estimated FFC energy savings for each 

considered TSL. Chapter 11 of the final 

rule TSD describes these estimates in 

more detail. 

TABLE VII.35—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL PRIMARY ENERGY SAVINGS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2046 

Trial standard level Equipment class 

National primary energy savings 

quads 

Low-shipments 

scenario 

High-shipments 

scenario 

1 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.01 0.01 

150 W ................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

250 W ................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

400 W ................................................................... 0.10 0.13 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.20 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.30 0.38 

2 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

150 W ................................................................... 0.04 0.05 

250 W ................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

400 W ................................................................... 0.15 0.19 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.20 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.38 0.48 

3 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

150 W ................................................................... 0.04 0.05 

250 W ................................................................... 0.03 0.03 

400 W ................................................................... 0.15 0.19 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.20 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.39 0.49 

4 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.07 0.09 

150 W ................................................................... 0.10 0.12 

250 W ................................................................... 0.11 0.14 

400 W ................................................................... 0.25 0.31 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.20 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.69 0.86 

5 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.09 0.11 

150 W ................................................................... 0.11 0.14 

250 W ................................................................... 0.13 0.16 

400 W ................................................................... 0.33 0.41 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.20 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7822 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

66EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at 

least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 

products, a 3-year period after any new standard is 

promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required 

within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. While adding a 6-year review 

TABLE VII.35—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL PRIMARY ENERGY SAVINGS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2046—Continued 

Trial standard level Equipment class 

National primary energy savings 

quads 

Low-shipments 

scenario 

High-shipments 

scenario 

Total .............................................................. 0.81 1.02 

TABLE VII.36—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2046 

Trial standard level Equipment class 

National FFC energy savings 

quads 

Low-shipments 

scenario 

High-shipments 

scenario 

1 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.01 0.01 

150 W ................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

250 W ................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

400 W ................................................................... 0.11 0.13 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.21 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.31 0.39 

2 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

150 W ................................................................... 0.04 0.05 

250 W ................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

400 W ................................................................... 0.16 0.20 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.21 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.39 0.49 

3 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

150 W ................................................................... 0.04 0.05 

250 W ................................................................... 0.03 0.03 

400 W ................................................................... 0.16 0.20 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.21 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.40 0.50 

4 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.08 0.09 

150 W ................................................................... 0.10 0.13 

250 W ................................................................... 0.12 0.14 

400 W ................................................................... 0.25 0.32 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.21 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.71 0.88 

5 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.09 0.11 

150 W ................................................................... 0.11 0.14 

250 W ................................................................... 0.13 0.16 

400 W ................................................................... 0.33 0.42 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.16 0.21 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.83 1.03 

Circular A–4 requires agencies to 

present analytical results, including 

separate schedules of the monetized 

benefits and costs that show the type 

and timing of benefits and costs. 

Circular A–4 also directs agencies to 

consider the variability of key elements 

underlying the estimates of benefits and 

costs. For this rulemaking, DOE 

undertook a sensitivity analysis using 

nine rather than 30 years of fixture 

shipments. The choice of a 9-year 

period is a proxy for the timeline in 

EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.66 DOE notes that the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7823 

to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, 

DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any 

time within the 6-year period and that the 3-year 

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

67OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a–4. 

review time frame established in EPCA 

generally does not overlap with the 

equipment lifetime, equipment 

manufacturing cycles or other factors 

specific to metal halide lamp fixtures. 

Thus, this information is presented for 

informational purposes only and is not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

results based on a 9-year analytical 

period are presented in Table VII.37. 

The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of fixtures purchased in 2017– 

2025. 

TABLE VII.37—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL PRIMARY ENERGY SAVINGS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2025 

Trial standard level Equipment class 

National primary energy savings 

quads 

Low-shipments 

scenario 

High-shipments 

scenario 

1 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.01 0.01 

150 W ................................................................... 0.01 0.01 

250 W ................................................................... 0.01 0.01 

400 W ................................................................... 0.05 0.05 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.08 0.08 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.15 0.16 

2 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.01 0.01 

150 W ................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

250 W ................................................................... 0.01 0.01 

400 W ................................................................... 0.07 0.07 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.08 0.08 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.19 0.20 

3 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.01 0.01 

150 W ................................................................... 0.02 0.02 

250 W ................................................................... 0.01 0.01 

400 W ................................................................... 0.07 0.07 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.08 0.08 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.19 0.20 

4 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.04 0.05 

150 W ................................................................... 0.05 0.05 

250 W ................................................................... 0.06 0.06 

400 W ................................................................... 0.11 0.12 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.08 0.08 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.34 0.36 

5 ............................................................................ 70 W ..................................................................... 0.05 0.06 

150 W ................................................................... 0.05 0.06 

250 W ................................................................... 0.06 0.07 

400 W ................................................................... 0.15 0.16 

1000 W ................................................................. 0.08 0.08 

1500 W ................................................................. 0.00 0.00 

Total .............................................................. 0.39 0.42 

b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for customers 

that would result from the TSLs 

considered for metal halide lamp 

fixtures. In accordance with OMB’s 

guidelines on regulatory analysis,67

DOE calculated the 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 on 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and 

reflects the returns on real estate and 

small business capital as well as 

corporate capital. This discount rate 

approximates the opportunity cost of 

capital in the private sector (OMB 

analysis has found the average rate of 

return on capital to be near this rate). 

The 3-percent rate reflects the potential 

effects of standards on private 

consumption (e.g., through higher prices 

for products and reduced purchases of 

energy). This rate represents the rate at 

which society discounts future 

consumption flows to their present 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7824 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

value. It can be approximated by the 

real rate of return on long-term 

government debt (i.e., yield on United 

States Treasury notes), which has 

averaged about 3 percent for the past 30 

years. 

Table VII.38 shows the customer NPV 

results for each TSL DOE considered for 

metal halide lamp fixtures, using both 7- 

percent and 3-percent discount rates. In 

each case, the impacts cover the lifetime 

of equipment purchased in 2017–2046. 

See chapter 11 of the final rule TSD for 

more detailed NPV results. 

TABLE VII.38—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2046 

Trial standard level Equipment class 

Net present value 

billion 2012$ 

Low-shipments scenario High-shipments scenario 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

1 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.018 0.033 0.019 0.035 

150 W ............................... 0.031 0.074 0.035 0.089 

250 W ............................... 0.007 0.045 0.009 0.053 

400 W ............................... 0.004 0.102 0.008 0.134 

1000 W ............................. 0.198 0.528 0.234 0.656 

1500 W ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total .......................... 0.257 0.783 0.304 0.968 

2 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.016 0.041 0.017 0.044 

150 W ............................... 0.046 0.119 0.054 0.144 

250 W ............................... 0.007 0.045 0.009 0.053 

400 W ............................... 0.022 0.183 0.030 0.236 

1000 W ............................. 0.198 0.528 0.234 0.656 

1500 W ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total .......................... 0.289 0.915 0.343 1.134 

3 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.016 0.041 0.017 0.044 

150 W ............................... 0.046 0.119 0.054 0.144 

250 W ............................... ¥0.014 0.026 ¥0.015 0.033 

400 W ............................... 0.022 0.183 0.030 0.236 

1000 W ............................. 0.198 0.528 0.234 0.656 

1500 W ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total .......................... 0.267 0.896 0.319 1.114 

4 ........................................ 70 W ................................. ¥0.091 ¥0.118 ¥0.102 ¥0.135 

150 W ............................... 0.074 0.218 0.087 0.269 

250 W ............................... ¥0.352 ¥0.606 ¥0.401 ¥0.721 

400 W ............................... ¥0.636 ¥1.057 ¥0.722 ¥1.244 

1000 W ............................. 0.198 0.528 0.234 0.656 

1500 W ............................. ¥0.005 ¥0.007 ¥0.005 ¥0.008 

Total .......................... ¥0.812 ¥1.042 ¥0.910 ¥1.183 

5 ........................................ 70 W ................................. ¥0.114 ¥0.146 ¥0.128 ¥0.166 

150 W ............................... 0.049 0.177 0.059 0.221 

250 W ............................... ¥0.283 ¥0.460 ¥0.321 ¥0.543 

400 W ............................... ¥0.741 ¥1.201 ¥0.839 ¥1.409 

1000 W ............................. 0.198 0.528 0.234 0.656 

1500 W ............................. ¥0.007 ¥0.010 ¥0.008 ¥0.012 

Total .......................... ¥0.898 ¥1.111 ¥1.004 ¥1.252 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table VII.39. The 

impacts are counted over the lifetime of 

fixtures purchased in 2017–2025. As 

mentioned previously, this information 

is presented for informational purposes 

only and is not indicative of any change 

in DOE’s analytical methodology or 

decision criteria. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7825 

TABLE VII.39—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2025 

Trial standard level Equipment class 

Net present value 

billion 2012$ 

Low-shipments scenario High-shipments scenario 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

1 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.018 0.033 0.019 0.035 

150 W ............................... 0.021 0.043 0.022 0.046 

250 W ............................... 0.003 0.025 0.004 0.026 

400 W ............................... ¥0.004 0.038 ¥0.004 0.041 

1000 W ............................. 0.122 0.269 0.131 0.289 

1500 W ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total .......................... 0.160 0.408 0.171 0.436 

2 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.016 0.037 0.017 0.039 

150 W ............................... 0.030 0.065 0.032 0.070 

250 W ............................... 0.003 0.025 0.004 0.026 

400 W ............................... 0.005 0.074 0.005 0.079 

1000 W ............................. 0.122 0.269 0.131 0.289 

1500 W ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total .......................... 0.177 0.470 0.189 0.502 

3 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.016 0.037 0.017 0.039 

150 W ............................... 0.030 0.065 0.032 0.070 

250 W ............................... ¥0.013 0.009 ¥0.013 0.010 

400 W ............................... 0.005 0.074 0.005 0.079 

1000 W ............................. 0.122 0.269 0.131 0.289 

1500 W ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total .......................... 0.161 0.455 0.172 0.486 

4 ........................................ 70 W ................................. ¥0.064 ¥0.072 ¥0.068 ¥0.077 

150 W ............................... 0.046 0.112 0.049 0.120 

250 W ............................... ¥0.241 ¥0.353 ¥0.253 ¥0.373 

400 W ............................... ¥0.440 ¥0.635 ¥0.462 ¥0.669 

1000 W ............................. 0.122 0.269 0.131 0.289 

1500 W ............................. ¥0.003 ¥0.004 ¥0.003 ¥0.004 

Total .......................... ¥0.580 ¥0.683 ¥0.607 ¥0.714 

5 ........................................ 70 W ................................. ¥0.081 ¥0.092 ¥0.087 ¥0.099 

150 W ............................... 0.029 0.088 0.031 0.094 

250 W ............................... ¥0.196 ¥0.274 ¥0.206 ¥0.289 

400 W ............................... ¥0.514 ¥0.729 ¥0.540 ¥0.768 

1000 W ............................. 0.122 0.269 0.131 0.289 

1500 W ............................. ¥0.005 ¥0.006 ¥0.005 ¥0.006 

Total .......................... ¥0.645 ¥0.744 ¥0.676 ¥0.779 

Finally, DOE evaluated the NPV 

results for both indoor and outdoor 

fixtures for each equipment class. Table 

VII.40 gives the NPV associated with 

each equipment class broken down into 

indoor and outdoor fixture 

environments. 

