Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures, 58763-58794 [2021-23183]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58763
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 86, No. 203
Monday, October 25, 2021
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0016]
RIN 1904–AD89
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Metal
Halide Lamp Fixtures
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), 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
periodically determine whether morestringent, standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result
in significant energy savings. In this
final determination, DOE has
determined that the energy conservation
standards for MHLFs do not need to be
amended because they are not
economically justified.
DATES: The effective date of this final
determination is November 24, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
standards.aspx?productid=14. The
docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Office, EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1943. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
2002. Email: Kathryn.McIntosh@
hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
MHLFs
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and
Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to
Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related
Comments
A. Overall
B. Market and Technology Assessment
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Test Procedure
3. Equipment Classes
4. Technology Options
5. Screening Analysis
a. Screened-Out Technologies
b. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Representative Equipment Classes
2. Baseline Ballasts
3. More-Efficient Ballasts
4. Efficiency Levels
5. Scaling to Other Equipment Classes
6. Manufacturer Selling Price
D. Markups Analysis
1. Distribution Channels
2. Estimation of Markups
3. Summary of Markups
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Replacement Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. National Energy Savings
2. Net Present Value Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Customers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
C. Final Determination
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
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. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58764
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
Title III, Part
of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),2 established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291–6309) These products
include metal halide lamp fixtures
(‘‘MHLFs’’), the subject of this final
determination.
EPCA established initial standards for
MHLFs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(A))
EPCA directed the U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to conduct a review of
the statutory standards to determine
whether they should be amended, and
a subsequent review to determine if the
standards then in effect should be
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2) and
(3)) DOE conducted the first review of
MHLF energy conservation standards
and published a final rule amending
standards on February 10, 2014. 79 FR
7746.3 DOE is issuing this final
determination pursuant to the EPCA
requirement that DOE conduct a second
review of MHLF energy conservation
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A))
DOE analyzed MHLFs subject to
standards specified in 10 CFR
431.326(c). DOE first analyzed the
technological feasibility of more
efficient MHLFs. For those MHLFs for
which DOE determined higher
standards to be technologically feasible,
DOE estimated energy savings that
could result from potential energy
conservation standards by conducting a
national impacts analysis (‘‘NIA’’). DOE
evaluated whether higher standards
would be cost effective by conducting
life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback
period (‘‘PBP’’) analyses, and estimated
the net present value (‘‘NPV’’) of the
total costs and benefits experienced by
consumers.
Based on the results of these analyses,
summarized in section V of this
document, DOE has determined that
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
B1
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020).
3 DOE notes that because of the codification of the
MHLF provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295, MHLF energy
conservation standards and the associated test
procedures are subject to the requirements of the
consumer products provisions of Part B of Title III
of EPCA. However, because MHLFs are generally
considered to be commercial equipment, DOE
established the requirements for MHLFs in 10 CFR
part 431 (‘‘Energy Efficiency Program for Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment’’) for ease of
reference. DOE notes that the location of the
provisions within the CFR does not affect either the
substance or applicable procedure for MHLFs.
Based upon their placement into 10 CFR part 431,
MHLFs are referred to as ‘‘equipment’’ throughout
this document, although covered by the consumer
product provisions of EPCA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
current standards for metal halide lamp
fixtures do not need to be amended
because more stringent standards would
not be cost-effective (and by extension,
would not be economically justified).
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as
well as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for MHLFs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of
EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles.
These products include MHLFs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(19)) EPCA, as amended by the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–140, EISA 2007),
prescribed energy conservation
standards for this equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(1)) EPCA directed DOE to
conduct two rulemaking cycles to
determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A) and
(3)(A)) DOE published a final rule
amending the standards on February 10,
2014 (‘‘2014 MHLF final rule’’). 79 FR
7746. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A),
the agency must conduct a second
review to determine whether current
standards should be amended and
publish a final rule. This second MHLF
standards rulemaking was initiated on
July 1, 2019 through the publication of
a request for information (‘‘RFI’’)
document in the Federal Register. 84 FR
31232 (‘‘July 2019 RFI’’). On August 5,
2020, DOE published a notice of
proposed determination (‘‘NOPD’’)
regarding energy conservation standards
for MHLFs. 85 FR 47472 (‘‘August 2020
NOPD’’).
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption in
limited instances for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C.
6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and
conditions, DOE is required to develop
test procedures to measure the energy
efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of each covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of
covered products must use the
prescribed DOE test procedure as the
basis for certifying to DOE that their
products comply with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted
under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding
the energy use or efficiency of those
products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and
6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the products comply with standards
adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for
MHLF appear at 10 CFR 431.324.
In making a determination that the
standards do not need to be amended,
DOE must evaluate under the criteria of
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) whether amended
standards (1) will result in significant
conservation of energy, (2) are
technologically feasible, and (3) are cost
effective as described under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an
evaluation of cost effectiveness requires
DOE to consider savings in operating
costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered product in the type
(or class) compared to any increase in
the price of, or in the initial charges for,
or maintenance expenses of, the covered
products which are likely to result from
the imposition of the standard.
DOE is publishing this document to
satisfy EPCA’s requirement under 42
U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A) to complete a
second rulemaking for MHLFs and to
satisfy the 6-year lookback provision at
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1).
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE
prescribed the current energy
conservation standards for MHLFs
manufactured on or after February 10,
2017. 79 FR 7746. These standards are
set forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR
431.326 and are specified in Table II.1.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
58765
TABLE II.1—CURRENT ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MHLFS
Designed to be operated with lamps of the following
rated lamp wattage
Tested input
voltage *
Minimum standard equation *
(%)
≥50W and ≤100W ........................................................
≥50W and ≤100W ........................................................
>100W and <150W † ...................................................
>100W and <150W † ...................................................
≥150W ‡ and ≤250W ...................................................
≥150W ‡ and ≤250W ...................................................
480 V .....................
All others ................
480 V .....................
All others ................
480 V .....................
All others ................
>250W and ≤500W .....................................................
480 V .....................
>250W and ≤500W .....................................................
>500W and ≤1,000W ..................................................
All others ................
480 V .....................
>500W and ≤1,000W ..................................................
All others ................
(1 / (1 + 1.24 × P∧(¥0.351)))¥0.020.**
1 / (1 + 1.24 × P∧(¥0.351)).
(1 / (1 + 1.24 × P∧(¥0.351)))¥0.020.
1 / (1 + 1.24 × P∧(¥0.351)).
0.880.
For ≥150W and ≤200W: 0.880.
For >200W and ≤250W: 1 / (1 + 0.876 × P∧(¥0.351)).
For >250W and <265W: 0.880.
For ≥265W and ≤500W: (1 / (1 + 0.876 × P∧(¥0.351)))¥0.010.
1 / (1 + 0.876 × P∧(¥0.351)).
>500W and ≤750W: 0.900.
>750W and ≤1,000W: 0.000104 × P + 0.822.
For >500W and ≤1,000W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast.
For >500W and ≤750W: 0.910.
For >750W and ≤1,000W: 0.000104 × P + 0.832.
For >500W and ≤1,000W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast.
* 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.
† Includes 150 watt (‘‘W’’) fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only for 150W lamps; rated for use
in wet locations, as specified by the National Fire Protection Association (‘‘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 Underwriters Laboratory (‘‘UL’’) 1029.
‡ Excludes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only for 150W 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.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
MHLFs
As described in section II.A, EPCA, as
amended by Public Law 110–140, EISA
2007, prescribed energy conservation
standards for MHLFs. (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(1)) EPCA directed DOE to
conduct two rulemaking cycles to
determine whether to amend these
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A) and
(3)(A)) DOE completed the first of these
rulemaking cycles in 2014 by adopting
amended performance standards for
MHLFs manufactured on or after
February 10, 2017. 79 FR 7746. The
current energy conservation standards
are located in 10 CFR part 431. See 10
CFR 431.326 (detailing the applicable
energy conservation standards for
different classes of MHLFs). The
currently applicable DOE test
procedures for MHLFs appear at 10 CFR
431.324. Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(3)(A), the agency is instructed
to conduct a second review of its energy
conservation standards for MHLFs and
publish a final rule to determine
whether to amend those standards. DOE
initiated the second MHLF standards
rulemaking by publishing the July 2019
RFI and subsequently, DOE published
the August 2020 NOPD to support this
rulemaking requirement. 84 FR 31232;
85 FR 47472.
DOE received five comments in
response to the August 2020 NOPD from
the interested parties listed in Table II.2
TABLE II.2—AUGUST 2020 NOPD WRITTEN COMMENTS
Reference in
this final
determination
Commenter(s)
National Electrical Manufacturers Association * .....................................................................................
Signify .....................................................................................................................................................
California Investor-Owned Utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric Company [PG&E], San Diego Gas and
Electric [SDG&E], and Southern California Edison [SCE]).
Anonymous .............................................................................................................................................
Commenter type
NEMA ....................
Signify ....................
CA IOUs ................
Trade Association.
Manufacturer.
Utility Association.
Anonymous ............
Private Citizen.
* Submitted two separate comments.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.4
4 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop energy conservation
standards for MHLFs. (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–
STD–0016–0007, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID
number at page of that document).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this final
determination after considering oral and
written comments, data, and
information from interested parties that
represent a variety of interests.
A. Product Classes and Scope of
Coverage
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product
classes by the type of energy used or by
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
capacity or other performance-related
features that justify differing standards.
In making a determination whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider
such factors as the utility of the feature
to the consumer and other factors DOE
determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)) This final determination covers
metal halide lamp fixtures defined as
light fixtures for general lighting
application designed to be operated
with a metal halide lamp and a ballast
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58766
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C.
6291(64); 10 CFR 431.322. The scope of
coverage is discussed in further detail in
section IV.B.1 of this document.
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable
criteria and procedures for DOE’s
adoption and amendment of test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must
use these test procedures to certify to
DOE that their product complies with
energy conservation standards and to
quantify the efficiency of their product.
DOE’s current energy conservation
standards for MHLFs are expressed in
terms of the efficiency of the ballast
contained within the fixture. (10 CFR
431.326)
DOE established an active mode and
standby mode power test method for
MHLFs in a final rule published on
March 9, 2010. 75 FR 10950. The
current test procedure for MHLFs
appears in 10 CFR 431.324 and specifies
the ballast efficiency calculation as
lamp output power divided by the
ballast input power. DOE has since
published an RFI to initiate a data
collection process to consider whether
to amend DOE’s test procedure for
MHLFs. 83 FR 24680 (May 30, 2018).
On July 14, 2021, DOE published a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend
DOE’s test procedures for MHLFs (‘‘July
2021 NOPR’’). 86 FR 37069.
C. Technological Feasibility
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
1. General
In each energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening
analysis based on information gathered
on all current technology options and
prototype designs that could improve
the efficiency of the products or
equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an
analysis, DOE develops a list of
technology options for consideration in
consultation with manufacturers, design
engineers, and other interested parties.
DOE then determines which of those
means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. Section 6(c)(1)
of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix
A (the ‘‘Process Rule’’). DOE considers
technologies incorporated in
commercially available products or in
working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. Sections
6(c)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that
particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further
evaluates each technology option in
light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) Practicability to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
manufacture, install, and service; (2)
adverse impacts on product utility or
availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety and (4) unique-pathway
proprietary technologies. Sections
6(c)(3)(ii)–(v) and 7(b)(2)–(5) of the
Process Rule. Additionally, it is DOE
policy not to include in its analysis any
proprietary technology that is a unique
pathway to achieving a certain
efficiency level (‘‘EL’’). Section IV.B.5 of
this document 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 standards
considered in this rulemaking. For
further details on the screening analysis
for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the
final determination technical support
document (‘‘TSD’’).5
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible
Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an
amended standard for a type or class of
covered product, it must determine the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in
energy use that is technologically
feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE determined
the maximum technologically feasible
(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy
efficiency for MHLFs using the design
parameters for the most efficient
products available on the market or in
working prototypes. The max-tech
levels that DOE determined for this
rulemaking are described in section
IV.C.4 and in chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’),
DOE projected energy savings from
application of the TSL to MHLFs
purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the first full year of
compliance with the potential standards
(2025–2054).6 The savings are measured
over the entire lifetime of MHLFs
purchased in the 30-year analysis
period. DOE quantified the energy
savings attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of
energy consumption that reflects how
5 The final determination technical support
document for this notice can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-;2017-BT-STD0016.