TABLE VII.40—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2046 

[Low shipments, by fixture environment] 

Trial standard level Equipment class 

Net present value 

billion 2012$ 

Indoor fixtures Outdoor fixtures 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

1 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.001 0.001 0.017 0.033 

150 W ............................... 0.008 0.019 0.023 0.056 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.40—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TRIAL STANDARD

LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN 2017–2046—Continued 

[Low shipments, by fixture environment] 

Trial standard level Equipment class 

Net present value 

billion 2012$ 

Indoor fixtures Outdoor fixtures 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

7-percent 

discount rate 

3-percent 

discount rate 

250 W ............................... 0.003 0.014 0.004 0.031 

400 W ............................... 0.002 0.028 0.001 0.075 

1000 W ............................. 0.054 0.136 0.143 0.393 

1500 W ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total .......................... 0.068 0.197 0.189 0.586 

2 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.000 0.001 0.016 0.040 

150 W ............................... 0.022 0.051 0.024 0.068 

250 W ............................... 0.003 0.014 0.004 0.031 

400 W ............................... 0.008 0.049 0.014 0.134 

1000 W ............................. 0.054 0.136 0.143 0.393 

1500 W ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total .......................... 0.087 0.251 0.201 0.664 

3 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.000 0.001 0.016 0.040 

150 W ............................... 0.022 0.051 0.024 0.068 

250 W ............................... ¥0.002 0.010 ¥0.012 0.016 

400 W ............................... 0.008 0.049 0.014 0.134 

1000 W ............................. 0.054 0.136 0.143 0.393 

1500 W ............................. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 

Total .......................... 0.082 0.247 0.185 0.650 

4 ........................................ 70 W ................................. 0.001 0.002 ¥0.092 ¥0.119 

150 W ............................... 0.036 0.080 0.038 0.137 

250 W ............................... ¥0.050 ¥0.082 ¥0.302 ¥0.524 

400 W ............................... ¥0.121 ¥0.192 ¥0.515 ¥0.865 

1000 W ............................. 0.054 0.136 0.143 0.393 

1500 W ............................. ¥0.001 ¥0.002 ¥0.003 ¥0.005 

Total .......................... ¥0.081 ¥0.059 ¥0.731 ¥0.983 

5 ........................................ 70 W ................................. ¥0.004 ¥0.003 ¥0.110 ¥0.142 

150 W ............................... 0.029 0.069 0.020 0.108 

250 W ............................... ¥0.030 ¥0.041 ¥0.253 ¥0.419 

400 W ............................... ¥0.151 ¥0.234 ¥0.589 ¥0.967 

1000 W ............................. 0.054 0.136 0.143 0.393 

1500 W ............................. ¥0.002 ¥0.002 ¥0.005 ¥0.007 

Total .......................... ¥0.103 ¥0.075 ¥0.794 ¥1.035 

c. Impacts on Employment 

DOE estimated the indirect 

employment impacts of potential 

standards on the economy in general, 

assuming that energy conservation 

standards for metal halide lamp fixtures 

will reduce energy bills for fixture users 

and that the resulting net savings will be 

redirected to other forms of economic 

activity. DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy to estimate 

these effects, including the demand for 

labor as described in section V.J. 

The input/output 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 shown in Table 

VII.41, DOE estimates that net indirect 

employment impacts from adopted 

fixture standards are small relative to 

the national economy. 

TABLE VII.41—NET CHANGE IN JOBS FROM INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS UNDER FIXTURE TSLS

Analysis period year Trial standard level 

Net national change in jobs 

Low shipments 

scenario, roll-up 

High shipments 

scenario, roll-up 

2018 ...................................................................... 1 ............................................................................ ¥60 150 

2 ............................................................................ ¥85 260 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7827 

TABLE VII.41—NET CHANGE IN JOBS FROM INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS UNDER FIXTURE TSLS—Continued 

Analysis period year Trial standard level 

Net national change in jobs 

Low shipments 

scenario, roll-up 

High shipments 

scenario, roll-up 

3 ............................................................................ ¥105 405 

4 ............................................................................ ¥405 820 

5 ............................................................................ ¥470 705 

2022 ...................................................................... 1 ............................................................................ 135 650 

2 ............................................................................ 170 945 

3 ............................................................................ 155 1,300 

4 ............................................................................ 65 2,755 

5 ............................................................................ 80 2,655 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Equipment 

As presented in section V.B of this 

notice, DOE concluded that none of the 

TSLs that were analyzed would reduce 

the utility or performance of the MHLFs 

under consideration in this rulemaking. 

Furthermore, manufacturers currently 

offer ballasts that meet or exceed the 

adopted standards in all equipment 

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

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from standards. It also directs the 

Attorney General of the United States 

(Attorney General) to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from a 

proposed standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)). To 

assist the Attorney General in making a 

determination for MHLF standards, DOE 

provided the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) with copies of the NOPR and the 

TSD for review. DOE received 

comments from DOJ stating the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for MHLFs are unlikely to have a 

significant adverse impact on 

competition. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

An improvement in the energy 

efficiency of the products subject to 

today’s rule is likely to improve the 

security of the nation’s energy system by 

reducing overall demand for energy. 

Reduced electricity demand may also 

improve the reliability of the electricity 

system. Reductions in national electric 

generating capacity estimated for each 

considered TSL are reported in chapter 

14 of the final rule TSD. 

Energy savings from new and 

amended energy conservation standards 

for fixtures could produce 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

GHGs associated with electricity 

production. Table VII.42 and Table 

VII.43 provide DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative emissions reductions 

projected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking, for the 

low and high shipment scenarios, 

respectively. The tables include both 

power sector emissions and upstream 

emissions. The upstream emissions 

were calculated using the multipliers 

discussed in section V.L. DOE reports 

annual emissions reductions for each 

TSL in the emissions analysis in chapter 

16 the final rule TSD. 

TABLE VII.42—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES

[Low shipments scenario] 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................ 16 .80 21 .24 21 .80 38 .30 44 .93 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................. 8 .85 11 .18 11 .48 20 .16 23 .64 

Hg (tons) .................................................................... 0 .04 0 .05 0 .05 0 .08 0 .10 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................. 0 .36 0 .45 0 .46 0 .81 0 .95 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................. 2 .04 2 .59 2 .65 4 .66 5 .47 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................. 29 .48 37 .29 38 .26 67 .25 78 .95 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................ 0 .98 1 .24 1 .27 2 .23 2 .62 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................. 13 .45 17 .01 17 .45 30 .68 36 .00 

Hg (tons) .................................................................... 0 .001 0 .001 0 .001 0 .001 0 .001 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................. 0 .01 0 .01 0 .01 0 .02 0 .03 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................. 81 .69 103 .31 106 .01 186 .34 218 .69 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................. 0 .21 0 .27 0 .27 0 .48 0 .56 

Total Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................ 17 .78 22 .48 23 .07 40 .53 47 .54 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................. 22 .29 28 .19 28 .93 50 .84 59 .64 

Hg (tons) .................................................................... 0 .04 0 .05 0 .05 0 .08 0 .10 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................. 0 .37 0 .46 0 .47 0 .83 0 .98 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7828 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.42—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES— 

Continued 

[Low shipments scenario] 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................. 83 .74 105 .90 108 .66 191 .01 224 .16 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................. 29 .69 37 .55 38 .53 67 .73 79 .51 

TABLE VII.43—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES

[High shipments scenario] 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................ 20 .78 26 .26 26 .95 47 .13 55 .37 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................. 10 .89 13 .76 14 .12 24 .69 29 .00 

Hg (tons) .................................................................... 0 .05 0 .06 0 .06 0 .10 0 .12 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................. 0 .46 0 .58 0 .60 1 .04 1 .23 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................. 2 .57 3 .25 3 .33 5 .83 6 .85 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................. 37 .14 46 .92 48 .15 84 .20 99 .02 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................ 1 .22 1 .54 1 .59 2 .77 3 .26 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................. 16 .83 21 .26 21 .81 38 .16 44 .85 

Hg (tons) .................................................................... 0 .001 0 .001 0 .001 0 .001 0 .002 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................. 0 .01 0 .02 0 .02 0 .03 0 .03 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................. 102 .23 129 .15 132 .54 231 .83 272 .53 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................. 0 .26 0 .33 0 .34 0 .59 0 .70 

Total Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ............................................ 22 .01 27 .80 28 .53 49 .90 58 .63 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................................. 27 .72 35 .02 35 .93 62 .85 73 .86 

Hg (tons) .................................................................... 0 .05 0 .06 0 .06 0 .10 0 .12 

N2O (thousand tons) .................................................. 0 .47 0 .60 0 .61 1 .07 1 .26 

CH4 (thousand tons) .................................................. 104 .80 132 .40 135 .87 237 .66 279 .39 

SO2 (thousand tons) .................................................. 37 .40 47 .25 48 .49 84 .80 99 .72 

As discussed in section V.L, 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 new emissions standards 

for power plants under the MATS rule. 

DOE also did not include NOX

emissions reductions 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. 

As part 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.M.1, DOE used 

values for the SCC developed by an 

interagency process. The interagency 

group selected four sets of SCC values 

for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets 

are based on the average SCC from three 

integrated assessment models, at 

discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent. The fourth set, 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. The 

four SCC values for CO2 emissions 

reductions in 2015, expressed in 2012$, 

are $11.8/ton, $39.7/ton, $61.2/ton, and 

$117.0/ton. These values for later years 

are higher due to increasing emissionsrelated costs as the magnitude of 

projected climate change increases. 

Table VII.44 and Table VII.45 present 

the global value of CO2 emissions 

reductions at each TSL for the low and 

high shipment scenarios, respectively. 

DOE calculated domestic values as a 

range from 7 percent to 23 percent of the 

global values, and these results are 

presented in chapter 17 of the final rule 

TSD. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7829 

TABLE VII.44—GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR METAL HALIDE

LAMP FIXTURES

[Low shipments scenario] 

TSL 

SCC scenario * 

5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

million 2012$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 109.3 509.9 813.4 1,574.7 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 138.2 644.8 1,028.7 1,991.6 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 141.8 661.8 1,055.7 2,043.9 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 249.2 1,162.7 1,854.8 3,591.3 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 291.9 1,362.9 2,174.5 4,209.8 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 6.2 29.3 46.8 90.6 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 7.9 37.1 59.2 114.6 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 8.1 38.0 60.8 117.6 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 14.2 66.9 106.9 206.8 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 16.6 78.4 125.3 242.5 

Total Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 115 539.2 860.2 1,665.3 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 146 681.9 1,087.9 2,106.2 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 150 699.8 1,116.5 2,161.5 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 263 1,229.6 1,961.7 3,798.1 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 309 1,441.3 2,299.8 4,452.3 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $11.8, $39.7, $61.2 and $117.0 per metric ton (2012$). 

TABLE VII.45—GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR METAL HALIDE

LAMP FIXTURES

[High shipments scenario] 

TSL 

SCC scenario * 

5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount 

rate, 95th 

percentile 

million 2012$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 130.4 617.9 988.6 1,909.5 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 164.8 780.8 1,249.3 2,413.0 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 169.1 801.4 1,282.2 2,476.6 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 296.0 1,402.5 2,243.7 4,334.3 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 347.3 1,646.3 2,634.1 5,088.0 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 7.5 35.9 57.6 111.1 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 9.5 45.4 72.7 140.4 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 9.7 46.6 74.7 144.1 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 17.0 81.5 130.7 252.2 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 20.0 95.7 153.5 296.2 

Total Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 137.9 653.8 1,046.2 2,020.6 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 174.2 826.2 1,322.0 2,553.4 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 178.8 848.0 1,356.8 2,620.7 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 313.1 1,484.0 2,374.3 4,586.5 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 367.2 1,742.1 2,787.6 5,384.2 

* For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $11.8, $39.7, $61.2 and $117.0 per metric ton (2012$). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this rulemaking on 

reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 

change. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this NOPR the most recent values and 

analyses resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

and Hg emissions reductions 

anticipated to result from amended 

metal halide lamp fixture standards. 

Estimated monetary benefits for CO2

and NOX 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 customer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. The dollar-per-ton values 

that DOE used are discussed in section 

V.M. Table VII.46 presents the present 

value of cumulative NOX emissions 

reductions for each TSL calculated 

using the average dollar-per-ton values 

and 7-percent and 3-percent discount 

rates. 

TABLE VII.46—PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP

FIXTURES

TSL 

Low shipments scenario High shipments scenario 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

3% discount 

rate 

7% discount 

rate 

million 2012$ 

Power Sector Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 12.0 5.8 14.1 6.6 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 15.2 7.4 17.9 8.3 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 15.6 7.6 18.3 8.5 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 27.4 13.3 32.1 14.9 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 32.0 15.5 37.6 17.5 

Upstream Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 17.4 7.9 20.8 9.1 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 22.0 10.0 26.3 11.4 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 22.6 10.2 27.0 11.7 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 39.7 18.0 47.3 20.6 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 46.5 21.0 55.5 24.1 

Total Emissions 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 29.4 13.7 35.0 15.6 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 37.2 17.3 44.2 19.8 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 38.2 17.8 45.4 20.3 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 67.0 31.2 79.4 35.5 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 78.5 36.5 93.1 41.6 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the customer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table VII.47 and Table 

VII.48 present the NPV values that 

result from adding the estimates of the 

potential economic benefits resulting 

from reduced CO2 and NOX emissions 

in each of four valuation scenarios to 

the NPV of customer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking, at both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent discount rate, and for the low 

and high shipment scenarios, 

respectively. The CO2 values used in the 

columns of each table correspond to the 

four scenarios for the valuation of CO2

emission reductions discussed above. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7831 

TABLE VII.47—METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TSLS: NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH NET

PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

[Low shipments scenario] 

TSL 

Customer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC value of 

$11.8/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

SCC value of 

$39.7/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

SCC value of 

$61.2/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

SCC value of 

$117.0/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.928 1.352 1.673 2.478 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 1.099 1.634 2.040 3.059 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 1.084 1.634 2.051 3.096 

4 ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.712 0.255 0.987 2.823 

5 ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.724 0.409 1.268 3.420 

Customer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.386 0.810 1.131 1.936 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.452 0.988 1.394 2.412 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.435 0.985 1.402 2.447 

4 ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.518 0.449 1.181 3.017 

5 ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.553 0.580 1.439 3.591 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2012$. The present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. 

** Medium Value corresponds to $2,639 per ton of NOX emissions. 

TABLE VII.48—METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURE TSLS: NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH NET

PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

[High Shipments Scenario] 

TSL 

Customer NPV at 3% discount rate added with: 

SCC value of 

$11.8/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

SCC value of 

$39.7/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

SCC value of 

$61.2/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

SCC value of 

$117.0/metric 

ton CO2* and 

medium value 

for NOX** 

billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 1.141 1.657 2.049 3.024 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 1.353 2.005 2.501 3.732 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 1.338 2.008 2.516 3.780 

4 ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.790 0.380 1.271 3.483 

5 ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.792 0.583 1.628 4.225 

Customer NPV at 7% discount rate added with: 

billion 2012$ 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.458 0.974 1.366 2.340 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.537 1.189 1.685 2.916 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.518 1.188 1.696 2.960 

4 ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.561 0.610 1.500 3.712 

5 ....................................................................................................................... ¥0.595 0.780 1.825 4.422 

* These label values represent the global SCC in 2015, in 2012$. The present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent discount 

rates. 

** Medium Value corresponds to $2,639 per ton of NOX emissions. 

Although adding the value of 

customer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, the following should be 

considered: (1) The national customer 

savings are domestic U.S. customer 

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 customer savings and emissionsrelated benefits are performed with 

different computer models, leading to 

different time frames for analysis. For 

fixtures, the present value of national 

customer savings is measured for the 

period in which units shipped in 2017– 

2046 continue to operate. The SCC 

values, on the other hand, reflect the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7832 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

present value of future climate-related 

impacts resulting from the emission of 

one metric ton of CO2 in each year. 

These impacts continue well beyond 

2100. 

C. Conclusions 

DOE is subject to the EPCA 

requirement that any new or amended 

energy conservation standard for any 

type (or class) of covered equipment be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens to the greatest extent 

practicable, in light of the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

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

amended standard must also result in a 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

DOE considered the impacts of MHLF 

standards at each trial standard level, 

beginning with the max-tech 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 based on the 

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 customers’ 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 (Table VII.49 and Table 

VII.50) that summarize DOE’s 

quantitative analysis for each TSL. In 

addition to the quantitative results 

presented in the tables, DOE also 

considers other burdens and benefits 

that affect economic justification. 

Section VII.B.1 presents the estimated 

impacts of each TSL for the LCC 

subgroup analysis. 

TABLE VII.49—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES

[Low shipments scenario] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

National Energy Savings 

(quads).

0.31 ......................... 0.39 ......................... 0.40 ......................... 0.71 ......................... 0.83 

NPV of Customer Benefits 

(2012$ billion) 

3% discount rate ............ 0.78 ......................... 0.92 ......................... 0.90 ......................... (1.04) ...................... (1.11) 

7% discount rate ............ 0.26 ......................... 0.29 ......................... 0.27 ......................... (0.81) ...................... (0.90) 

Industry Impacts* 

Ballast + Fixture Industry 

NPV 

(2012$million) 

(Base Case Industry 

NPV of $413 million).

393 .......................... 391 .......................... 390 .......................... 336 .......................... 305 

Ballast + Fixture Industry 

NPV (change in 

2012$million).

(20.1) ...................... (21.5) ...................... (22.6) ...................... (76.6) ...................... (107.5) 

Ballast + Fixture Industry 

NPV (% change).

¥4.9% .................... ¥5.2% .................... ¥5.5% .................... ¥18.6% .................. ¥26.1% 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) ......................... 17.78 ....................... 22.48 ....................... 23.07 ....................... 40.53 ....................... 47.54 

SO2 (kt) ........................... 29.69 ....................... 37.55 ....................... 38.53 ....................... 67.73 ....................... 79.51 

NOX (kt) .......................... 22.29 ....................... 28.19 ....................... 28.93 ....................... 50.84 ....................... 59.64 

Hg (t) .............................. 0.04 ......................... 0.05 ......................... 0.05 ......................... 0.08 ......................... 0.10 

CH4 (kt) ........................... 83.74 ....................... 105.90 ..................... 108.66 ..................... 191.01 ..................... 224.16 

N2O (kt) .......................... 0.37 ......................... 0.46 ......................... 0.47 ......................... 0.83 ......................... 0.98 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2012$ billion)** ...... 0.1 to 1.7 ................ 0.1 to 2.1 ................ 0.1 to 2.2 ................ 0.3 to 3.8 ................ 0.3 to 4.5 

NOX—3% discount rate 

(2012$ million)**.

29.4 ......................... 37.2 ......................... 38.2 ......................... 67.0 ......................... 78.5 

NOX—7% discount rate 

(2012$ million)**.

13.7 ......................... 17.3 ......................... 17.8 ......................... 31.2 ......................... 36.5 

Mean LCC Savings (and Percent Customers Experiencing Net Benefit)*** 

(2012$) 

50to100W_Ind_

OtherV****† (magnetic 

baseline).

26.97 (100) ............. 27.00 (100) ............. 27.00 (100) ............. 42.50 (82) ............... 37.25 (79) 

50to100W_Outd_OtherV 

(magnetic baseline).

34.24 (98) ............... 34.88 (97) ............... 34.88 (97) ............... ¥4.98 (51) .............. ¥11.15 (49) 

50to100W_Ind_OtherV 

(electronic baseline).

— ............................ — ............................ — ............................ — ............................ ¥5.25 (10) 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7833 

TABLE VII.49—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES—Continued 

[Low shipments scenario] 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

50to100W_Outd_OtherV 

(electronic baseline).