6 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that
considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year
period.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the market for a product would likely
evolve in the absence of energy
conservation standards.
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models
to estimate national energy savings
(‘‘NES’’) from potential amended
standards for MHLFs. The NIA
spreadsheet model (described in section
V.B.2 of this document) calculates
energy savings in terms of site energy,
which is the energy directly consumed
by products at the locations where they
are used. For electricity, DOE reports
national energy savings in terms of
primary energy savings, which is the
savings in the energy that is used to
generate and transmit the site
electricity. For natural gas, the primary
energy savings are considered to be
equal to the site energy savings. DOE
also calculates NES in terms of full-fuelcycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy savings. The FFC
metric includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting
primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and thus presents a
more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.7 DOE’s
approach is based on the calculation of
an FFC multiplier for each of the energy
types used by covered products or
equipment. For more information on
FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1
of this document.
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended
standards for a covered MHLFs, DOE
must determine that such action would
result in significant energy savings. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term
‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the
EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Natural
Resources Defense Council v.
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C.
Cir. 1985), opined that Congress
intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in
the context of EPCA to be savings that
were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’
Historically, DOE did not provide
specific guidance or a numerical
threshold for determining what
constitutes significant conservation of
energy. Instead, DOE determined on a
case-by-case basis whether a particular
rulemaking would result in significant
conservation of energy. In a final rule
published February 14, 2020, DOE
adopted a numerical threshold for
significant conservation of energy. 85
FR 8626, 8670. Specifically, the
threshold requires that an energy
conservation standard result in a 0.30
7 The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s statement
of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR
51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
quad reduction in site energy use over
a 30-year analysis period or a 10-percent
reduction in site energy use over that
same period. Id.
E. 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)(I)–(VII)) The following
sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in
this final determination.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
and Consumers
In determining the impacts of
potential amended standards on
manufacturers, DOE conducts a
manufacturer impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’).
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. The industrywide impacts analyzed include (1)
industry net present value, which
values the industry on the basis of
expected future cash flows; (2) cash
flows by year; (3) changes in revenue
and income; and (4) 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 consumers, measures
of economic impact include the changes
in LCC and PBP associated with new or
amended standards. These measures are
discussed further in the following
section. For consumers in the aggregate,
DOE also calculates the national net
present value of the consumer costs and
benefits expected to result from
particular standards. DOE also evaluates
the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately
by a standard.
As discussed further in section V.C of
this document, DOE has concluded
amended standards for MHLFs would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
not be cost-effective (and by extension,
would not be economically justified) for
the potential standard levels evaluated
based on the PBP and LCC analysis.
Therefore, DOE did not conduct an MIA
analysis or LCC subgroup analysis for
this final determination.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared
To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the
savings in operating costs throughout
the estimated average life of the covered
product in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered product that
are likely to result from a 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 a product (including its
installation) and the operating cost
(including energy, maintenance, and
repair expenditures) discounted over
the lifetime of the product. The LCC
analysis requires a variety of inputs,
such as product prices, product energy
consumption, energy prices,
maintenance and repair costs, product
lifetime, and discount rates appropriate
for consumers. To account for
uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and
discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of
values, with probabilities attached to
each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the
change in annual operating cost for the
year that standards are assumed to take
effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE
assumes that consumers will purchase
the covered products in the first year of
compliance with new or amended
standards. The LCC savings for the
considered efficiency levels are
calculated relative to the case that
reflects projected market trends in the
absence of new or amended standards.
DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is
discussed in further detail in section
IV.F.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of
energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy
conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic
justification of a standard, to consider
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58767
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 IV.H, DOE uses
the NIA spreadsheet models to project
national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of
Products
In establishing product classes, and in
evaluating design options and the
impact of potential standard levels, DOE
evaluates potential standards that would
not lessen the utility or performance of
the considered products. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards
analyzed in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the
products under consideration in this
rulemaking. DOE also determined that
analyzed standards would not result in
the unavailability performance
characteristics of products under
consideration that are generally
available at the time of this rulemaking.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
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 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)) Because DOE is
not amending standards for MHLFs,
DOE did not transmit a copy of its
proposed determination to the Attorney
General.
f. Need for National Energy
Conservation
DOE also considers the need for
national energy and water conservation
in determining whether a new or
amended standard is economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))
The energy savings from the adopted
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 maintains that environmental
and public health benefits associated
with the more efficient use of energy are
important to take into account when
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58768
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
considering the need for national energy
conservation. Because DOE has
concluded that amended standards for
MHLFs would not be economically
justified, DOE did not conduct a utility
impact analysis or emissions analysis
for this final determination.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy
conservation standard is economically
justified, DOE may consider any other
factors that the Secretary deems to be
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
To the extent DOE identifies any
relevant information regarding
economic justification that does not fit
into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such
information under ‘‘other factors.’’
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
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
consumer of a product 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
consumers. 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 consumers, 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 rebuttable
presumption payback calculation is
discussed in section IV.F.9 of this final
determination.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of
Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses
DOE has performed for this rulemaking
with regards to MHLFs. Separate
subsections address each component of
DOE’s analyses and respond to
comments received.
DOE used several analytical tools to
estimate the impact of the standards
considered in this document. The first
tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
LCC savings and PBP of potential
amended or new energy conservation
standards. The national impacts
analysis uses a second spreadsheet set
that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and
net present value of total consumer
costs and savings expected to result
from potential energy conservation
standards. These spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this
rulemaking: www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
standards.aspx?productid=14.
A. Overall
DOE received several comments
regarding its tentative conclusion in the
August 2020 NOPD to not amend
standards for MHLFs. NEMA agreed
with DOE’s proposed determination
stating that the industry would not be
able to recover investments in new
standards for MHLFs based on the
continued decline of shipments (80
percent reduction in MHLF shipments
from 2008 through 2018). (NEMA, No.
12 at p. 2) Additionally, NEMA stated
that due to the rapidly declining market,
attaining significant energy savings in a
reasonable time did not seem possible.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 4) Signify agreed
with DOE’s proposed determination that
standards for MHLFs do not need to be
amended. However, Signify stated that
it supported standards for metal halide
(‘‘MH’’) ballasts designed to operate
lamps with wattages between >1,000 W
and ≤2,000 W as such standards would
incentivize a rational use of energy for
high power MH lamp luminaire
applications. (Signify, No. 13 at pp. 2,
12)
A private citizen also agreed with
DOE’s proposed determination, stating
that shipments have declined over 90
percent in the last 10–15 years and will
continue to do so. The citizen also
stated that MH lamps are not used in
new buildings or new outdoor lighting.
The citizen recommended DOE not have
to repeat this analysis in three years
unless shipment increased by at least
some ‘‘X’’ percent during that time.
(Anonymous, No. 10, p. 1)
When expressing concerns regarding
max-tech levels proposed in the August
2020 NOPD, NEMA recommended DOE
publish a supplemental notice to the
August 2020 NOPD rather than a final
rule to avoid risking future challenges.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3) (See section
IV.C.4 for the discussion of NEMA’s
comment regarding max-tech levels.)
Additionally, in response to a separate
rule requesting comment regarding
rulemaking prioritizations, NEMA
stated that if DOE were to quickly verify
the decline in sale and no notable
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
energy saving opportunities for MHLFs,
a negative determination could be made
and allow DOE resources to be applied
elsewhere with more significant energy
savings. (NEMA, No. 15 8 at p. 4)
The CA IOUs stated that DOE’s
analysis was incomplete and that it
should consider revising its shipments
and cost data. The CA IOUs urged DOE
to refrain from issuing a final
determination until the adjustments to
the data have been made and shared
with stakeholders. (CA IOUs, No. 14,
pp. 2–3) (See section IV.C.6 for
discussion of the CA IOU’s comments
on prices and section IV.G for
shipments.)
Concerns raised in comments
received on the August 2020 NOPD are
addressed in this document and do not
result in major changes to the analysis.
Hence, DOE is not publishing
supplemental notice to the August 2020
NOPD. In this final determination DOE
is not amending current standards for
MHLFs because more stringent
standards would not be cost-effective
(and by extension, would not be
economically justified). DOE made this
determination by conducting an
analysis of covered MHLFs including
those containing MH ballasts designed
to operate lamps with wattages between
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W. As noted in
section II.A, DOE is completing this
final determination as directed by EPCA
to conduct a secondary rulemaking for
MHLFs.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE conducted a market and
technology assessment in support of this
final determination. DOE develops
information in the market and
technology assessment that provides an
overall picture of the market for the
products concerned, including the
purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market
characteristics, and technologies used in
the products. This activity includes both
quantitative and qualitative
assessments, based primarily on
publicly-available information. The
subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this
rulemaking include (1) a determination
of the scope of the rulemaking and
product classes, (2) manufacturers and
8 This comment was received in response to a
Request for Comment on the prioritization of
rulemakings pursuant to the Department’s updated
and modernized rulemaking methodology titled,
‘‘Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial
Equipment’’ (Process Rule), Docket ID: EERE–2020–
BT–STD–004, available at www.regulations.gov/
document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0004-0001.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
industry structure, (3) existing
efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry
trends, and (6) technologies or design
options that could improve the energy
efficiency of MHLFs. The key findings
of DOE’s market assessment are
summarized in the following sections.
See chapter 3 of the final determination
TSD for further discussion of the market
and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
MHLF is defined as a light fixture for
general lighting application designed to
be operated with a metal halide lamp
and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. 42
U.S.C. 6291(64); 10 CFR 431.322. Any
equipment meeting the definition of
MHLF is included in DOE’s scope of
coverage, though all equipment within
the scope of coverage may not be subject
to standards.
Signify stated that it appreciated the
clarification in the August 2020 NOPD
that DOE has does not have authority to
evaluate amended standards for metal
halide ballasts sold outside of MHLFs as
this is a frequent question asked by its
customers. (Signify, No. 13 at p. 13)
2. Test Procedure
The current test procedure for MHLFs
appears in 10 CFR 431.324 and specifies
the ballast efficiency calculation as
lamp output power divided by the
ballast input power. With regards to the
max-tech levels in the August 2020
NOPD, Signify questioned the
certification data for any ballast
operating a MH lamp at a frequency
higher than 400 hertz (‘‘Hz’’). Signify
stated that the current DOE test
procedure references ANSI C82.6–
2015(R2020) 9 which excludes from
scope ballasts that operate at higher
than 400 Hz for high-intensity discharge
(‘‘HID’’) lamps. Therefore, energy
efficiencies for ballasts operating at
frequencies higher than 400 Hz may
have been reported to DOE in error.
Signify explained that a test setup
specific to high-frequency ballasts is
needed as these ballasts are more
susceptible to high-frequency parasitic
elements among wires and means of
interconnections and require the
appropriate power supply impedance to
prevent the injection of high-frequency
voltage components. Hence, Signify
suggested that DOE not adopt the maxtech efficiency levels for electronic
ballasts until the test method is
amended to include accurate
measurements of high-frequency
electronic MH lamp ballasts. (Signify,
No. 13 at pp. 9–10)
The 2015 version and the
2015(R2020) 10 version of ANSI C82.6
do state that their procedures apply to
low-frequency ballasts (i.e., ballasts that
operate at less than 400 Hz). DOE’s
current test procedure for MHLFs
references the 2005 version of ANSI
C82.6 which does not explicitly exclude
certain ballasts. In 2017, ANSI
published ANSI C82.17–2017, ‘‘High
Frequency (HF) Electronic Ballasts for
Metal Halide Lamps,’’ which addressed
HF electronic metal halide ballasts with
sinusoidal lamp operating current
frequencies above 40 kilohertz. ANSI
C82.17–2017 also states in section 5.1
that ‘‘all measurements necessary to
determine compliance with the ballast
performance requirements of this
58769
standard shall be made in accordance
with ANSI C82.6.’’ In the July 2021
NOPR DOE tentatively determined that
based on its initial review, the
specifications, and instructions in ANSI
C82.6 cover the necessary methodology,
while being general enough to be used
as a guide for taking measurements for
HF electronic ballasts. 86 FR 37069,
37078.
3. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into
product classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other
performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
In making a determination whether
capacity or another performance-related
feature justifies a different standard,
DOE must consider such factors as the
utility of the feature to the consumer
and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. (Id.)
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE
reviewed metal halide lamp fixtures and
the ballasts contained within them to
identify performance-related features
that could potentially justify a separate
equipment class. DOE proposed to
maintain the current equipment classes
which are based on input voltage, rated
lamp wattage, and designation for
indoor versus outdoor application. 85
FR 47472, 47482–47483. DOE received
no comments on this topic and
maintains the current equipment classes
in this final determination.
The equipment classes considered in
this final determination are shown in
Table IV.1.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
TABLE IV.1—EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Designed to be operated with lamps of the following rated lamp wattage
Indoor/outdoor
≥50 W and ≤100 W .................................................................................................
≥50 W and ≤100 W .................................................................................................
≥50 W and ≤100 W .................................................................................................
≥50 W and ≤100 W .................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W * ............................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W * ............................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W * ............................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W * ............................................................................................
≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ...........................................................................................
≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ...........................................................................................
≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ...........................................................................................
≥150 W ** and ≤250 W ...........................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ...............................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ...............................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ...............................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ...............................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ............................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ............................................................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Indoor .....................................................
9 American National Standards Institute.
American National Standard for Lamp ballasts—
Ballasts for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps—
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
Methods of Measurement. Approved March 20,
2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Input voltage type ‡
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
Tested at 480
All others.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
10 There are no differences between the
2015(R2020) and 2015 versions of ANSI C82.6. The
2015(R2020) version is reaffirmation of the 2015
version.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58770
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.1—EQUIPMENT CLASSES—Continued
Designed to be operated with lamps of the following rated lamp wattage
Indoor/outdoor
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ............................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ............................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W .........................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W .........................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W .........................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W .........................................................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Indoor .....................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Outdoor ..................................................
Input voltage type ‡
Tested at 480 V.
All others.
Tested at 480 V.
All others.
Tested at 480 V.
All others.
* Includes 150 W MHLFs initially 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 initially 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.
‡ 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.
4. Technology Options
In the technology assessment, DOE
identifies technology options that would
be expected to improve the efficiency of
MHLFs, as measured by the DOE test
procedure. The energy conservation
standard requirements and DOE test
procedure for MHLFs are based on the
efficiency of the MH ballast contained
within the fixture. Hence DOE
identified technology options that
would improve the efficiency of MH
ballasts. To develop a list of technology
options, DOE reviewed manufacturer
catalogs, recent trade publications and
technical journals, and consulted with
technical experts.
A complete list of technology options
DOE considered in the August 2020
NOPD appears in Table IV.2. 85 FR
47472, 47484. DOE did not receive
comments on technology options
considered in the August 2020 NOPD
and therefore continues to consider
them in this final determination. See
chapter 3 of final determination TSD for
further information.
TABLE IV.2—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Ballast type
Design option
Description
Magnetic ............
Improved Core Steel:
Grain-Oriented Silicon Steel ............
Amorphous Steel ..............................
Improved Steel Laminations ....................
Copper Wiring .........................................
Improved Windings ..................................
Electronic ...........
Electronic Ballast .....................................
Improved Components:
Magnetics .........................................
Diodes ..............................................
Capacitors ........................................
Transistors ........................................
Improved Circuit Design:
Integrated Circuits ............................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening
criteria to determine which technology
options are suitable for further
consideration in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in working
prototypes will not be considered
further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production and reliable
installation and servicing of a
technology in commercial products
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
Use a higher grade of electrical steel, including grain-oriented silicon steel, to
lower core losses.
Create the core of the inductor from laminated sheets of amorphous steel insulated from each other.
Add steel laminations to lower core losses by using thinner laminations.
Use copper wiring in place of aluminum wiring to lower resistive losses.
Use of optimized-gauge copper wire; multiple, smaller coils; shape-optimized coils
to reduce winding losses.
Replace magnetic ballasts with electronic ballasts.
Improved Windings: Use of optimized-gauge copper wire; multiple, smaller coils;
shape-optimized coils; litz wire to reduce winding losses.
Use diodes with lower losses.
Use capacitors with a lower effective series resistance and output capacitance.
Use transistors with lower drain-to-source resistance.
Substitute discrete components with an integrated circuit.
could not be achieved on the scale
necessary to serve the relevant market at
the time of the projected compliance
date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered
further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or
product availability. If it is determined
that a technology would have significant
adverse impact on the utility of the
product to significant subgroups of
consumers or would result in the
unavailability of any covered product
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States
at the time, it will not be considered
further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or
safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant
adverse impacts on health or safety, it
will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary
Technologies. If a design option utilizes
proprietary technology that represents a
unique pathway to achieving a given
efficiency level, that technology will not
be considered further due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of the
Process Rule.
In sum, if DOE determines that a
technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more
of the listed five criteria, it will be
excluded from further consideration in
the engineering analysis. The reasons
for eliminating any technology are
discussed in the following sections.
DOE evaluated of each the technology
options against the screening analysis
criteria and determined whether it
should be excluded (‘‘screened out’’)
based on the screening criteria. DOE did
not receive comments on technology
options screened out in the August 2020
NOPD and therefore screened out the
same technology options in this final
determination.
a. Screened-Out Technologies
For magnetic ballasts, DOE screened
out the technology option of using
laminated sheets of amorphous steel.
DOE determined that 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. 85 FR 47472, 47484.
b. Remaining Technologies
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
DOE concludes that all of the other
identified technologies listed in section
IV.B.4 met all five screening criteria to
be examined further as design options
in DOE’s final determination. In
summary, DOE did not screen out the
following technology options:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
b Magnetic Ballasts
Æ Improved Core Steel
Æ Copper Wiring
Æ Improved Steel Laminations
Æ Improved Windings
Æ Electronic Ballast
b Electronic Ballasts
Æ Improved Components
Æ Improved Circuit Design
85 FR 47472, 47485.
DOE determined that these
technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or
have previously been used in
commercially-available products or
working prototypes. DOE also finds that
all of the remaining technology options
meet the other screening criteria (i.e.,
practicable to manufacture, install, and
service; do not result in adverse impacts
on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety; and do not
utilize proprietary technology). For
additional details, see chapter 4 of the
final determination TSD.
C. Engineering Analysis
In the engineering analysis, DOE
develops cost-efficiency relationships
characterizing the incremental costs of
achieving increased ballast efficiency.
This relationship serves as the basis for
cost-benefit calculations for individual
consumers and the nation. The
methodology for the engineering
analysis consists of the following steps:
(1) Selecting representative equipment
classes; (2) selecting baseline metal
halide ballasts; (3) identifying more
efficient substitutes; (4) developing
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58771
efficiency levels; and (5) scaling
efficiency levels to non-representative
equipment classes. The details of the
engineering analysis are discussed in
chapter 5 of the final determination
TSD.
1. Representative Equipment Classes
DOE selects certain equipment classes
as ‘‘representative’’ to focus its analysis.
DOE chooses equipment classes as
representative primarily because of their
high market volumes and/or unique
characteristics. DOE established 24
equipment classes based on input
voltage, rated lamp wattage, and indoor/
outdoor designation. DOE did not
directly analyze the equipment classes
containing only fixtures with ballasts
tested at 480 V due to low shipment
volumes. DOE selected all other
equipment classes as representative,
resulting in a total of 12 representative
classes covering the full range of lamp
wattages, as well as indoor and outdoor
designations. 76 FR 47472, 47485–
47486.
In the August 2020 NOPD DOE
directly analyzed the equipment classes
shown in gray in Table IV.3 of this
document. 76 FR 47472, 47485–47486.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the representative product classes
presented in the August 2020 NOPD.
Therefore, DOE continues to analyze the
representative product classes shown in
gray in Table IV.3 in this final
determination.
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
Metal halide lamp fixtures are
designed to be operated with lamps of
certain rated lamp wattages and contain
ballasts that can operate lamps at these
wattages. To further focus the analysis,
DOE selected a representative rated
wattage in each equipment class. Each
representative wattage was the most
common wattage within each
equipment class. In the August 2020
NOPD DOE found that common
wattages within each equipment class
were the same for outdoor and indoor
fixtures. Specifically, DOE selected
70 W, 150 W, 250 W, 400 W, 1,000 W
and 1,500 W as representative wattages
to analyze. 85 FR 47472, 47486–47487.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
DOE did not receive any comments on
the representative wattages presented in
the August 2020 NOPD and therefore
continues to analyze the same
representative wattages in this final
determination. The representative
wattages for each equipment class are
summarized in Table IV.4 of this
document. See chapter 5 of this final
determination TSD for further details.
PO 00000
TABLE IV.4—REPRESENTATIVE
WATTAGES
Representative equipment
class
≥50 W and ≤100 W ............
>100 W and <150 W * ........
≥150 W and ≤250 W ** .......
>250 W and ≤500 W ..........
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .......
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ....
Representative
wattage
(W)
70
150
250
400
1,000
1,500
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially 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.
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
ER25OC21.007</GPH>
58772
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially 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.
2. Baseline Ballasts
For each representative equipment
class, DOE selected baseline ballasts to
serve as reference points against which
DOE measured changes from potential
amended energy conservation
standards. Typically, the baseline
ballast is the most common, least
efficient ballast that meets existing
energy conservation standards.
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE
selected as baselines the least efficient
ballasts meeting standards that have
common attributes for ballasts in each
equipment class such as circuit type,
input voltage and ballast type. DOE
used the efficiency values of ballasts
contained in MHLFs certified in DOE’s
compliance certification database to
identify baseline ballasts for all
equipment classes except the >1,000 W
and ≤2,000 W equipment class. Because
fixtures in this equipment class are not
58773
currently subject to standards, and
therefore do not have DOE certification
data, DOE determined baseline ballast
efficiency values by using catalog data.
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE
directly analyzed the baseline ballasts
shown in Table IV.5 of this document.
85 FR 47472, 47487. DOE did not
receive any comments on the baseline
ballasts identified in the August 2020
NOPD and therefore continues to
analyze the same baseline ballasts in
this final determination. See chapter 5
of this final determination TSD for
further details.
TABLE IV.5—BASELINE BALLASTS
Representative equipment class
Wattage
≥50 W and ≤100 W ............................
>100 W and <150 W * ........................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ** .......................
>250 W and ≤500 W ..........................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .......................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ....................
Ballast type
70
150
250
400
1,000
1,500
Magnetic
Magnetic
Magnetic
Magnetic
Magnetic
Magnetic
Circuit type
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
Starting method
HX–HPF ...........
HX–HPF ...........
CWA .................
CWA .................
CWA .................
CWA .................
Pulse
Pulse
Pulse
Pulse
Pulse
Probe
Input voltage
................
................
................
................
................
................
Quad
Quad
Quad
Quad
Quad
Quad
................
................
................
................
................
................
System input
power
89.5
182.0
281.5
443.0
1,068.4
1,625.0
Ballast
efficiency
0.782
0.824
0.888
0.903
0.936
0.923
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially 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 initially 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.
3. More-Efficient Ballasts
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE
selected more-efficient ballasts as
replacements for each of the baseline
ballasts by considering commercially
available ballasts. DOE selected moreefficient ballasts with similar attributes
as the baseline ballast when possible
(e.g., circuit type, input voltage). As
with the baseline ballasts, DOE used the
ballast efficiency values from the
compliance certification database to
identify more efficient ballasts for all
equipment classes except for the >1,000
W and ≤2,000 W equipment class which
does not have certification data
available. For this equipment class, DOE
determined ballast efficiency values by
first gathering and analyzing catalog
data. DOE then tested the ballasts to
verify the ballast efficiency reported by
the manufacturer. For instances where
the catalog data did not align with the
tested data, DOE selected more-efficient
ballasts based on the tested ballast
efficiency. 85 FR 47472, 47487.
DOE did not receive any comments on
the more-efficient ballasts selected in
the August 2020 NOPD and therefore
continues to analyze the same moreefficient ballasts in this final
determination. In the August 2020
NOPD and chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD
there were typos in some characteristics
specified for the more-efficient ballasts.