— ............................ — ............................ — ............................ — ............................ ¥6.17 (12) 

101to150W_Ind_OtherV‡ 22.43 (100) ............. 24.63 (99) ............... 24.63 (99) ............... 89.67 (94) ............... 76.11 (89) 

101to150W_Outd_OtherV 27.37 (97) ............... 30.70 (97) ............... 30.70 (97) ............... 52.23 (66) ............... 36.60 (62) 

151to250W_Ind_OtherV‡ 4.51 (60) ................. 4.51 (60) ................. ¥1.07 (37) .............. ¥59.67 (18) ............ ¥40.33 (29) 

151to250W_Outd_OtherV 6.74 (67) ................. 6.74 (67) ................. 1.48 (45) ................. ¥119.65 (24) .......... ¥97.86 (29) 

251to500W_Ind_OtherV 2.83 (47) ................. 7.95 (54) ................. 7.95 (54) ................. ¥107.74 (8) ............ 130.60 (6) 

251to500W_Outd_OtherV 6.16 (55) ................. 13.15 (62) ............... 13.15 (62) ............... ¥165.30 (19) .......... ¥187.69 (16) 

501to1000W_Ind_OtherV 1221.54 (100) ......... 1221.54 (100) ......... 1221.54 (100) ......... 1221.54 (100) ......... 1221.54 (100) 

501to1000W_Outd_

OtherV.

1631.94 (98) ........... 1631.94 (98) ........... 1631.94 (98) ........... 1631.94 (98) ........... 1631.94 (98) 

1001to2000W_Ind_

OtherV.

— ............................ — ............................ — ............................ ¥67.15 (0) .............. ¥93.06 (0) 

1001to2000W_Outd_

OtherV.

— ............................ — ............................ — ............................ ¥63.71 (0) .............. ¥88.03 (0) 

Median PBP (years) 

50to100W_Ind_OtherV 

(magnetic baseline).

1.4 ........................... 4.5 ........................... 4.5 ........................... 3.7 ........................... 6.0 

50to100W_Outd_OtherV 

(magnetic baseline).

1.4 ........................... 4.5 ........................... 4.5 ........................... 12.0 ......................... 14.7 

50to100W_Ind_OtherV 

(electronic baseline).

— ............................ — ............................ — ............................ — ............................ 31.5 

50to100W_Outd_OtherV 

(electronic baseline).

— ............................ — ............................ — ............................ — ............................ 55.8 

101to150W_Ind_OtherV‡ 4.3 ........................... 7.3 ........................... 7.3 ........................... 2.5 ........................... 4.8 

101to150W_Outd_OtherV 4.5 ........................... 8.1 ........................... 8.1 ........................... 7.5 ........................... 10.3 

151to250W_Ind_OtherV‡ 14.2 ......................... 14.2 ......................... 17.9 ......................... 113.2 ....................... 38.4 

151to250W_Outd_OtherV 17.4 ......................... 17.4 ......................... 22.8 ......................... 326.7 ....................... 135.1

251to500W_Ind_OtherV 16.2 ......................... 15.0 ......................... 15.0 ......................... 369.2 ....................... 137.2 

251to500W_Outd_OtherV 19.9 ......................... 18.4 ......................... 18.4 ......................... Never ...................... Never 

501to1000W_Ind_OtherV 0.8 ........................... 0.8 ........................... 0.8 ........................... 0.8 ........................... 0.8 

501to1000W_Outd_

OtherV.

0.8 ........................... 0.8 ........................... 0.8 ........................... 0.8 ........................... 0.8 

1001to2000W_Ind_

OtherV.

— ............................ — ............................ — ............................ 209.4 ....................... 162.7 

1001to2000W_Outd_

OtherV.

— ............................ — ............................ — ............................ 244.5 ....................... 190.0 

Employment Impacts 

Direct Employment Impacts.47—(339) ................ 62—(339) ................ 69—(339) ................ 73—(339) ................ 93—(339) 

Indirect Domestic Jobs 

√√.

135 .......................... 170 .......................... 155 .......................... 65 ............................ 80 

* INPV results are shown under the preservation of operating profit markup scenario. 

** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. Economic value of 

NOX reductions is based on estimates at $2639/ton. 

*** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

**** ‘‘Indoor’’ and ‘‘outdoor’’ as defined in section V.A.2. 

† Equipment class abbreviations in the form of 50 to100W_Ind_OtherV refers to the equipment class of fixtures with (1) a rated lamp wattage 

of 50 W to 100 W, (2) an indoor operating location, and (3) a tested input voltage other than 480 V. See section V.A.2 for more detail on equipment class distinctions. 

‡ The >100 W and ≤150 W equipment classes include 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt 

lamps that are also rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A) and contain a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007. The ≥150 W and ≤250 W equipment classes contain all other 

covered fixtures that are rated only for 150 watt lamps. √√ Changes in 2022. 

TABLE VII.50—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES

[High shipments scenario) 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

National Energy Savings (quads) ................................................ 0.39 .............. 0.49 .............. 0.50 .............. 0.88 .............. 1.03 

NPV of Customer Benefits (2012$ billion) 

3% discount rate .................................................................. 0.97 .............. 1.13 .............. 1.11 .............. (1.18) ............ (1.25) 

7% discount rate .................................................................. 0.30 .............. 0.34 .............. 0.32 .............. (0.91) ............ (1.00) 

Industry Impacts * 

Ballast + Fixture Industry NPV (2012$million) 

(Base Case Industry NPV of $453 million) .......................... 478 ............... 491 ............... 497 ............... 501 ............... 497 

Ballast + Fixture Industry NPV (change in 2012$million) ........... 25.3 .............. 38.0 .............. 44.0 .............. 48.1 .............. 44.2 

Ballast + Fixture Industry NPV (% change) ......................... 5.6% ............. 8.4% ............. 9.7% ............. 10.6% ........... 9.7% 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7834 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VII.50—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES—Continued 

[High shipments scenario) 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

CO2 (Mt) ............................................................................... 22.01 ............ 27.80 ............ 28.53 ............ 49.90 ............ 58.63 

SO2 (kt) ................................................................................ 37.40 ............ 47.25 ............ 48.49 ............ 84.80 ............ 99.72 

NOX (kt) ................................................................................ 27.72 ............ 35.02 ............ 35.93 ............ 62.85 ............ 73.86 

Hg (t) .................................................................................... 0.05 .............. 0.06 .............. 0.06 .............. 0.10 .............. 0.12 

CH4 (kt) ................................................................................ 104.80 .......... 132.40 .......... 135.87 .......... 237.66 .......... 279.39 

N2O (kt) ................................................................................ 0.47 .............. 0.60 .............. 0.61 .............. 1.07 .............. 1.26 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2012$ billion) ** ........................................................... 0.1 to 2.0 ...... 0.2 to 2.6 ...... 0.2 to 2.6 ...... 0.3 to 4.6 ...... 0.4 to 5.4 

NOX—3% discount rate (2012$ million) ** ........................... 35.0 .............. 44.2 .............. 45.4 .............. 79.4 .............. 93.1 

NOX—7% discount rate (2012$ million) ** ........................... 15.6 .............. 19.8 .............. 20.3 .............. 35.5 .............. 41.6 

Mean LCC Savings (and Percent Customers Experiencing Net 

Benefit) *** (2012$) 

50to100W_Ind_OtherV ****† (magnetic baseline) ................ 26.97 (100) .. 27.00 (100) .. 27.00 (100) .. 42.50 (82) .... 37.25 (79) 

50to100W_Outd_OtherV (magnetic baseline) ..................... 34.24 (98) .... 34.88 (97) .... 34.88 (97) .... ¥4.98 (51) ... ¥11.15 (49) 

50to100W_Ind_OtherV (electronic baseline) ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥5.25 (10) 

50to100W_Outd_OtherV (electronic baseline) ..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥6.17 (12) 

100to149W_Ind_OtherV‡ ..................................................... 22.43 (100) .. 24.63 (99) .... 24.63 (99) .... 89.67 (94) .... 76.11 (89) 

100to149W_Outd_OtherV .................................................... 27.37 (97) .... 30.70 (97) .... 30.70 (97) .... 52.23 (66) .... 36.60 (62) 

150to250W_Ind_OtherV‡ ..................................................... 4.51 (60) ...... 4.51 (60) ...... ¥1.07 (37) ... ¥59.67 (18) ¥40.33 (29) 

150to250W_Outd_OtherV .................................................... 6.74 (67) ...... 6.74 (67) ...... 1.48 (45) ...... ¥119.65 (24) ¥97.86 (29) 

251to500W_Ind_OtherV ....................................................... 2.83 (47) ...... 7.95 (54) ...... 7.95 (54) ...... ¥107.74 (8) 130.60 (6) 

251to500W_Outd_OtherV .................................................... 6.16 (55) ...... 13.15 (62) .... 13.15 (62) .... ¥165.30 (19) ¥187.69 (16) 

501to1000W_Ind_OtherV ..................................................... 1221.54 (100) 1221.54 (100) 1221.54 (100) 1221.54 (100) 1221.54 (100) 

501to1000W_Outd_OtherV .................................................. 1631.94 (98) 1631.94 (98) 1631.94 (98) 1631.94 (98) 1631.94 (98) 

1001to2000W_Ind_OtherV ................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥67.15 (0) ... ¥93.06 (0) 

1001to2000W_Outd_OtherV ................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥63.71 (0) ... ¥88.03 (0) 

Median PBP (years) 

50to100W_Ind_OtherV (magnetic baseline) ........................ 1.4 ................ 4.5 ................ 4.5 ................ 3.7 ................ 6.0 

50to100W_Outd_OtherV (magnetic baseline) ..................... 1.4 ................ 4.5 ................ 4.5 ................ 12.0 .............. 14.7 

50to100W_Ind_OtherV (electronic baseline) ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 31.5 

50to100W_Outd_OtherV (electronic baseline) ..................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 55.8 

100to149W_Ind_OtherV‡ ..................................................... 4.3 ................ 7.3 ................ 7.3 ................ 2.5 ................ 4.8 

100to149W_Outd_OtherV .................................................... 4.5 ................ 8.1 ................ 8.1 ................ 7.5 ................ 10.3 

150to25W0_Ind_OtherV‡ ..................................................... 14.2 .............. 14.2 .............. 17.9 .............. 113.2 ............ 38.4 

150to250W_Outd_OtherV .................................................... 17.4 .............. 17.4 .............. 22.8 .............. 326.7 ............ 135.1 

251to500W_Ind_OtherV ....................................................... 16.2 .............. 15.0 .............. 15.0 .............. 369.2 ............ 137.2 

251to500W_Outd_OtherV .................................................... 19.9 .............. 18.4 .............. 18.4 .............. Never ........... Never 

501to1000W_Ind_OtherV ..................................................... 0.8 ................ 0.8 ................ 0.8 ................ 0.8 ................ 0.8 

501to1000W_Outd_OtherV .................................................. 0.8 ................ 0.8 ................ 0.8 ................ 0.8 ................ 0.8 

1001to2000W_Ind_OtherV ................................................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 209.4 ............ 162.7 

1001to2000W_Outd_OtherV ................................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 244.5 ............ 190.0 

Employment Impacts 

Direct Employment Impacts ................................................. 48–(345) ....... 63–(345) ....... 70–(345) ....... 74–(345) ....... 95–(345) 

Indirect Domestic Jobs √√ .................................................... 650 ............... 945 ............... 1300 ............. 2755 ............. 2655 

* INPV results are shown under the –flat markup scenario. 

** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. Economic value of 

NOX reductions is based on estimates at $2,639/ton. 

*** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

**** ‘‘Indoor’’ and ‘‘outdoor’’ as defined in section V.A.2. 

† Equipment class abbreviations in the form of 50 to100W_Ind_OtherV refers to the equipment class of fixtures with (1) a rated lamp wattage 

of 50 W to 100 W, (2) an indoor operating location, and (3) a tested input voltage other than 480 V. See section V.A.2 for more detail on equipment class distinctions. 

‡ The >100 W and ≤150 W equipment classes include 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt 

lamps that are also rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A) and contain a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007. The ≥150 W and ≤250 W equipment classes contain all other 

covered fixtures that are rated only for 150 watt lamps. 

√√ Changes in 2022. 

1. Trial Standard Level 5 

DOE first considered the most 

efficient level, TSL 5, which would save 

an estimated total of 0.83 to 1.03 quads 

of energy for fixtures shipped in 2017 

through 2046, a significant amount of 

energy. For the nation as a whole, TSL 

5 would have net costs ranging from a 

decrease of $0.90 billion to a decrease 

of $1.0 billion at a 7-percent discount 

rate, and a decrease of $1.1 billion to a 

decrease of $1.3 billion at a 3-percent 

discount rate. The emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are estimated to be 48 to 59 

million metric tons (Mt) of CO2, 80 to 

100 kt of SO2, 60 to 74 kt of NOX, and 

0.10 to 0.12 tons of Hg. As seen in 

section VII.B.1, customers have 

available designs that result in positive 

mean LCC savings for a majority of 

customers for only five out of twelve of 

the representative equipment classes, 

ranging from $37 to $1632, at TSL 5. 

The equipment classes with positive 

mean LCC savings for a majority of 

customers at TSL 5 are indoor fixtures 

at 70 W (compared to the magnetic 70 

W baseline), 150 W, and 1000 W; and 

outdoor fixtures at 150 W and 1000 W. 

Additionally, DOE’s NPV analysis 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7835 

indicates (see Table VII.49) that most 

equipment classes experience a negative 

NPV at TSL 5. The equipment classes 

that have negative NPV at TSL 5 are 

indoor and outdoor 70 W, 250 W, 400 

W, and 1500 W fixtures. The equipment 

classes with positive NPV at TSL 5 are 

indoor and outdoor 150 W and 1000 W 

fixtures. The projected change in 

industry value for MH ballast 

manufacturers would range from an 

increase of $15.0 million to a decrease 

of $19.0 million, or a net gain of 20.3 

percent to a net loss of 28.3 percent in 

INPV. The projected change in industry 

value for MHLF manufacturers would 

range from an increase of $29.1 million 

to a decrease of $88.6 million, or a net 

gain of 7.7 percent to a net loss of 25.6 

percent in INPV. 

DOE based TSL 5 on the most 

efficient commercially available 

equipment for each representative 

equipment class analyzed. This TSL 

corresponds to a commercially available 

low-frequency electronic ballast for 

indoor and outdoor 70 W, 150 W, 250 

W, 400 W fixtures, and a modeled 

magnetic ballast in 1000 W and 1500 W. 

TSL 5 also prohibits the use of probestart ballasts in new 1000 W fixtures. 

Although TSL 5 for 150 W MHLFs 

shows positive LCC savings and NPVs, 

DOE believes uncertainty remains 

regarding the cost effectiveness of 

electronic ballasts for these customers, 

especially in outdoor applications. 

There has been virtually no market 

penetration of electronic ballasts in 

outdoor applications according to DOE’s 

shipment analysis. Further, DOE 

received comments from manufacturers 

and utilities that electronic ballasts are 

not suitable for outdoor applications 

due to their lower operating temperature 

limits, different sizes compared to 

magnetic ballasts, and susceptibility to 

transient voltage fluctuations. DOE has 

conducted significant research to 

address each one of these issues (see 

section V.C.8.b), but remains concerned 

that requiring electronic ballasts for 150 

W MHLFs could cause disproportionate 

financial hardship for these customers. 

Therefore, DOE is not adopting an 

efficiency level that requires electronic 

ballasts in this final rule. DOE will 

continue to monitor the market share of 

electronic ballasts, particularly in 

outdoor applications, and may revisit 

this decision in future rulemakings. 

After considering the analysis, the 

comments that DOE received on the 

NOPR, and the benefits and burdens of 

TSL 5, the Secretary has reached the 

following conclusion: The benefits of 

energy savings, emissions reductions 

(both in physical reductions and the 

monetized value of those reductions), 

and positive net economic savings to the 

nation for some equipment classes are 

outweighed by the negative NPV 

experienced in some equipment classes 

at both a 3-percent and 7-percent 

discount rate, the negative mean LCC 

savings experienced in most equipment 

classes, the negative mean LCC savings 

experienced by some customer 

subgroups, the potential decrease in 

INPV for manufacturers, and the 

uncertainty regarding electronic 

ballasts. Consequently, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL 5 is not 

economically justified. 

2. Trial Standard Level 4 

DOE then considered TSL 4, which 

would save an estimated total of 0.71 to 

0.88 quads of energy for fixtures 

shipped in 2017 through 2046, a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

nation as a whole, TSL 4 would have 

net costs ranging from a decrease of 

$0.81 billion to a decrease of $0.91 

billion at a 7-percent discount rate, and 

a decrease of $1.0 billion to a decrease 

of $1.2 billion at a 3-percent discount 

rate. The emissions reduction at TSL 4 

are estimated to be 41 to 50 Mt of CO2, 

68 to 85 kt of SO2, 51 to 63 kt of NOX, 

and 0.08 to 0.10 tons of Hg. As seen in 

section VII.B.1, for less than half of the 

representative equipment classes, 

customers have available designs that 

result in positive mean LCC savings for 

a majority of customers, ranging from 

$43 to $1632, at TSL 4. Additionally, 

DOE’s NPV analysis indicates (see Table 

VI.34) that less than half of the 

representative classes have a positive 

NPV at TSL 4. The projected change in 

industry value for MH ballast 

manufacturers would range from an 

increase of $9.6 million to a decrease of 

$16.2 million, or a net gain of 12.9 

percent to a net loss of 24.1 percent in 

INPV. The projected change in industry 

value for MHLF manufacturers would 

range from an increase of $38.6 million 

to a decrease of $60.4 million, or a net 

gain of 10.2 percent to a net loss of 17.5 

percent in INPV. 

TSL 4 represents the next highest EL 

for all equipment classes not justified at 

TSL 5. This TSL corresponds to a 

commercially available low-frequency 

electronic ballast in indoor and outdoor 

70 W, 150 W, 250 W, and 400 W 

fixtures; a commercially available 

magnetic ballast in indoor and outdoor 

1500 W fixtures; and a modeled 

magnetic ballast in indoor and outdoor 

1000 W fixtures. TSL 4 also prohibits 

the use of probe-start ballasts in new 

1000 W fixtures. 

Although TSL 4 for 150 W MHLFs 

shows positive LCC savings and NPVs, 

DOE believes uncertainty remains 

regarding the cost effectiveness of 

electronic ballasts for these customers, 

especially in outdoor applications. 

There has been virtually no market 

penetration of electronic ballasts in 

outdoor applications according to DOE’s 

shipment analysis. Further, DOE 

received comments from manufacturers 

and utilities that electronic ballasts are 

not suitable for outdoor applications 

due to their lower operating temperature 

limits, different sizes compared to 

magnetic ballasts, and susceptibility to 

transient voltage fluctuations. DOE has 

conducted significant research to 

address each one of these issues (see 

section V.C.8.b), but remains concerned 

that requiring electronic ballasts for 150 

W MHLFs could cause disproportionate 

financial hardship for these customers. 

Therefore, DOE is not adopting an 

efficiency level that requires electronic 

ballasts in this final rule. DOE will 

continue to monitor the market share of 

electronic ballasts, particularly in 

outdoor applications, and may revisit 

this decision in future rulemakings. 

After considering the analysis, the 

comments that DOE received on the 

NOPR, and the benefits and burdens of 

TSL 4, the Secretary has reached the 

following conclusion: At TSL 4, the 

benefits of energy savings, emissions 

reductions (both in physical reductions 

and the monetized value of those 

reductions), and positive net economic 

savings to the nation are outweighed by 

negative NPV experienced in some 

equipment classes at both 3-percent and 

7-percent discount rate, the negative 

mean LCC savings experienced in some 

equipment classes, the negative mean 

LCC savings for the utility customer 

subgroup, the potential decrease in 

INPV for manufacturers, and the 

uncertainty regarding electronic 

ballasts. Consequently, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL 4 is not 

economically justified. 

3. Trial Standard Level 3 

DOE then considered TSL 3, which 

would save an estimated total of 0.40 to 

0.50 quads of energy for fixtures 

shipped in 2017 through 2046, a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

nation as a whole, TSL 3 would have 

positive net savings of $0.27 billion to 

$0.32 billion at a 7-percent discount rate 

and $0.90 billion to $1.1 billion at a 3- 

percent discount rate. The emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 are estimated to be 

23 to 29 Mt of CO2, 39 to 48 kt of SO2, 

29 to 36 kt of NOX, and 0.05 to 0.06 tons 

of Hg. As seen in section VII.B.1, for 

most representative equipment classes, 

customers have available designs that 

result in positive mean LCC savings, 

ranging from $8 to $1632, at TSL 3. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7836 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE’s NPV analysis indicates (see Table 

VI.34) that most equipment classes have 

a positive NPV at TSL 3, though indoor 

and outdoor 250 W customers 

experience negative NPV. The projected 

change in industry value for MH ballast 

manufacturers would range from an 

increase of $0.6 million to a decrease of 

$19.0 million, or a net gain of 0.8 

percent to a net loss of 28.3 percent in 

INPV. The projected change in industry 

value for MHLF manufacturers would 

range from an increase of $43.4 million 

to a decrease of $3.6 million, or a net 

gain of 11.4 percent to a net loss of 1.1 

percent in INPV. 

TSL 3 represents the next highest EL 

for all equipment classes not justified at 

TSL 4, requiring that indoor and 

outdoor fixtures are set at the same ELs. 