The system input power for the 70 W EL
2 representative unit stated as 0.814 in
the August 2020 NOPD and TSD and
should have been specified as 81.4. The
system input power for the 250 W EL 1
representative unit stated as 276.5 in the
August 2020 NOPD and TSD should
have been 278.7. The system input
power for the 1,500 W EL 1
representative unit stated as 1,000 W,
Pulse start, with a system input power
of 1063.8 and ballast efficiency of 0.94
in the August 2020 NOPD should have
been a 1,500 W, Probe start with system
input of 1,600.9 and ballast efficiency of
0.937. These typos have been corrected
in this document and chapter 5 of this
final determination TSD. The
characteristics of the more-efficient
representative units are summarized in
Tables IV.6 through IV.11 of this
document. See chapter 5 of this final
determination TSD for further details.
TABLE IV.6—70 W REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Equipment class
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..........................
EL
EL1
EL2
EL3
Technology
Rated wattage
Starting method
Input voltage
70
70
70
Pulse ................
Pulse ................
Pulse ................
Tri .....................
Quad ................
Quad ................
More Efficient Magnetic
Standard Electronic ......
Electronic Max-tech ......
System
input power
88.3
81.4
77.7
Ballast
efficiency
0.793
0.860
0.901
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
TABLE IV.7—150 W REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Equipment class
>100 W and <150 W * ......................
EL
EL1
EL2
EL3
Technology
Rated wattage
Starting method
Input voltage
150
150
150
Pulse ................
Pulse ................
Pulse ................
Quad ................
Quad ................
Quad ................
More Efficient Magnetic
Standard Electronic ......
Electronic Max-tech ......
System
input power
178.6
166.7
162.2
Ballast
efficiency
0.84
0.9
0.925
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58774
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.8—250 W REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Equipment class
≥150 W and ≤250 W * ......................
EL
EL1
EL2
Technology
Rated wattage
Starting method
Input voltage
250
250
Pulse ................
Pulse ................
Quad ................
Tri .....................
More Efficient Magnetic
Electronic Max Tech .....
System
input power
278.7
266.2
Ballast
efficiency
0.904
0.939
* Excludes 150 W fixtures initially 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.
TABLE IV.9—400 W REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Equipment class
>250 W and ≤500 W ........................
EL
EL1
EL2
Technology
Rated wattage
Starting method
Input voltage
400
400
Pulse ................
Pulse ................
Quad ................
Tri .....................
More Efficient Magnetic
Electronic Max Tech .....
System
input power
440.5
426.0
Ballast
efficiency
0.908
0.939
TABLE IV.10—1000 W REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Equipment class
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .....................
EL
EL1
Technology
Rated wattage
Starting method
Input voltage
1000
Pulse ................
Quad ................
More Efficient Magnetic
System
input power
1063.8
Ballast
efficiency
0.94
TABLE IV.11—1500 W REPRESENTATIVE UNITS
Equipment Class
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ..................
EL
EL1
Technology
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Based on the more-efficient ballasts
selected for analysis, DOE develops ELs
for the representative equipment
classes. DOE defines a ‘‘max-tech’’
efficiency level to represent the
maximum possible efficiency for a given
product.
In the August 2020 NOPD DOE
identified one magnetic EL in every
equipment class. The more-efficient
magnetic EL represents a magnetic
ballast with a higher grade of steel
compared to the baseline. DOE
identified a second EL (an electronic EL)
for the ≥150 W and ≤250 W and >250
W and ≤500 W equipment classes. The
standard electronic level represents a
ballast with standard electronic
circuitry. DOE identified a third EL (a
more efficient electronic EL) in the ≥50
W and ≤ 100 W and >100 W and <150
W equipment classes. The moreefficient electronic EL represents an
electronic ballast with an improved
circuit design and/or more efficient
components compared to the standard
electronic level. 85 FR 47472, 47487–
47488.
DOE received several comments
regarding the ELs proposed in the
August 2020 NOPD.
NEMA stated that DOE had not
adequately explained the basis for
changing efficiency equations from the
previous rulemaking. NEMA stated that
the modifications to the equations
resulted in efficiency levels inconsistent
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
Starting Method
Input Voltage
1500
Probe ................
Quad ................
More Efficient Magnetic
4. Efficiency Levels
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Rated Wattage
with DOE’s intent. (NEMA, No. 12 at p.
2)
Current MHLF standards specify
power-law equations for ballasts
operating lamps with rated wattages ≥50
W and ≤500 W and linear equations for
ballasts operating lamps with rated
wattages >500 W and ≤1,000 W. Using
MHLF efficiency data DOE determined
that the current equation forms remain
valid. DOE modified only the
coefficients and exponents of the
equations to best fit the MHLF
efficiency data while forming one
continuous equation across equipment
classes, where possible. In this final
determination, DOE maintains the
equations put forth in the August 2020
NOPD but makes minor adjustments,
detailed in the paragraphs below, to the
proposed coefficients and exponents to
allow the most efficient products to
meet max tech.
For the ≥50 W and ≤100 W equipment
class tested at voltages other than 480 V
NEMA stated that EL 1 and EL 2
appeared feasible but would require
stretching the technological capability.
NEMA stated that EL 3 for this
equipment class may be achievable but
would require physical size changes
that would render the product
incompatible with the existing fixture
form factor. NEMA stated DOE should
modify EL 1 and EL 2 according to
current product capabilities and
eliminate EL 3 for this equipment class.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Signify stated
that for the ballasts in the ≥50 W and
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
System
input power
1600.9
Ballast
efficiency
0.937
≤100 W tested at voltages other than 480
V equipment class the minimum
efficiency requirement would increase
by 0.10 at the proposed EL 3. This
would require a ballast to operate a 70
W lamp at an efficiency higher than
0.90. Signify stated that a 0.90 ballast
efficiency requirement would be higher
than DOE’s current efficiency
requirement for an external power
supply, a device that is simpler with
less stages than an electronic ballast.
Signify stated it is difficult to explain
how a ballast with the same power as an
external power supply would have a
higher efficiency and still preserve the
necessary form factor. (Signify, No. 13 at
pp. 8–10)
DOE identified ballasts in DOE’s
compliance certification database that
are in the ≥50 W and ≤100 W tested at
voltages other than 480 V equipment
class and meet the proposed EL 3 for
this equipment class. These ballasts
included models that operate 70 W
lamps. Because there are products that
meet the max tech level, DOE is not
adjusting ELs proposed for this
equipment class in this final
determination.
For the >100 W and <150 W
equipment classes for all voltages,
NEMA stated that EL 3 was
unrealistically high for ballasts tested at
480 V (88.9 percent versus the current
82 percent requirement) and as high as
90.9 percent for ballasts tested at
voltages other than 480 V. NEMA stated
that based on its review of DOE’s
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
compliance certification database only
four products 11 between 140 W and 150
W currently met this level of efficiency.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2)
DOE identified ballasts in DOE’s
compliance certification database that
are in the >100 W and <150 W tested
at voltages other than 480 V equipment
class and meet the proposed EL 3 for
this equipment class. Because there are
products that meet the max tech level,
DOE is not adjusting ELs proposed for
this equipment class in this final
determination. However, DOE is
adjusting the ELs for the >100 W and
<150 W tested at 480 V equipment class
(see section IV.C.5 for further details) in
this final determination.
NEMA stated that for the ≥150 W and
≤250 W equipment classes for all
voltages the proposed ELs for 150 to 200
W are close to those in the previous
rulemaking and therefore, already
screened for technological feasibility.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3) DOE ensured
that all ELs analyzed represent
commercially available products and
therefore, are technologically feasible.
NEMA stated that the proposed EL 1
for ballasts operating lamps between
200 W to 250 W appears slightly lower
than the current standards, which is not
permissible and should be amended.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
DOE reviewed all ELs developed for
this analysis to ensure that they are
equal to or more stringent to the existing
minimum MHLF ballast efficiency
standard (i.e., that backsliding is not
occurring). For EL 1 for the ≥150 W and
≤250 W equipment class tested at
voltages other than 480 V, DOE is
modifying the equation to ensure no
backsliding occurs across the entire
wattage range. Specifically, in this final
determination DOE is modifying the
exponent in the equation from 1/
(1+0.5017*P∧(¥0.26)) to 1/
(1+0.507*P∧(¥0.263)).
NEMA also stated that for ballasts
operating lamps between 200 W and 250
W, EL 2 appears technologically
feasible. Additionally, NEMA stated that
based on its review of DOE’s
compliance certification database only
two products operating lamps between
200 W and 250 W, both from a single
manufacturer, met EL 3, which means
EL 3 is arguably infeasible. (NEMA, No.
12 at p. 3)
DOE identified ballasts in DOE’s
compliance certification database that
are in ≥150 W and ≤250 W tested at
voltages other than 480 V equipment
class and meet the proposed EL 3 for
this equipment class. These ballasts are
from multiple manufacturers. Because
there are products that meet the max
tech level, DOE is not adjusting ELs
(aside from EL 1 to prevent backsliding)
proposed for this equipment class in
this final determination. DOE addresses
ELs for the ≥150 W and ≤250 W tested
at 480 V equipment class in section
IV.C.5.
NEMA stated that the proposed EL 1
for ballasts operating lamps between
200 W and 500 W for all voltages
appears slightly lower than the current
standards, which is not permissible.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
For the >250 W and ≤500 W
equipment class tested at voltages other
than 480 V, NEMA stated that DOE’s
compliance certification database does
not have products meeting EL 2 and EL
3 for higher wattages indicating that
they are technologically infeasible.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
DOE identified ballasts in DOE’s
compliance certification database that
are in the >250 W and ≤500 W
equipment class tested at voltages other
than 480 V equipment class and meet
the proposed EL 3 for this equipment
class. These ballasts operate 250 W and
400 W lamps. Because there are
products that meet the max tech level,
DOE is not adjusting ELs proposed for
this equipment class in this final
determination. For EL 1 for the ≥250 W
and ≤500 W equipment class tested at
voltages other than 480 V, DOE is
modifying the equation to ensure no
backsliding occurs across the entire
wattage range. Specifically, in this final
determination DOE is modifying the
exponent in the equation from 1/(1 +
0.5017*P∧(¥0.26)) to 1/(1 +
0.507*P∧(¥0.263)).
For the >500 W and ≤1,000 W
equipment class, NEMA stated that the
97 percent efficiency requirement at EL
1 would eliminate nearly all currently
certified products making it
technologically infeasible. NEMA stated
that per DOE’s compliance certification
database the few ballasts that reach the
93 percent efficiency level would not be
able to meet 97 percent efficiency
because they operate 1,000 W lamps.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
The max tech level for the >500 W
and ≤1,000 W equipment class tested at
voltages other than 480V is based on a
1,000 W representative unit with an
efficiency of 0.94. DOE identified
ballasts in DOE’s compliance
certification database that are in the
>500 W and ≤1,000 W tested at voltages
other than 480 V equipment class and
meet the proposed EL 1 (max tech) for
this equipment class. Because there are
products that meet the max tech level,
DOE is not adjusting ELs proposed for
this equipment class in this final
determination. DOE addresses ELs for
the >500 W and ≤1,000 W tested at 480
V equipment class in section IV.C.5.
For the >1,000 W and ≤2,000 W
equipment class, Signify stated DOE
should set a standard but disagreed with
DOE’s proposed EL for this equipment
class. Signify noted that, per some
ballast catalogs, DOE found that ballasts
operating 2,000 W lamps are less
efficient than those operating 1,000 W.
Signify stated that ballast efficiency
decreasing as wattage increases is
contradictory to ballasts in other
equipment classes and it had found no
documented scientific or engineering
explanation to substantiate such a trend.
Signify stated that research indicates
that for a magnetic transformer (or
magnetic ballast) energy efficiency
increases with the transformer power
rate. To align with this trend, Signify
suggested DOE change its proposed EL
1 equation from ¥0.000008*P + 0.946
to 0.00001*P + 0.928 for the >1,000 W
and ≤2,000 W equipment class. (Signify,
No. 13 at pp. 2–5)
NEMA also stated that based on its
calculations DOE was proposing a 93
percent efficiency for ballasts operating
lamps at 1,000 W and 92 percent
efficiency for those operating lamps at
2,000 W and it was unusual for
efficiency requirements to decrease as
wattage increases. (NEMA, No. 12 at p.
3) NEMA also stated that the proposed
levels for the >1,000 W and ≤2,000 W
equipment class appear technologically
feasible. However, NEMA stated that
because these products are not currently
subject to standards and thus have no
certified products, it cannot comment in
detail on potential product availability.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
In developing the equation for the
>1,000 W to ≤2,000 W equipment class
DOE prioritized maintaining a
continuous equation across product
classes. Ballasts in the >1,000 W to
≤2,000 W equipment class are not
currently subject to standards and
therefore are not certified in DOE’s
compliance certification database. Based
on the limited data available,
maintaining a continuous equation
resulted in a slight negative slope for the
efficiency level equation.
Table IV.12 summarizes the efficiency
requirements and associated equations
11 It was unclear from the comment whether
NEMA was referring to four products tested at 480
V or at voltages other than 480 V.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58775
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58776
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
at each EL for the representative
equipment classes. See chapter 5 of this
final determination TSD for further
details.
TABLE IV.12—SUMMARY OF ELS FOR REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Equipment class
EL
≥50 W and ≤100 W .....................................
EL1
EL2
EL3
EL1
EL2
EL3
EL1
EL2
EL1
EL2
EL1
EL1
>100 W and <150 W ..................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ** ...............................
>250 W and ≤500 W ** ...............................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ...............................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ............................
Minimum efficiency
equation for ballasts not
tested at 480 V *
Technology
......
.......
.......
......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
......
.......
More Efficient Magnetic ..............................
Standard Electronic ....................................
Electronic Max Tech ...................................
More Efficient Magnetic ..............................
Standard Electronic ....................................
Electronic Max Tech ...................................
More Efficient Magnetic ..............................
Electronic Max Tech ...................................
More Efficient Magnetic ..............................
Electronic Max Tech ...................................
More Efficient Magnetic ..............................
More Efficient Magnetic ..............................
1/(1+1.16*P∧(¥0.345)).
1/(1+1*P∧(¥0.42)).
1/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
1/(1+1.16*P∧(¥0.345)).
1/(1+1*P∧(¥0.42)).
1/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
1/(1+0.507*P∧(¥0.263)).
1/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
1/(1+0.507*P∧(¥0.263)).
1/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
0.000057*P+0.881.
¥0.000008*P+0.946.
* P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
** For this equipment class the EL 2 specified in the August 2020 NOPD was the same as EL 3. For clarity, only an EL 2 is specified in this
final determination.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
5. Scaling to Other Equipment Classes
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE did
not directly analyze MHLFs with
ballasts that would be tested at an input
voltage of 480 V. DOE developed a
scaling relationship to establish ELs for
these equipment classes. Ballasts
capable of operating at 120 V or 277 V
are predominantly quad-voltage ballasts,
therefore, DOE chose to compare quadvoltage ballasts with 480 V ballasts to
develop a scaling factor. 85 FR 47472,
47489–47490.
Based on its review of the compliance
certification database, DOE determined
that the average reduction in ballast
efficiency for 480 V ballasts compared
to quad ballasts is greater for ballasts
designed to operate lamps rated less
than 150 W compared to ballasts
designed to operate lamps rated greater
than or equal to 150 W. DOE developed
two separate scaling factors, one for the
50 W–150 W range and the second for
the 150 W–1000 W range. In the August
2020 NOPD for 480 V equipment classes
in the 50 W–150 W range, DOE found
the average reduction in ballast
efficiency to be 3.0 percent, and for
those in the 150 W–1000 W range, DOE
found the average reduction in ballast
efficiency to be 1.0 percent. DOE
applied these scaling factors to the
representative equipment class EL
equations to develop corresponding EL
equations for ballasts tested at an input
voltage of 480 V. Accordingly, for the
non-representative equipment classes
DOE applied a multiplier of 0.97 for
equations in the 50 W–150 W range and
of 0.99 for equations in the 150 W–1000
W range. 85 FR 47472, 47489–47490.
DOE received comments on the scaled
ELs proposed in the August 2020 NOPD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
For ≥50 W and ≤100 W equipment class
tested at 480 V, NEMA stated that a
valid max tech proposal for magnetic
ballasts is achieved with a 2 percent
reduction of EL 1. (NEMA, No. 12 at p.
2) For the >100 W and <150 W
equipment class tested at 480 V, NEMA
stated that based on its review of
products in DOE’s compliance
certification database only EL 1 was
technologically feasible. (NEMA, No. 12
at p. 2)
DOE reviewed the 3 percent scaling
factor for the equipment classes tested at
480 V in the 50 W–150 W range
proposed in the August 2020 NOPD.
Specifically, DOE reexamined the
efficiencies of certified products in this
equipment class to ascertain the
reduction in ELs for the corresponding
representative equipment class that
would allow products to meet max tech
levels. Per this review, DOE is revising
the scaling factor to result in a 12
percent reduction (i.e., multiplier of
0.88) rather than a 3 percent reduction
(i.e., multiplier of 0.97) to allow
certified products to meet the max tech
level. DOE determined that this
adjustment results in EL 1 and EL 2 for
the 480 V 50 W–150 W equipment
classes requiring a minimum efficiency
less stringent than the existing
minimum standard. Hence, in this
analysis, for equipment classes in the 50
W–150 W range tested at 480 V to
prevent backsliding DOE maintained the
current standard for EL 1 and EL 2 for
this analysis. For EL 3, DOE applied a
0.88 multiplier (as determined above) to
the corresponding representative
equipment class EL 3 to develop a
scaled EL 3 for this analysis.
For the >250 W and ≤500 W
equipment class tested at 480 V, NEMA
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
stated that the 1 percent scaling factor
still does not allow any products in
DOE’s compliance certification database
to meet the proposed ELs, making them
technologically infeasible. (NEMA, No.
12 at p. 3) Signify stated that the
proposed EL 1 for the >500 W and
≤1,000 W equipment class tested at
480V did not seem technologically
feasible. Signify stated that such an
efficiency for a magnetic ballast seemed
impractical, particularly when there has
been no research or innovation for the
product. (Signify, No. 13 at pp. 6–8)
DOE identified ballasts in DOE’s
compliance certification database that
are in the >500 W and ≤1,000 W tested
at 480 V equipment class and meet the
proposed EL 1 (max tech) for this
equipment class. However, DOE did
determine adjustments were needed to
EL 1 (max tech) for the >250 W and
≤500 W equipment class tested at 480 V
to allow for certified products to meet
it. Hence, DOE reviewed the 1 percent
scaling factor for the equipment classes
tested at 480 V in the 150 W–1,000 W
range proposed in the August 2020
NOPD. 85 FR 47472, 47489–47490. Per
this review, DOE is revising the scaling
factor to result in a 4 percent reduction
(i.e., multiplier of 0.96) rather than a 1
percent reduction (i.e., multiplier of
0.99) to allow certified products to meet
max tech. DOE determined that this
adjustment results in EL 1 and EL 2 for
equipment classes in the 150 W–1,000
W range requiring a minimum efficiency
less stringent than the existing
minimum standard. Hence, in this
analysis, for equipment classes in the
150 W–1,000 W range tested at 480 V to
prevent backsliding DOE maintained the
current standard for EL 1 and EL 2 for
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
this analysis. For EL 3, DOE applied a
0.96 multiplier (as determined above) to
the corresponding representative
equipment class EL 3 to develop the
scaled EL 3 for this analysis.
Additionally, Signify stated the ELs in
the August 2020 NOPD resulted in an
energy efficiency for a ballast from the
>500 W and <1,000 W equipment class
tested at 480 V that is higher than
ballast efficiency of the equipment class
with the same wattage range but tested
at other voltages. Signify stated that the
opposite was true for all other
equipment classes. (Signify, No. 13 at p.
6) Specifically, Signify stated that to
meet the proposed EL 1 a ballast
operating a 1,000 W lamp tested at 480
V would require an efficiency of 0.971
while the same ballast tested at 277 V
would require 0.936. Hence for the >500
W and ≤1,000 W equipment class for
ballasts tested at 480 V, Signify
suggested DOE not adopt the proposed
EL1 and instead maintain the existing
standard. (Signify, No. 13 at p. 8)
In the August 2020 NOPD DOE
specified the scaled equation for EL 1 of
the >500 W and ≤1,000 W equipment
class tested at 480 V as
0.99*(0.0001*P+0.881). 85 FR 47472,
47489–47490. The coefficient in this
equation was erroneously rounded in
Table IV.13 of the August 2020 NOPD
and is correctly specified in this final
determination as
0.99*(0.000057*P+0.881). With this
correction, ballasts in the >500 W and
≤1,000 W equipment class tested at 480
V must meet a lower minimum
efficiency than the same ballasts tested
at voltages other than 480 V. However,
as noted above, to prevent backsliding
DOE maintained current standard for EL
1 of the >500 W and ≤1,000 W
58777
equipment class tested at 480 V for this
analysis.
In the August 2020 NOPD and in this
final determination, for ballasts greater
than 1,000 W, DOE determined the need
for a scaling factor based on
manufacturer catalog data. DOE
determined that ballasts greater than
1,000 W do not show a difference in
efficiency between 480 V and non-480
V ballasts. DOE did not apply a scaling
factor to develop efficiency levels for
480 V ballasts in this equipment class,
however, DOE continues to consider the
480 V and non-480 V equipment classes
separately for MHLFs greater than 1,000
W for the purposes of this analysis. 85
FR 47472, 47489–47490.
Table IV.13 summarizes the efficiency
requirements at each EL for the nonrepresentative equipment classes. See
chapter 5 of this final determination
TSD for further details.
TABLE IV.13—SUMMARY OF ELS FOR NON-REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Equipment class
EL
Technology
Minimum efficiency equation for ballasts tested at 480 V *
......
.......
.......
......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
Improved magnetic ...................
Standard Electronic ...................
Electronic Max Tech .................
Improved magnetic ...................
Standard Electronic ...................
Electronic Max Tech .................
Improved magnetic ...................
Electronic Max Tech .................
Improved magnetic ...................
EL2 .......
Electronic Max Tech .................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ...............
EL1 ......
Improved magnetic ...................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ............
EL1 .......
Improved magnetic ...................
1/(1+1.24*P∧(¥0.351))¥0.02.
1/(1+1.24*P∧(¥0.351))¥0.02.
0.88/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
1/(1+1.24*P∧(¥0.351))¥0.02.
1/(1+1.24*P∧(¥0.351))¥0.02.
0.88/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
0.88.
0.96/(1+0.4*P∧(¥0.3)).
For >250 and <265 W: 0.880. For ≥265 W and ≤500 W: 1/(1 +
0.876 × P∧(¥0.351))¥0.010.
For >250 and <265 W: 0.880. For ≥265 W and ≤500 W: 1/(1 +
0.876 × P∧(¥0.351))¥0.010.
For >500 W and ≤750 W: 0.900. For >750 W and ≤1,000 W:
0.000104 × P + 0.822.
¥0.000008*P+0.946.
≥50 W and ≤100 W ....................
>100 W and <150 W ..................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ** ...............
>250 W and ≤500 W ** ..............
EL1
EL2
EL3
EL1
EL2
EL3
EL1
EL2
EL1
* P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
** For this equipment class the EL 2 specified in the August 2020 NOPD was the same as EL 3. For clarity, only an EL 2 is specified in this
final determination.
DOE develops manufacturer selling
prices (‘‘MSPs’’) for covered equipment
and applies markups to create end-user
prices to use as inputs to the LCC
analysis and NIA. The MSP of a MHLF
comprises of the MSP of the fixture
components including any necessary
additional features and the MSP of the
metal halide ballast contained in the
fixture. For the August 2020 NOPD,
DOE conducted teardown analyses on
31 commercially available MHLFs and
the ballasts included in these fixtures.
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 manufacturing
production cost (‘‘MPC’’).12 DOE then
determined the MSPs of fixture
components and more-efficient MH
ballasts identified for each EL. 85 FR
47472, 47490–47491.