This TSL corresponds to a modeled 

magnetic ballast in indoor and outdoor 

fixtures at 70 W, 150 W, 250 W, 400 W, 

and 1000 W. Indoor and outdoor 

fixtures at 1500 W would remain at 

baseline, with no new standards 

established. TSL 3 also prohibits the use 

of probe-start ballasts in new 1000 W 

fixtures. 

After considering the analysis, the 

comments that DOE received on the 

preliminary analysis, and the benefits 

and burdens of TSL 3, the Secretary has 

reached the following conclusion: At 

TSL 3, the benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and monetized value of those 

reductions), and positive net economic 

savings to the nation would be 

outweighed by the negative NPV 

experienced in the 250 W indoor and 

outdoor equipment classes at 7-percent 

discount rate and the potential decrease 

in INPV for manufacturers. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not 

economically justified. 

4. Trial Standard Level 2 

DOE then considered TSL 2, which 

would save an estimated total of 0.39 to 

0.49 quads of energy for fixtures 

shipped in 2017 through 2046, a 

significant amount of energy. For the 

nation as a whole, TSL 2 would have a 

positive net savings of $0.29 billion to 

$0.34 billion at a 7-percent discount 

rate, and $0.92 billion to $1.1 billion at 

a 3-percent discount rate. The emissions 

reductions at TSL 3 are estimated to be 

23 to 28 Mt of CO2, approximately 38 to 

47 kt of SO2, 28 to 35 kt of NOX, and 

0.05 to 0.06 tons of Hg. As seen in 

section VII.B.1, for all representative 

equipment classes, customers have 

available designs that result in positive 

mean LCC savings, ranging from $5 to 

$1,632, at TSL 2. DOE’s NPV analysis 

indicates (see Table VI.34) that each 

equipment class has a positive NPV at 

TSL 2. The projected change in industry 

value for MH ballast manufacturers 

would range from a decrease of $0.4 

million to a decrease of $17.9 million, 

or a net loss from 0.5 percent to 26.7 

percent in INPV. The projected change 

in industry value for MHLF 

manufacturers would range from an 

increase of $38.3 million to a decrease 

of $3.6 million, or a net gain of 10.1 

percent to net loss of 1.0 percent in 

INPV. 

TSL 2 represents the highest magnetic 

ELs with a positive NPV, where the 

same ELs are required for indoor and 

outdoor fixtures. This TSL corresponds 

to a modeled magnetic ballast in 70 W, 

150 W, 400 W, and 1000 W; and a 

commercially available magnetic ballast 

in 250 W. Indoor and outdoor fixtures 

at 1500 W would remain at baseline, 

with no new standards set. TSL 2 also 

prohibits the use of probe-start ballasts 

in new 1000 W fixtures. 

After considering the analysis, the 

comments that DOE received on the 

NOPR, and the benefits and burdens of 

TSL 2, the Secretary has reached the 

following conclusion: TSL 2 offers the 

maximum improvement in efficiency 

that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

The benefits of energy savings, 

emissions reductions (both in physical 

reductions and the monetized value of 

those reductions), positive net economic 

savings (NPV) at discount rates of 3- 

percent and 7-percent at each 

representative equipment class would 

outweigh the potential reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers. Therefore, DOE 

today adopts energy conservation 

standards for metal halide lamp fixtures 

at TSL 2. 

D. Final Standard Equations 

As detailed in section VII.C of this 

notice, DOE is adopting TSL 2. TSL 2 

sets an EL2 standard for indoor and 

outdoor metal halide fixtures for 50 W– 

150 W and 251 W–1000 W, and an EL1 

standard for indoor and outdoor metal 

halide fixtures for 151 W–250 W. This 

creates a discontinuous combination of 

equations both above and below the 151 

W–250 W equipment class. The 

discontinuity at 150 W occurs because 

fixtures below 150 W do not have to 

comply with EISA 2007, while those at 

150 W and above are required to meet 

the 88 percent standard of EISA 2007. 

However, the discontinuity at 250 W 

occurs because TSL 2 represents EL1 

from 151 W–250 W, but EL2 from 251 

W–500 W. To maintain continuity, DOE 

developed new equations from 151 W– 

500 W. First, from 151 W–200 W, DOE 

maintained a flat 88 percent 

requirement. Then, from 201 W–500 W, 

DOE used one continuous power-law 

equation. Based on written comments 

from NEMA, lamps in this wattage range 

follow the same trend between lamp 

current squared (an indicator of ballast 

losses) and lamp wattage. (NEMA, No. 

56 at p. 15) This implies that one 

equation can be used to represent the 

efficiency of all ballasts in this wattage 

range. The equation was created by 

connecting the 200 W ballasts with 

0.880 efficiency with the 500 W EL2 

efficiency (0.910) to ensure continuity 

with the EL equations for adjacent 

wattage ranges. The 250 W EL1 and 400 

W EL2 representative units comply with 

the new equation. The resulting TSL 2 

equations are shown in Table VII.51 

below. 

TABLE VII.51—TSL EQUATION

Wattage range Efficiency level EL equation TSL equation 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............... EL2 ............................ 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) † ............................ 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>100 W and <150 W * .......... EL2 ............................ 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) .............................. 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ......... EL1 ............................ ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 0.88 ......................... ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 0.88 

>200 W and ≤250 W: 0.000400×P + 0.800 >200 W and ≤250 W: 1/

(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>250 W and ≤500 W ............ EL2 ............................ 0.910 ........................................................... 1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>500 W and ≤1000 W .......... EL2 ............................ >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910 ....................... >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7837 

68This wattage range contains those fixtures that 

are rated only for 150 W lamps that are also rated 

for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 

70–2002, section 410.4(A); and contain a ballast 

that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures 

above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029–2007. 

TABLE VII.51—TSL EQUATION—Continued 

Wattage range Efficiency level EL equation TSL equation 

>750 W and ≤1000 W: ...............................

0.000104×P + 0.832 ...................................

>750 W and ≤1000 W: 

0.000104×P + 0.832 

* Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

** Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

† P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the MHLF is designed to operate. 

DOE also created a continuous TSL 

equation for the non-representative 

equipment classes. As discussed in 

section V.C.11, the scaling factor to 

equipment classes tested at 480 V from 

equipment classes tested at all other 

voltages is 0.020 from 50 W–150 W and 

0.010 from 151 W–1000 W. DOE applied 

these scaling factors to develop 

equations for non-representative 

equipment classes, with the exception 

of the 151 W–250 W and 251 W–500 W 

equipment classes. For wattages from 

201 W–264 W, the scaled equation 

would be below 0.880. As detailed in 

section VII.E, DOE cannot adopt a 

standard below 0.880 for fixtures 

covered by EISA 2007. Thus the scaled 

TSL equation was adjusted to be 0.880 

from 201–264 W, and the scaled 

equation is calculated as described 

previously at 265 W and above. The 

scaled TSL equation is shown in Table 

VII.52 below. 

TABLE VII.52—TSL EQUATION

Wattage range Efficiency level TSL equation† 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ........................ EL2 ............................ (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) ¥ 0.0200) 

>100 W and <150 W * ................... EL2 ............................ (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) ¥ 0.0200) 

≥150 W ** and ≤250 W .................. EL1 ............................ 0.880 

>250 W and ≤500 W ...................... EL2 ............................ >250 W and <265 W: 0.880 

≥265 W and ≤500 W: (1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) ¥ 0.0100 

>500 W and ≤1000 W .................... EL2 ............................ >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.900 

>750 W and ≤1000 W: 0.000104×P + 0.822 

* Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

** Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

† P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the MHLF is designed to operate. 

E. Backsliding 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

notice, EPCA contains what is 

commonly known as an ‘‘antibacksliding’’ 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)) DOE evaluated 

amended standards in terms of ballast 

efficiency, which is the same metric that 

is currently used in energy conservation 

standards. Therefore, DOE compared the 

existing standards directly to the 

amended standards to confirm that they 

do not constitute backsliding. 

The existing standards for ballast 

efficiency for MHLFs, established by 

EISA 2007, mandated that ballasts rated 

at wattages 150 W–500 W operate at a 

minimum of 88 percent efficiency if 

pulse-start, 94 percent if probe-start 

magnetic, 90 percent if non-pulse-start 

electronic 150 W–250 W, and 92 percent 

if non-pulse-start electronic 251 W–500 

W. These standards excluded fixtures 

with regulated-lag ballasts, fixtures that 

use 480 V electronic ballasts, and 

fixtures that (1) are only rated for use 

with 150 W lamps; (2) are rated for use 

in wet locations; and (3) contain a 

ballast that is rated to operate above 50 

°C. This rulemaking adopts standards 

for fixtures with ballasts rated at 50 W– 

1000 W, retains the exemptions for 

fixtures with regulated-lag ballasts or 

480 V electronic ballasts, and removes 

the exemption for 150 W fixtures used 

in wet locations with ballasts rated that 

operate above 50 °C. 

The Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council (NPCC) 

commented that because certain 150 W 

fixtures were exempt from EISA 2007, 

backsliding should not be a concern in 

this category. (NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 48 at pp. 112–114) DOE 

agrees with NPCC’s assertion that 

backsliding is not an issue for 150 W 

fixtures rated for use with 150 W lamps, 

rated for wet locations, and rated to 

operate at temperatures greater than 50 

°C. These exempted fixtures, along with 

fixtures that fall within wattage ranges 

that do not have existing federal energy 

conservation standards, cannot violate 

the backsliding provision as no standard 

currently exists. 

As presented in the following table, 

DOE’s adopted efficiency standards do 

not qualify as backsliding. In the 50 W– 

150 W68 range, there are no existing 

federal efficiency standards. Thus, the 

standards set by DOE in this rulemaking 

for this wattage range are not 

backsliding, as they are prescribing a 

standard where there previously was 

not one. As stated previously, the 150 W 

ballasts currently exempted by EISA 

2007 (those only rated for use with 150 

W lamps, rated for wet locations, and 

rated to operate at temperatures greater 

than 50 °C) are not covered by any 

existing federal energy conservation 

standards, so the standards set for such 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7838 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

69This wattage range contains all covered fixtures 

that are rated only for 150 W lamps that are not also 

rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the 

NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and do not also 

contain a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient 

air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 

1029–2007. 

ballasts are likewise not subject to 

backsliding. Similarly, in the 500 W– 

1000 W range, there are no existing 

federal energy conservation standards, 

so standards adopted in this rulemaking 

for that wattage range do not backslide. 