To determine the fixture components
MSPs, DOE conducted fixture
teardowns to derive MPCs of empty
fixtures (i.e., lamp enclosure and
optics). The empty fixture does not
include the ballast or lamp. DOE then
added the other components required by
the system (including ballast and any
cost adders associated with
12 When 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.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
6. Manufacturer Selling Price
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
electronically ballasted systems) and
applied appropriate markups to obtain a
final MSP for the entire fixture. 85 FR
47472, 47490–47491.
To calculate an empty fixture price,
DOE first identified the applications
commonly served by the representative
wattage in each equipment class based
on DOE’s compliance certification
database. DOE selected the most
popular fixture types for both indoor
and outdoor applications. The
representative fixture types for each
equipment class selected in the August
2020 NOPD are shown in Table IV.14.
85 FR 47472, 47490.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58778
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IV.14—REPRESENTATIVE FIXTURE TYPES
Representative equipment class
≥50 W and ≤100 W .................................
>100 W and <150 W * .............................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ** ............................
>250 W and ≤500 W ...............................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W ............................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W .........................
Representative fixture types
Representative
wattage
Indoor
70 W .................
150 W ...............
250 W ...............
400 W ...............
1,000 W ............
1,500 W ............
Downlight ...............................................
Downlight ...............................................
High-Bay ................................................
High-Bay ................................................
High-Bay ................................................
Sports .....................................................
Outdoor
Bollard, Flood, Post Top, Wallpack.
Area, Flood, Post Top, Wallpack.
Area, Flood, Post Top, Cobrahead.
Area, Flood, Post Top, Cobrahead.
Area, Flood, Sports.
Sports.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations,
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,
specified by UL 1029–2007.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations,
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,
specified by UL 1029–2007.
DOE then used teardown information
for 31 fixtures that spanned the
representative wattages and the
applications identified for each
representative wattage. The MPC of the
empty fixture for each representative
wattage was calculated by weighting the
empty fixture cost for each application
by the popularity of each application.
DOE determined the weightings based
on the number of fixtures for each
application at each representative
wattage in DOE’s certification database.
85 FR 47472, 47490–47491.
The empty fixture MPCs remained the
same at each magnetic efficiency level
but incremental costs were added when
the fixture contained an electronic
ballast. Specifically, in the August 2020
NOPD, DOE applied cost adders to
fixtures that use electronic ballasts for
(1) transient protection, (2) thermal
management, and (3) 120 V auxiliary
power functionality. These costs varied
based on whether the fixture application
was indoor, indoor industrial, or
outdoor. 85 FR 47472, 47491.
In the August 2020 NOPD DOE
conducted market research to determine
the prices of each cost adder. DOE
determined the price of voltage transient
protection to be $9.03. DOE determined
that the increase in the empty fixture
cost to be 20 percent for adding thermal
management to a fixture. DOE
determined the average market price of
the 120 V auxiliary tap to be $7.38. DOE
added these costs to the empty fixture
MPC for outdoor and indoor industrial
fixtures at ELs requiring an electronic
ballast. Because the auxiliary tap is
needed in only 10 percent of the ballasts
in indoor fixtures, DOE added $0.74 to
the indoor empty fixture MPC for ELs
requiring an electronic ballast. 85 FR
47472, 47491.
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE
applied a fixture manufacturer markup
of 1.58 to the empty fixture MPC to
determine the MSP of the fixture at each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
EL. DOE maintained the manufacturer
markup developed in the 2014 MHLF
final rule. In that rule, DOE determined
the fixture manufacturer markup to be
1.58 based on financial information
from manufacturers’ SEC 10–K reports,
as well as feedback from manufacturer
interviews. 85 FR 47472, 47491.
For the August 2020 NOPD, to
determine the MPCs of the metal halide
ballasts identified in this analysis, DOE
used data from the teardown analysis
which included cost data for magnetic
ballasts at the baseline in each
equipment class. To determine the
ballast MPC at the higher efficiency
levels, DOE developed a ratio between
the average retail price of ballasts at the
efficiency level under consideration and
ballasts at the baseline. DOE collected
retail prices from electrical distributors
(e.g., Grainger, Graybar) as well as
internet retailers to determine average
retail prices for ballasts. For ELs without
retail prices available, DOE used a ratio
between the same efficiency levels in a
different wattage class or interpolated
based on efficiency and ballast MPC. 85
FR 47472, 47491.
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE
applied a ballast manufacturer markup
of 1.47 to the empty fixture MPC to
determine the MSP of the fixture at each
EL. DOE maintained the manufacturer
markup developed in the 2014 MHLF
final rule. In that rule, DOE determined
the ballast manufacturer markup to be
1.47 based on financial information
from manufacturers’ SEC 10–K reports,
as well as feedback from manufacturer
interviews. 79 FR 7746, 7783
The CA IOUs stated that DOE used
cost assumptions for lamps, ballasts,
and housing from the previous
rulemaking which was conducted six
years ago and did not provide empirical
data to support that the assumptions
were still valid given the evolving
lighting market. (CA IOUs, No. 14, p. 2)
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
as
as
as
as
As noted, DOE developed fixture and
ballast prices based on teardowns and
retail price collections conducted for
this analysis. Additionally, DOE
conducted market research for this
rulemaking to confirm the cost adder
estimates used in the 2014 MHLF final
rule. DOE determined that there are
likely minimal changes to the financial
structure of fixture or ballast
manufacturers and therefore, the
respective markups from the 2014
MHLF final rule remain valid.
DOE is maintaining the results of
MSPs determined in the August 2020
NOPD for this final determination. The
total empty fixture MSPs, replacement
ballast MSPs, and fixture with ballast
MSPs are detailed in chapter 5 of the
final determination TSD.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops
appropriate markups (e.g., manufacturer
markups, retailer markups, distributor
markups, contractor markups) in the
distribution chain and sales taxes to
convert the MSP estimates derived in
the engineering analysis to consumer
prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis and in the MIA. At
each step in the distribution channel,
companies mark up the price of the
product to cover business costs and
profit margin. DOE used the same
distribution channels and wholesaler
and contractor markups as in the August
2020 NOPD, following the 2014 MHLF
final rule, for this final determination.
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
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
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). Indoor fixtures are all assumed
to go through the electrical wholesaler
distribution channel. Outdoor fixtures
are assumed to go through all three
distribution channels as follows: 60
percent electrical wholesaler, 20 percent
contractor, and 20 percent utility.
2. Estimation of Markups
To estimate wholesaler and utility
markups, DOE used financial data from
10–K reports of 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 August 2020 NOPD, DOE used
the same wholesaler and contractor
markups as the 2014 MHLF final rule
and assumed a wholesaler baseline
markup of 1.23 and a contractor markup
of 1.13, yielding a total wholesaler
distribution channel baseline markup of
1.49. The lower wholesaler incremental
markup of 1.05 yields a lower total
incremental markup through this
distribution channel of 1.27. DOE also
assumed a utility markup of 1.00 for the
utility distribution channel in which the
manufacturer sells a fixture directly to
the end-user. DOE again assumed a
contractor markup of 1.13 for the utility
distribution channel in which a
manufacturer sells a fixture to a
contractor who in turn sells it to the
58779
end-user yielding an overall markup of
1.21 for this channel. 85 FR 47472,
47492. DOE used these same markups
for this final determination analysis.
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.13 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 this final
determination, this approach provided a
national average tax rate of 7.3 percent.
3. Summary of Markups
Table IV.15 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 IV.15—SUMMARY OF FIXTURE DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL MARKUPS
Wholesaler distribution
Utility distribution
Via wholesaler and contractor
Baseline
Baseline
Electrical Wholesaler (Distributor) ...........
Utility ........................................................
Contractor or Installer ..............................
1.23
N/A
1.13
Sales Tax .................................................
1.49
Incremental
N/A
1.00
1.13
N/A
1.00
1.13
1.07
1.27
Baseline
Incremental
N/A
1.00
N/A
N/A
1.00
N/A
1.07
1.21
1.21
1.07
1.07
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of MHLFs at
different efficiencies in the commercial,
industrial, and outdoor stationary
sectors, and to assess the energy savings
potential of increased MHLF efficiency.
The energy use analysis estimates the
range of energy use of MHLFs in the
field (i.e., as they are actually used by
customers). The energy use analysis
provides the basis for other analyses
DOE performed, particularly
assessments of the energy savings and
the savings in operating costs that could
result from adoption of amended or new
standards.
To develop annual energy use
estimates, DOE multiplied the lampand-ballast system input power (in
watts) by annual usage (in hours per
year). DOE characterized representative
lamp-and-ballast systems in the
engineering analysis, which provided
measured input power ratings. To
characterize the country’s average usage
of fixtures for a typical year, DOE
developed annual operating hour
distributions by sector, using data
published in the 2015 U.S. Lighting
Market Characterization (‘‘LMC’’).14 For
the ≥50 W and ≤100 W to >500 W and
≤1,000 W equipment classes, DOE
obtained weighted-average annual
operating hours for the commercial,
industrial, and outdoor stationary
sectors of approximately 2,300 hours,
5,100 hours, and 5,000 hours,
respectively. For the 1,500 W equipment
class, DOE assigned annual operating
hours of approximately 770 hours for all
lamps according to the 2015 LMC
estimate of 2.1 hours per day for sports
field lighting, consistent with the
methodology from the August 2020
NOPD analysis. 85 FR 47472, 47492.
Chapter 7 of the final determination
TSD provides details on DOE’s energy
use analysis for MHLFs.
13 Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc. The Sales Tax
Clearinghouse. (Last accessed June 16, 2021.)
https://thestc.com/STRates.stm.
14 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting
Market Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of
Energy: Washington, DC. Report No. DOE/EE–1719.
(Last accessed February 3, 2020.) https://
energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lightingmarket-characterization.
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 determination
TSD provides details on DOE’s
development of markups for MHLFs.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
1.05
N/A
1.13
1.07
Overall ......................................................
Direct to end user
Incremental
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP
analyses to evaluate the economic
impacts on individual customers of
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58780
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
potential energy conservation standards
for MHLFs. The effect of new or
amended energy conservation standards
on individual customers usually
involves a reduction in operating cost
and an increase in purchase cost. DOE
used the following two metrics to
measure customer impacts:
b The LCC is the total customer
expense of equipment over the life of
that equipment, consisting of total
installed cost (manufacturer selling
price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus
operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute
the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of
purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the equipment.
b The PBP is the estimated amount
of time (in years) it takes customers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient equipment through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change
in annual operating cost for the year that
amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE
measured the change in LCC relative to
the LCC in the no-new-standards case,
which reflects the estimated efficiency
distribution of MHLFs in the absence of
new or amended energy conservation
standards. In contrast, the PBP for a
given efficiency level is measured
relative to the baseline equipment.
For each considered efficiency level
in each equipment class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a
nationally representative set of building
types. As stated previously, DOE
developed customer samples from the
2015 LMC. For each sample customer,
DOE determined the energy
consumption for the MHLF and the
appropriate electricity price. By
developing a representative sample of
building types, the analysis captured the
variability in energy consumption and
energy prices associated with the use of
MHLFs.
Inputs to the calculation of total
installed cost include the cost of the
equipment—which includes MPCs,
manufacturer markups, retailer and
distributor markups, and sales taxes—
and installation costs. Inputs to the
calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs,
equipment lifetimes, and discount rates.
DOE created distributions of values for
operating hours, equipment lifetime,
discount rates, electricity prices, and
sales taxes, with probabilities attached
to each value, to account for their
uncertainty and variability. 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 BallTM (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 MHLF user
samples. The model calculated the LCC
and PBP for equipment at each
efficiency level for 10,000 customers per
simulation run. The analytical results
include a distribution of 10,000 data
points showing the range of LCC savings
for a given efficiency level relative to
the no-new-standards case efficiency
distribution. In performing an iteration
of the Monte Carlo simulation for a
given consumer, product efficiency is
chosen based on its probability. If the
chosen product efficiency is greater than
or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC and
PBP calculation reveals that a consumer
is not impacted by the standard level.
By accounting for consumers who
already purchase more-efficient
products, DOE avoids overstating the
potential benefits from increasing
product efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for
all customers of MHLFs as if each were
to purchase new equipment in the
expected year of required compliance
with new or amended standards. Any
amended standards would apply to
MHLFs manufactured three years after
the date on which any new or amended
standard is published. (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(3)(B)) At this time, DOE
estimates publication of a final
determination in the latter half of 2021.
Therefore, for purposes of its analysis,
DOE used 2025 as the first year of
compliance with any amended
standards for MHLFs.
Table IV.16 summarizes the approach
and data DOE used to derive inputs to
the LCC and PBP calculations. The
subsections that follow provide further
discussion. Details of the spreadsheet
model, and of all the inputs to the LCC
and PBP analyses, are contained in
chapter 8 of the final determination TSD
and its appendices.
TABLE IV.16—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *
Inputs
Source/method
Equipment Cost ....................................
Derived by multiplying MSPs by distribution channel markups (taken from the 2014 MHLF final rule)
and sales tax.
Used the same installation costs as in the 2014 MHLF final rule, but inflated to 2020$. The 2014 MHLF
final rule costs were calculated using estimated labor times and applicable labor rates from ‘‘RS
Means Electrical Cost Data’’ (2013), Sweets Electrical Cost Guide 2013, and the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
The total annual energy use multiplied by the operating hours per year, which were determined separately for indoor and outdoor fixtures. Average number of hours based on the 2015 LMC.
Electricity: Based on Edison Electric Institute data for 2019.
Variability: Regional energy prices determined for 13 census divisions and large states.
Based on AEO 2021 price projections.
Used the same labor and material costs for lamp and ballast replacements as in the 2014 MHLF final
rule, but inflated to 2020$.
Ballasts: Assumed an average of 50,000 hours for magnetic ballasts and 40,000 hours for electronic
ballasts.
Fixtures: Assumed an average of 20 years for indoor fixtures and 25 years for outdoor fixtures.
Installation Costs ..................................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Annual Energy Use ..............................
Energy Prices .......................................
Energy Price Trends ............................
Replacement Costs ..............................
Equipment Lifetime ...............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
58781
TABLE IV.16—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *—Continued
Inputs
Source/method
Discount Rates .....................................
Compliance Date ..................................
Developed a distribution of discount rates for the commercial, industrial, and outdoor stationary sectors.
2025.
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the final determination TSD.
1. Equipment Cost
To calculate customer equipment
costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs
developed in the engineering analysis
by the markups described previously
(along with sales taxes). DOE used
different markups for baseline
equipment and higher-efficiency
equipment, because DOE applies an
incremental markup to the increase in
MSP associated with higher-efficiency
equipment. See section IV.D for further
details.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost is the cost to install
the fixture such as the labor, overhead,
and any miscellaneous materials and
parts needed. DOE used the installation
costs from the 2014 MHLF final rule,
but inflated to 2020$ using the GDP
price deflator.15
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled customer, DOE
determined the energy consumption for
an MHLF at different efficiency levels
using the approach described previously
in section IV.E of this document. For
this final determination, 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 (approximately 770
hours per year) for the 1,500 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
Because marginal electricity price
more accurately captures the
incremental savings associated with a
change in energy use from higher
efficiency, it provides a better
representation of incremental change in
consumer costs than average electricity
prices. Therefore, DOE applied average
electricity prices for the energy use of
the product purchased in the no-new15 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Table
1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic
Product. U.S. Department of Commerce:
Washington, DC. www.bea.gov/iTable/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
standards case, and marginal electricity
prices for the incremental change in
energy use associated with the other
efficiency levels considered in this final
determination.
DOE derived annual electricity prices
in 2019 for each census division using
data from the Edison Electric Institute
(EEI) Typical Bills and Average Rates
reports.16 Marginal prices depend on
both the change in electricity
consumption and the change in monthly
peak-coincident demand. DOE used the
EEI data to estimate both marginal
energy charges and marginal demand
charges.
DOE calculated weighted-average
values for average and marginal price
for the 13 census divisions and large
states for the commercial, industrial,
and outdoor stationary sectors.
To estimate energy prices in future
years, DOE multiplied the average
regional energy prices by a projection of
annual change in national-average
commercial and industrial energy prices
in the Reference case of Annual Energy
Outlook 2021 (AEO 2021). 17 AEO 2021
has an end year of 2050. DOE assumed
regional electricity prices after 2050 are
constant at their 2050 price.
5. Replacement Costs
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. The costs are taken from the
2014 MHLF final rule but inflated to
2020$ using the GDP price deflator. 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 associated with
lamp or ballast replacements are
included in the calculation of operating
costs.
16 Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and
Average Rates Report. 2019. Winter 2019, Summer
2019: Washington, DC.
17 U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Outlook 2021 with Projections to
2050. 2021. Washington, DC. (Last accessed March
18, 2021.) www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The CA IOUs suggested that DOE
update the MHLF cost data for lamps,
ballasts, and housings, rather than using
the costs from the 2014 MHLF final rule.
(CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) DOE notes that
replacement costs for ballasts come
directly from this final determination
engineering analysis (see section IV.C).
However, DOE has continued to use the
replacement lamp costs from the 2014
MHLF final rule (but inflated to 2020$).
The CA IOUs acknowledged that
MHLFs are a legacy lighting technology,
and NEMA stated that there has been an
80 percent decline in the MHLFs market
from 2008–2018. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at
pp. 1–2; NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Given
this recent substantial decline in the
MHLFs market, it is unlikely that prices
would have changed appreciably due to
price learning since the 2014 MHLF
final rule analysis was conducted.
Therefore, DOE has only applied
inflation to the MHLF replacement lamp
prices since the 2014 MHLF final rule
analysis.
6. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defined equipment lifetime as
the age when a fixture, ballast, or lamp
is retired from service. For fixtures in all
equipment classes, DOE assumed
average lifetimes for indoor and outdoor
fixtures of 20 and 25 years, respectively.
DOE also assumed that magnetic
ballasts had a rated lifetime of 50,000
hours and electronic ballasts had a rated
lifetime of 40,000 hours. DOE used
manufacturer catalog data to obtain
rated lifetime estimates (in hours) for
lamps in each equipment class. DOE
accounted for uncertainty in the fixture,
ballast, and lamp lifetimes by applying
Weibull survival distributions to the
components’ rated lifetimes.
Furthermore, DOE included a residual
value calculation for lamps and ballasts
to account for the residual monetary
value associated with the remaining life
in the lamp and ballast at the end of the
fixture lifetime. As stated in the 2020
NOPD, DOE based all assumptions for
estimating equipment lifetime from the
2014 MHLF final rule. 85 FR 47472,
47494.
7. Discount Rates
The discount rate is the rate at which
future expenditures are discounted to
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58782
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
estimate their present value. In this final
determination, DOE estimated separate
discount rates for commercial,
industrial, and outdoor stationary
applications. DOE used discount rate
data from a 2019 Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory report.18 The
average discount rates, weighted by the
shares of each rate value in the sectoral
distributions, are 8.3 percent for
commercial end-users, 8.8 percent for
industrial end-users, and 3.2 percent for
outdoor stationary end-users. For more
information regarding discount rates,
see chapter 8 of the final determination
TSD.
certification database collected on May
5, 2021. The compliance certification
database does not contain models in the
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W equipment
class; therefore, DOE assumed 56
percent of the market is at the baseline
and 44 percent of the market is at EL 1,
based on MHLF catalog data. The
complete efficiency distribution for
2025 is shown in Table IV.17.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the
No-New-Standards Case
DOE developed a no-new-standards
case efficiency distribution using model
count data from the compliance
TABLE IV.17—MHLF EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION BY EQUIPMENT CLASS FOR 2025
Equipment class *
≥50 W and
≤100 W
(%)
Efficiency level
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
82.0
1.2
9.5
7.4
>100 W and
<150 W
(%)
16.4
32.9
0.0
50.7
≥150 W and
≤250 W
(%)
>250 W and
≤500 W
(%)
>500 W and
≤1,000 W
(%)
>1000 W and
≤2,000 W
(%)
53.6
40.1
6.3
........................
95.6
1.1
3.3
........................
97.1
2.9
........................
........................
56.0
44.0
........................
........................
* Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
The payback period is the amount of
time it takes the consumer to recover the
additional installed cost of moreefficient products, compared to baseline
products, through energy cost savings.
Payback periods are expressed in years.
Payback periods that exceed the life of
the product mean that the increased
total installed cost is not recovered in
reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for
each efficiency level are the change in
total installed cost of the product and
the change in the first-year annual
operating expenditures relative to the
baseline. The PBP calculation uses the
same inputs as the LCC analysis, except
that discount rates are not needed.
As noted previously, EPCA
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified
if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a
product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less
than three times the value of the first
year’s energy savings resulting from the
standard, as calculated under the
applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered
DOE uses projections of annual
equipment shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended
or new energy conservation standards
on energy use and NPV.19 The
shipments model takes an accounting
approach, tracking market shares of
each equipment class and the vintage of
units in the stock. Stock accounting uses
equipment shipments as inputs to
estimate the age distribution of inservice equipment stocks for all years.
The age distribution of in-service
equipment stocks is a key input to
calculations of both the NES and NPV,
because operating costs for any year
depend on the age distribution of the
stock.
The stock turnover model calculates
demand for new MHLFs based on the
expected demand for replacement
MHLFs and the decrease in MHLF
demand due to the adoption of out-ofscope LED alternatives. The model is
initialized using a time series of
18 Fujita, K.S. Commercial, Industrial, and
Institutional Discount Rate Estimation for Efficiency
Standards Analysis: Sector-Level Data 1998–2018.
2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
Berkeley, CA. (Last accessed January 15, 2020.)
https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/commercialindustrial-institutional.
19 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as
a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales
are lacking. In general, one would expect a close
correspondence between shipments and sales.
20 HID Lamp Sales Indices. National Electrical
Manufacturing Association. www.nema.org/
analytics/Indices/view/Fourth-Quarter-2019-HIDLamp-Indexes-Decrease-Compared-to-PreviousQuarter-and-Year. (Last accessed on May 5, 2021.)
21 Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for
Consumer Durables. Management Science. 1969.
15(5): pp. 215–227.
9. Payback Period Analysis
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
efficiency level, DOE determined the
value of the first year’s energy savings
by calculating the energy savings in
accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those
savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which
compliance with the amended standards
would be required.
historical shipments data compiled from
the 2014 MHLF final rule and data from
NEMA. The historical shipments for
2008 from the 2014 MHLF final rule
were projected to 2018 using NEMA
sales indices from 2008 to 2018. 79 FR
7746, 7788–89. DOE used NEMA
provided sales indices for the second
quarter of 2020 for metal halide lamps
to project the historical shipments
forward to 2020.20 The updated
projection from the NEMA data gives a
faster decline of historical shipments
compared to the projection used in the
MHLF NOPD. 85 FR 47472, 47495.
NEMA commented in their response
to the MHLF NOPD that the market for
MHLFs has continued to show a steady
decline since the July 2019 RFI in favor
of LED Technology. (NEMA, No. 12 at
p. 2) With the diminishing shipments
there is no reasonable possibility of
industry recovering investments in new
conservation standards of MHLFs. As in
the previous rulemaking, DOE
continued to assume that an increasing
fraction of the MHLF market will move
to out-of-scope LED alternatives over the
course of the shipments analysis period.
85 FR 47472, 47495. DOE modelled the
incursion of LED equipment in the form
of a Bass diffusion curve.21 The
parameters for the Bass diffusion curve
are based on fitting a Bass diffusion
curve to market share data for general
service LED lamps based on data
See chapter 8 of the final
determination TSD for further
information on the derivation of the
efficiency distributions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
G. Shipments Analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
published by NEMA. This same
approach was used in the final
determination for general service
incandescent lamps (GSILs); see chapter
9 of that final determination TSD.22 84
FR 71626 (December 27, 2019).