Finally, for the 150 W69 ¥500 W range 

(not including the exempt 150 W 

fixtures), EISA 2007 prescribes the 

current standards. DOE is amending the 

standards for fixtures in this wattage 

range. The adopted standard changes 

with wattage, but always requires 

ballasts in new fixtures to be at least 88 

percent efficient (88 percent efficiency 

for pulse-start ballasts is the least 

stringent of the various EISA 2007 

requirements). If DOE’s plotted 

efficiency level was lower than the 

standard prescribed by EISA 2007 for 

any ballast types or wattages (e.g., 94 

percent efficiency requirement for 

probe-start ballasts), then the EISA 2007 

standard was given precedence and has 

been incorporated into today’s rule 

without amendment, thus preventing 

any potential backsliding. 

On the basis of this section, the 

standards adopted in this final rule are 

either higher than the existing 

standards, primarily because they set 

standards for previously unregulated 

fixtures, or match existing standards 

because if the EISA 2007 standards were 

higher than the efficiency levels 

calculated by DOE, then the EISA 2007 

standard is retained. As such, the 

adopted standards do not decrease the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

the covered equipment and, therefore, 

do not violate the anti-backsliding 

provision in EPCA. 

TABLE VII.53—EXISTING FEDERAL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ADOPTED IN THIS FINAL RULE

Designed to be operated 

with lamps of the 

following rated 

lamp wattage 

Indoor/ 

outdoor*** 

Test input 

voltage‡ 

Existing standards 

(efficiency) 

Adopted efficiency 

standards/equations† 

% 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ........... Indoor ............... 480 V .......... N/A ........................................................ (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.020 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ........... Indoor ............... All others .... N/A ........................................................ 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ........... Outdoor ............ 480 V .......... N/A ........................................................ (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.020 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ........... Outdoor ............ All others .... N/A ........................................................ 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>100 W and <150 W* ........ Indoor ............... 480 V .......... N/A ........................................................ (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.020 

>100 W and <150 W* ........ Indoor ............... All others .... N/A ........................................................ 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>100 W and <150 W* ........ Outdoor ............ 480 V .......... N/A ........................................................ (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.020 

>100 W and <150 W* ........ Outdoor ............ All others .... N/A ........................................................ 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

≥150 W** and ≤250 W ...... Indoor ............... 480 V .......... Varies from 88% to 94% depending on 

ballast type.

0.880 

≥150 W** and ≤250 W ...... Indoor ............... All others .... Varies from 88% to 94% depending on 

ballast type.

For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 0.880 

For >200 W and ≤250 W: 1/ 

(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) 

≥150 W** and ≤250 W ...... Outdoor ............ 480 V .......... Varies from 88% to 94% depending on 

ballast type.

0.880 

≥150 W** and ≤250 W ...... Outdoor ............ All others .... Varies from 88% to 94% depending on 

ballast type.

For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 0.880 

For >200 W and ≤250 W: 1/ 

(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>250 W and ≤500 W ......... Indoor ............... 480 V .......... Varies from 88% to 94% depending on 

ballast type.

For >250 W and <265 W: 0.880 

For ≥265 W and ≤500 W;: (1/ 

(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351))—0.010 

>250 W and ≤500 W ......... Indoor ............... All others .... Varies from 88% to 94% depending on 

ballast type.

1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>250 W and ≤500 W ......... Outdoor ............ 480 V .......... Varies from 88% to 94% depending on 

ballast type.

For >250 W and <265 W: 0.880 

For ≥265 W and ≤500 W;: (1/ 

(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) ¥ 0.010 

>250 W and ≤500 W ......... Outdoor ............ All others .... Varies from 88% to 94% depending on 

ballast type.

1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ....... Indoor ............... 480 V .......... N/A ........................................................ For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.900 For 

>750 W and ≤1000 W: 

0.000104×P+0.822 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ....... Indoor ............... All others .... N/A ........................................................ For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910 

For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 

0.000104×P+0.832 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ....... Outdoor ............ 480 V .......... N/A ........................................................ For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.900 

For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 

0.000104×P+0.822 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ....... Outdoor ............ All others .... N/A ........................................................ For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7839 

TABLE VII.53—EXISTING FEDERAL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ADOPTED IN THIS FINAL RULE— 

Continued 

Designed to be operated 

with lamps of the 

following rated 

lamp wattage 

Indoor/ 

outdoor*** 

Test input 

voltage‡ 

Existing standards 

(efficiency) 

Adopted efficiency 

standards/equations† 

% 

For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 

0.000104×P+0.832 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast 

*Includes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by 

the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by 

UL 1029–2007. 

**Excludes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified 

by the NFPA 70–2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified 

by UL 1029–2007. 

***DOE’s definitions for ‘‘indoor’’ and ‘‘outdoor’’ MHLFs are described in section V.A.2. 

†P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate. 

‡Input voltage for testing would be specified by the test procedures. Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W would be tested at 120 

V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps ≥150 W would be tested at 277 V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages would be 

tested at the highest voltage the ballast is designed to operate. 

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: 

There are external benefits resulting 

from improved energy efficiency of 

MHLFs 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 emissions of greenhouse 

gases. DOE attempts to quantify some of 

the external benefits through use of SCC 

values. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

requires that DOE prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule 

and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget 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 

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, OIRA 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 believes 

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. 

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 byE.O. 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site (http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel). DOE 

reviewed the August 2013 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 a result of this review, DOE has 

prepared a FRFA for MHLFs and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7840 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

ballasts, a copy of which DOE will 

transmit to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). As presented and 

discussed below, the FRFA describes 

impacts on small MHLF and ballast 

manufacturers and discusses 

alternatives that could minimize these 

impacts. 

A statement of the reasons for 

establishing the standards in today’s 

final rule, and the objectives of and legal 

basis for these standards, are set forth 

elsewhere in the preamble and not 

repeated here. 

This FRFA incorporates the IRFA and 

public comments DOE 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 standards 

and elsewhere in the preamble. DOE 

modified the standards adopted in 

today’s final rule in response to 

comments received as described in the 

preamble. 

1. Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

a. Methodology for Estimating the 

Number of Small Entities 

For manufacturers of MHLFs and 

ballasts, the SBA has set a size threshold 

which defines those entities classified 

as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes 

of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 2000), as 

amended at 65 FR 53533, 53545 (Sept. 

5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 

121. The size standards are listed by 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at http:// 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. MH 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. MHLF 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 335122, ‘‘Commercial, 

Industrial, and Institutional Electric 

Lighting Fixture Manufacturing.’’ The 

SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees 

or less for an entity to be considered as 

a small business for this category. 

In the NOPR, DOE identified five 

small businesses that produce MH 

ballasts sold in the United States and 

can be considered small business 

manufacturers. For MHLFs, DOE 

identified approximately 54 small 

businesses that produce MHLFs sold in 

the United States and can be considered 

small business manufacturers. DOE did 

not receive any comments to suggest 

these estimates should be altered for the 

FRFA. 

b. Manufacturer Participation 

As stated in the August 2013 NOPR, 

DOE attempted to contact the small 

business manufacturers of MHLFs and 

ballasts it had identified. One small MH 

ballast manufacturer and two small 

MHLF manufacturers consented to 

being interviewed. DOE also obtained 

information about small business 

impacts while interviewing large 

manufacturers. 

c. Metal Halide Ballast and Fixture 

Industry Structure 

Ballasts. Five major MH ballast 

manufacturers with limited domestic 

production supply the vast majority of 

the MH ballast market. None of the five 

major manufacturers is a small business. 

The remaining market share is held by 

a few smaller domestic companies, only 

one of which has significant market 

share. Nearly all MH ballast production 

occurs abroad. 

Fixtures. The majority of the MHLF 

market is supplied by six major 

manufacturers with sizeable domestic 

production. None of these major 

manufacturers is a small business. The 

remaining market share is held by 

several smaller domestic and foreign 

manufacturers. Most of the small 

domestic manufacturers produce 

MHLFs in the United States. Although 

none of the small businesses holds a 

significant market share individually, 

collectively these small businesses 

account for approximately a third of the 

market. See chapter 3 of this final rule 

TSD for further details on the MHLF 

and ballast markets. 

d. Comparison Between Large and Small 

Entities 

Ballasts. The five large MH ballast 

manufacturers typically offer a much 

wider range of designs of MH ballasts 

than small manufacturers do. MH 

ballasts can vary by start method, input 

voltage, wattage, and design. Often large 

MH ballast manufacturers will offer 

several different ballast options for each 

lamp wattage. Small manufacturers 

generally specialize in manufacturing 

only a handful of different ballast types 

and do not have the volume to support 

as wide a range of products as large 

manufacturers do. Three of the five 

small MH ballast manufacturers 

specialize in high-efficiency electronic 

ballasts and do not offer any magnetic 

ballasts. Some small MH ballast 

manufacturers offer a wide variety of 

lighting products, but others focus 

exclusively on MH ballasts. 

Fixtures. The six large MHLF 

manufacturers typically serve largescale commercial lighting markets, 

while small MHLF manufacturers tend 

to operate in niche lighting markets 

such as architectural and designer 

lighting. Small MHLF manufacturers 

also frequently fill custom orders that 

are much smaller in volume than large 

MHLF manufacturers’ typical orders are. 

Because small MHLF manufacturers 

typically offer specialized products and 

cater to individual customers’ needs, 

they can command higher markups than 

most large MHLF manufacturers. Like 

large MH ballast manufacturers, large 

MHLF manufacturers offer a wider 

range of MHLFs than small MHLF 

manufacturers. A small MHLF 

manufacturer may offer fewer than 50 

models, while a large MHLF 

manufacturer may typically offer several 

hundred models. Almost all small 

MHLF manufacturers offer a variety of 

lighting products in addition to those 

covered by this rulemaking, such as 

fluorescent, incandescent, and LED 

fixtures. 

2. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

Ballasts. Because three of the five 

small MH ballast manufacturers offer 

only electronic ballasts that already 

meet the standards at TSL 2, the level 

established in today’s final rule, DOE 

does not expect any product or capital 

conversion costs for these small MH 

ballast manufacturers. The fourth small 

MH ballast manufacturer offers a wide 

range of magnetic and electronic 

ballasts, so DOE does not expect this 

manufacturer’s conversion costs to 

differ significantly from those of the 

large manufacturers. The fifth small 

ballast manufacturer currently offers a 

large variety of lighting products, but 

only two models of MH ballasts. 

Because it would likely invest in other 

parts of its business, this manufacturer 

stated to DOE that this rulemaking is 

unlikely to significantly affect them. 