The CA IOUs commented on the
MHLF NOPD that DOE’s current A-Line
based shipment curves approach to
modelling shipments for MHLF
products should be replaced by a
diffusion curve based on linear
fluorescent shipments. (CA IOUs, No. 14
at p. 2) However, DOE found that a Bass
diffusion curve based on market share
data for general service LED lamps
provided a better fit to the historic
MHLF shipments data from NEMA than
a Bass diffusion curve based on linear
fluorescent shipments, and NEMA
expressed support for the shipment
declines projected in the NOPD.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Additionally, the
lighting power allowance from the 2019
update to ASHRAE 90.1, noted during
the MHLF NOPD public meeting,
suggests a rapid transition to LED
technology. (EEI, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 11 at p. 47) As a result,
DOE continued to base the Bass
diffusion model on market share data
for general service LED lamps for this
final determination.
Another key input to the national
impacts analysis is the distribution of
MHLF shipments by EL in the no-new
standards case and the standards cases.
DOE apportioned the total shipments of
MHLFs to each EL in the no-newstandards case using data downloaded
from the compliance certification
database 23 and data provided by NEMA
in comments to the July 2019 RFI.
(NEMA, No. 3 at pp. 11–14). Equipment
listed in the CCMS database were
categorized by equipment class,
efficiency level, and ballast type. The
counts for each category were scaled
based on ballast type by the NEMA
market shares for magnetic and
electronic ballasts reported in 2018.
For the standards cases, DOE used a
‘‘roll-up’’ approach to estimate market
share for each EL for the year that
standards are assumed to become
effective (2025). For each standards
case, the market shares of ELs in the nonew-standards case that do not meet the
standard under consideration ‘‘roll up’’
to meet the new standard level, and the
market share of equipment above the
standard remains unchanged.
For both the no-new-standards and
standards cases, DOE assumed no
efficiency trend over the analysis
period. For a given case, market shares
were held fixed to their 2025
distribution.
DOE typically includes the impact of
price learning in its analysis. In a
standard price learning model,24 the
price of a given technology is related to
its cumulative production, as
represented by total cumulative
shipments. DOE assumed MHLFs have
reached a stable price point due to the
high volume of total cumulative
shipments and would not undergo price
learning in this final determination
analysis.
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the
NPV from a national perspective of total
customer costs and savings that would
be expected to result from new or
amended standards at specific efficiency
levels.25 DOE calculates the NES and
NPV for the potential standard levels
considered based on projections of
58783
annual equipment shipments, along
with the annual energy consumption
and total installed cost data from the
energy use and LCC analyses. For the
present analysis, DOE projected the
energy savings, operating cost savings,
equipment costs, and NPV of customer
benefits over the lifetime of MHLFs sold
from 2025 through 2054.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or
amended standards by comparing a case
without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards
case characterizes energy use and
customer costs for each equipment class
in the absence of new or amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
compares the no-new-standards case
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.
For the standards cases, DOE considers
how a given standard would likely
affect the market shares of equipment
with efficiencies greater than the
standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to
calculate the energy savings and the
national customer costs and savings
from each TSL. Interested parties can
review DOE’s analyses by changing
various input quantities within the
spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet
model uses typical values (as opposed
to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.18 summarizes the inputs
and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for this final determination.
Discussion of these inputs and methods
follows the table. See chapter 10 of the
final determination TSD for further
details.
TABLE IV.18—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Inputs
Method
Shipments ...........................................................
First Full Year of Standard Compliance .............
No-new-standards Case Efficiency Trend ..........
Standards Case Efficiency Trend .......................
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................
Total Installed Cost per Unit ...............................
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit ..............
Residual Value per Unit ......................................
Electricity Prices .................................................
Electricity Price Trends .......................................
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion .....
Discount Rate .....................................................
Present Year .......................................................
22 Chapter 9 of the GSIL final determination TSD
is available at www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0022-0116.
23 See www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/products.html (Last accessed on May 5, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
Annual shipments from shipments model for each considered TSL.
2025.
No trend assumed.
No trend assumed.
Calculated for each efficiency level based on inputs from the energy use analysis.
MHLF prices and installation costs from the LCC analysis.
Cost to replace lamp and ballast over the lifetime of the fixture.
The monetary value of remaining lamp and ballast lifetime at the end of the fixture lifetime.
Estimated marginal electricity prices from the LCC analysis.
AEO 2021 forecasts (to 2050) and extrapolation thereafter.
A time-series conversion factor based on AEO 2021.
3 percent and 7 percent.
2021.
24 Taylor, M. and S.K. Fujita. Accounting for
Technological Change in Regulatory Impact
Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 2013.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley,
CA. Report No. LBNL–6195E. (Last accessed
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
January 7, 2020.) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/
accounting-technological-change.
25 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states
and U.S. territories.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58784
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
1. National Energy Savings
The national energy savings analysis
involves a comparison of national
energy consumption of the considered
equipment between each potential TSL
and the case with no new or amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
calculated the national energy
consumption by multiplying the
number of units (stock) of each
equipment type (by vintage or age) by
the unit energy consumption (also by
vintage). DOE calculated annual NES
based on the difference in national
energy consumption for the no-new
standards case and for each higher
efficiency standard case. DOE estimated
energy consumption and savings based
on site energy and converted the
electricity consumption and savings to
primary energy (i.e., the energy
consumed by power plants to generate
site electricity) using annual conversion
factors derived from AEO 2021.
Cumulative energy savings are the sum
of the NES for each year over the
timeframe of the analysis.
DOE generally accounts for the direct
rebound effect in its NES analyses.
Direct rebound reflects the idea that as
appliances become more efficient,
customers use more of their service
because their operating cost is reduced.
In the case of lighting, the rebound
effect could be manifested in increased
hours of use or in increased lighting
density (lumens per square foot). In
response to the July 2019 RFI, NEMA
commented that a rebound rate of 0 is
appropriate. (NEMA, No. 3 at p. 9) DOE
assumed no rebound effect for MHLFs
in this final determination.
In 2011, in response to the
recommendations of a committee on
‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle
Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the
National Academy of Sciences, DOE
announced its intention to use FFC
measures of energy use and greenhouse
gas and other emissions to the extent
that emissions analyses are conducted.
76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After
evaluating the approaches discussed in
the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE
published a statement of amended
policy in which DOE explained its
determination that Energy Information
Administration’s (EIA’s) National
Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’) is
the most appropriate tool for its FFC
analysis and its intention to use NEMS
for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17,
2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
sector, partial equilibrium model of the
U.S. energy sector 26 that EIA uses to
prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The
FFC factors incorporate losses in
production and delivery in the case of
natural gas (including fugitive
emissions) and additional energy used
to produce and deliver the various fuels
used by power plants. The approach
used for deriving FFC measures of
energy use and emissions is described
in appendix 10B of the final
determination TSD.
2. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV
of the total costs and benefits
experienced by customers are (1) total
annual installed cost, (2) total annual
operating costs (energy costs and repair
and maintenance costs), and (3) a
discount factor to calculate the present
value of costs and savings. DOE
calculates net savings each year as the
difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case
in terms of total savings in operating
costs versus total increases in installed
costs. DOE calculates operating cost
savings over the lifetime of equipment
shipped during the analysis period.
Energy cost savings, which are part of
operating cost savings, are calculated
using the estimated energy savings in
each year and the projected price of the
appropriate form of energy. To estimate
energy prices in future years, DOE
multiplied the average national
marginal electricity prices by the
forecast of annual national-average
commercial or industrial electricity
price changes in the Reference case from
AEO 2021, which has an end year of
2050. To estimate price trends after
2050, DOE used the average annual rate
of change in prices from 2041 to 2050.
DOE includes the cost of replacing
failed lamps and ballasts over the course
of the lifetime of the fixture. DOE
assumed that lamps and ballasts were
replaced at their rated lifetime. When
replacing a ballast, DOE assumed the
lamp was also replaced at the same
time, independent of the timing of the
previous lamp replacement. For more
details see chapter 10 of the final
determination TSD.
DOE also estimates the residual
monetary value remaining in the lamp
and ballast at the end of the fixture
lifetime and applies it as a credit to
26 For
more information on NEMS, refer to The
National Energy Modeling System: An Overview
2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
operating costs (i.e., the residual value
is deducted from operating costs). See
chapter 10 of the final determination
TSD for more details on DOE’s
calculation of the residual value.
In calculating the NPV, DOE
multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine
their present value. For this final
determination, DOE estimated the NPV
of customer benefits using both a 3percent and a 7-percent real discount
rate. DOE uses these discount rates in
accordance with guidance provided by
the Office of Management and Budget
(‘‘OMB’’) to Federal agencies on the
development of regulatory analysis.27
The discount rates for the determination
of NPV are in contrast to the discount
rates used in the LCC analysis, which
are designed to reflect a customer’s
perspective. The 7-percent real value is
an estimate of the average before-tax rate
of return to private capital in the U.S.
economy. The 3-percent real value
represents the ‘‘social rate of time
preference,’’ which is the rate at which
society discounts future consumption
flows to their present value.
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the
results from DOE’s analyses with
respect to the considered energy
conservation standards for MHLFs. It
addresses the TSLs examined by DOE
and the projected impacts of each of
these levels. Additional details
regarding DOE’s analyses are contained
in the final determination TSD
supporting this document.
A. Trial Standard Levels
DOE analyzed the benefits and
burdens of three TSLs for MHLFs. TSL
1 is composed of EL 1 for all equipment
classes. TSL 2 is composed of the
efficiency levels corresponding to the
least efficient electronic ballast level for
each equipment class, if any efficiency
levels corresponding to an electronic
ballast exist. TSL 3 is composed of the
max-tech level for each equipment class.
Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the
corresponding efficiency levels that
DOE has identified for potential
amended energy conservation standards
for MHLFs.
27 United States Office of Management and
Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis.
September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03–
21.html.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58785
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR MHLFS
≥50 W and
≤100 W
TSL
TSL
TSL
TSL
0
1
2
3
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
.......................................................
0
1
2
3
B. Economic Justification and Energy
Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual
Customers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts
on MHLF customers by looking at the
effects that potential amended standards
at each TSL would have on the LCC and
PBP. These analyses are discussed in
the following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher-efficiency products
affect consumers in two ways: (1)
Purchase price increases and (2) annual
operating costs decrease.28 Inputs used
for calculating the LCC and PBP include
total installed costs (i.e., product price
plus installation costs), and operating
costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy
prices, energy price trends, and
≥150 W and
≤250 W
>100 W and
<150 W
0
1
2
3
>250 W and
≤500 W
0
1
2
2
replacement costs). The LCC calculation
also uses product lifetime and a
discount rate. Chapter 8 of the final
determination TSD provides detailed
information on the LCC and PBP
analyses.
Table V.2 through Table V.13 show
the LCC and PBP results for the ELs and
TSLs considered for each equipment
class, with indoor and outdoor
installations aggregated together using
equipment shipments in the analysis
period start year (2025). The results
provided here will differ from the LCC
and PBP results from the NOPD due to
updated data used for this final
determination. Results for each
equipment class are shown in two
tables. In the first table, the simple
payback is measured relative to the
baseline product. For ELs having a
higher first year’s operating cost than
>500 W and
≤1,000 W
0
1
2
2
>1,000 W and
≤2,000 W
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
that of the baseline, the payback period
is ‘‘Never,’’ because the additional
installed cost relative to the baseline is
not recouped. In the second table,
impacts are measured relative to the
efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case in the compliance year
(see section IV.F.8 of this document).
Because some customers purchase
products with higher efficiency in the
no-new-standards case, the average
savings are less than the difference
between the average LCC of the baseline
product and the average LCC at each
TSL. The savings refer only to
customers who are affected by a
standard at a given TSL. Those who
already purchase equipment with
efficiency at or above a given TSL are
not affected. Customers for whom the
LCC increases at a given TSL experience
a net cost.
TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR THE ≥50 W AND ≤100 W EQUIPMENT CLASS
Average costs
(2020$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
889.82
903.12
935.77
953.36
Lifetime
operating
cost
131.20
131.14
131.96
131.27
Simple
payback
(years)
LCC
1,731.71
1,729.46
1,750.88
1,739.77
2,621.53
2,632.58
2,686.65
2,693.13
Average
fixture
lifetime
(years)
........................
239.0
Never
Never
24.2
24.2
24.2
24.2
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline equipment.
TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR THE ≥50 W AND >100 W
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
Average
LCC savings *
(2020$)
1
2
3
(11.05)
(64.72)
(64.68)
Percent of