Fixtures. As previously stated, DOE 

identified approximately 54 small 

MHLF businesses affected by this 

rulemaking. Based on interviews with 

two of these manufacturers and 

examinations of product offerings on 

company Web sites, DOE believes that 

approximately one-fourth of these small 

businesses will not face any conversion 

costs because they offer very few MHLF 

models and would, therefore, focus on 

more substantial areas of their business. 

Of the remaining small businesses DOE 

identified, nearly two-thirds primarily 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7841 

serve the architectural or specialty 

lighting markets. Because these 

products command higher prices and 

margins compared to the typical 

products offered by a large 

manufacturer, DOE believes that these 

small MHLF manufacturers will be able 

to pass on any necessary conversion 

costs to their customers without 

significantly impacting their businesses. 

Philips commented that they believe 

small MHLF manufacturers might not be 

able to pass cost increases due to 

standards, because in the architectural 

and specialty lighting areas, LEDs are 

becoming extremely cost competitive. 

(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

48 at p. 289) Based on small business 

fixture manufacturer interviews, DOE 

believes that many of the architectural 

and specialty lighting fixtures are 

custom made orders and the conversion 

costs for these MHLFs would likely be 

small. While DOE does acknowledge 

that the MH ballasts used in these 

MHLFs could increase in price, which 

would result in a higher priced MHLF 

for customers, these small fixture 

manufacturers stated they also 

manufacture and sell LED fixtures to 

meet any customer’s needs. 

The remaining small MHLF 

manufacturers (roughly 14 in number) 

could be differentially impacted by 

today’s established standards. These 

manufacturers operate partially in 

industrial and commoditized markets in 

which it may be more difficult to pass 

on any disproportionate costs to their 

customers. The impacts could be 

relatively greater for a typical small 

MHLF manufacturer because of the far 

lower production volumes and the 

relatively fixed nature of the R&D and 

capital resources required per fixture 

family. 

Based on interviews, however, DOE 

anticipates that small manufacturers 

would take steps to mitigate the costs 

required to meet new and amended 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

believes that under the established 

standards, small MHLF businesses 

would likely selectively upgrade 

existing product lines to offer 

equipment that is in high demand or 

offers a strategic advantage for that 

company. Small manufacturers could 

then spread out further investments 

over a longer time period by not 

upgrading all product lines prior to the 

compliance date. 

Additionally, DOE does not expect 

that small MHLF manufacturers would 

be significantly burdened by 

compliance requirements. As discussed 

in section IV.A, the standards adopted 

in this final rule provide simplifying 

amendments to the current testing and 

reporting procedures. DOE is only 

mandating testing at a single input 

voltage for MHLFs Because DOE 

selected the least burdensome input 

voltage option, DOE concludes that 

regulations in this final rule would not 

have a significantly adverse impact on 

the testing burden of small 

manufacturers. 

The existing test procedures already 

dictate that testing for certification 

requires a sample of at least four MHLFs 

for compliance. DOE is not proposing to 

change this minimum sample size, and 

as such, does not find an increased 

testing burden on small manufacturers. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

suggesting new and amended energy 

conservation standards would 

significantly impact small MHLF and 

ballast manufacturers. 

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being established 

today. 

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

Section VII.B.2 analyzes impacts on 

small businesses that would result from 

DOE’s adopted rule. In addition to the 

other TSLs being considered, the final 

rule TSD includes an RIA. For MHLFs, 

the RIA discusses the following policy 

alternatives: (1) No new regulatory 

action; (2) consumer tax incentives; (3) 

manufacturer tax incentives; (4) 

performance standards; (5) consumer 

rebates; (6) manufacturer rebates; (7) 

voluntary energy efficiency targets; (8) 

early replacement; and (9) bulk 

government purchases. While these 

alternatives may mitigate to some 

varying extent the economic impacts on 

small entities compared to the 

standards, DOE determined that the 

energy savings of these alternatives are 

significantly smaller than those that 

would be expected to result from the 

adopted standard levels. Accordingly, 

DOE is declining to adopt any of these 

alternatives and is adopting the 

standards set forth in this rulemaking. 

(See chapter 18 of the final rule TSD for 

further detail on the policy alternatives 

DOE considered.) 

As previously stated, DOE did not 

receive any comments suggesting new 

and amended energy conservation 

standards would significantly impact 

small MHLF and ballast manufacturers. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of MHLFs must certify 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with any applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to DOE test 

procedures for MHLFs, 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 

MHLFs. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 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 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that the rule 

fits within the category of actions 

included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) 

B5.1 and otherwise meets the 

requirements for application of a CX. 

See 10 CFR Part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 

1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)–(5). 

The rule fits within the category of 

actions because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, and for which 

none of the exceptions identified in CX 

B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made 

a CX determination for this rulemaking, 

and DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this rule. DOE’s CX determination for 

this rule is available at http://

cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7842 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the states and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

state and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA 

governs and prescribes federal 

preemption of state regulations as to 

energy conservation for the equipment 

that is 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 and 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://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

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 MHLFs manufacturers 

in the years between the final rule and 

the compliance date for the new 

standards, and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by customers to 

purchase higher-efficiency MHLFs, 

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, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise, or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(hh), and (o), 6317(a), 

today’s final rule would establish energy 

conservation standards for MHLFs 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 7843 

today’s final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

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 

MHLFs, 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 (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions. 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

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 not 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 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 

2014. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 431.322 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order definitions 

for ‘‘general lighting application’’ ‘‘highfrequency electronic metal halide 

ballast,’’ and ‘‘nonpulse-start electronic 

ballast,’’ to read as follows: 

§ 431.322 Definitions concerning metal 

halide ballasts and fixtures. 

* * * * * 

General lighting application means 

lighting that provides an interior or 

exterior area with overall illumination. 

High-frequency electronic metal 

halide ballast means an electronic 

ballast that operates a lamp at an output 

frequency of 1000 Hz or greater. 

* * * * * 

Nonpulse-start electronic ballast 

means an electronic ballast with a 

starting method other than pulse-start. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 431.324 is amended by 

adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and revising 

paragraphs (b)(3) and (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.324 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency and 

standby mode energy consumption of metal 

halide ballasts. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Input Voltage for Tests. For 

ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 

less than 150 W that have 120 V as an 

available input voltage, testing shall be 

performed at 120 V. For ballasts 

designed to operate lamps rated less 

than 150 W that do not have 120 V as 

an available voltage, testing shall be 

performed at the highest available input 

voltage. For ballasts designed to operate 

lamps rated greater than or equal to 150 

W that have 277 V as an available input 

voltage, testing shall be conducted at 

277 V. For ballasts designed to operate 

lamps rated greater than or equal to 150 

W that do not have 277 V as an available 

input voltage, testing shall be conducted 

at the highest available input voltage. 

* * * * * 

(3) Efficiency Calculation. The 

measured lamp output power shall be 

divided by the measured ballast input 

power to determine the percent 

efficiency of the ballast under test to 

three significant figures. 

(i) A fractional number at or above the 

midpoint between two consecutive 

decimal places shall be rounded up to 

the higher of the two decimal places; or 

(ii) A fractional number below the 

midpoint between two consecutive 

decimal places shall be rounded down 

to the lower of the two decimal places. 

(c) * * * 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2
7844 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Test Conditions. (i) The power 

supply and ballast test conditions with 

the exception of input voltage shall all 

conform to the requirements specified 

in section 4.0, ‘‘General Conditions for 

Electrical Performance Tests,’’ of the 

ANSI C82.6 (incorporated by reference; 

see § 431.323). Ambient temperatures 

for the testing period shall be 

maintained at 25 °C ± 5 °C. Send a 

signal to the ballast instructing it to 

have zero light output using the 

appropriate ballast communication 

protocol or system for the ballast being 

tested. 

(ii) Input Voltage for Tests. For 

ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 

less than 150 W that have 120 V as an 

available input voltage, ballasts are to be 

tested at 120 V. For ballasts designed to 

operate lamps rated less than 150 W that 

do not have 120 V as an available 

voltage, ballasts are to be tested at the 

highest available input voltage. For 

ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 

greater than or equal to 150 W that have 

277 V as an available input voltage, 

ballasts are to be tested at 277 V. For 

ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 

greater than or equal to 150 W that do 

not have 277 V as an available input 

voltage, ballasts are to be tested at the 

highest available input voltage. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 431.326 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.326 Energy conservation standards 

and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(c) Except when the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section are more 

stringent (i.e., require a larger minimum 

efficiency value) or as provided by 

paragraph (e) of this section, each metal 

halide lamp fixture manufactured on or 

after February 10, 2017, must contain a 

metal halide ballast with an efficiency 

not less than the value determined from 

the appropriate equation in the 

following table: 

Designed to be 

operated with lamps of the following 

rated lamp wattage 

Tested input 

voltage‡‡ 

Minimum standard equation†† 

% 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................... Tested at 480 V ........ (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.020†† 

≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................... All others ................... 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>100 W and <150† W .......................... Tested at 480 V ........ (1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351))) ¥ 0.020 

>100 W and <150† W .......................... All others ................... 1/(1+1.24×P∧(¥0.351)) 

≥150 ‡ W and ≤250 W .......................... Tested at 480 V ........ 0.880 

≥150 ‡ W and ≤250 W .......................... All others ................... For ≥150 W and ≤200 W: 0.880 

For >200 W and ≤250 W: 1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>250 W and ≤500 W ............................. Tested at 480 V ........ For >250 and <265 W: 0.880 

For ≥265 W and ≤500 W: (1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) ¥ 0.010 

>250 W and ≤500 W ............................. All others ................... 1/(1+0.876×P∧(¥0.351)) 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ........................... Tested at 480 V ........ For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.900 

For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 0.000104×P+0.822 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast 

>500 W and ≤1000 W ........................... All others ................... For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.910 

For >750 W and ≤1000 W: 0.000104×P+0.832 

For >500 W and ≤1000 W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast 

† Includes 150 W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.323), section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate 

at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, as specified by UL 1029 (incorporated by reference, see § 431.323). 

‡Excludes 150 W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 °C, 

as specified by UL 1029. 

†† P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate. 

‡‡ Tested input voltage is specified in 10 CFR 431.324. 

(d) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section, metal halide lamp 

fixtures manufactured on or after 

February 10, 2017, that operate lamps 

with rated wattage >500 W to ≤1000 W 

must not contain a probe-start metal 

halide ballast. 

(e) The standards described in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section do 

not apply to— 

(1) Metal halide lamp fixtures with 

regulated-lag ballasts; 

(2) Metal halide lamp fixtures that use 

electronic ballasts that operate at 480 

volts; and 

(3) Metal halide lamp fixtures that use 

high-frequency electronic ballasts. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02356 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES2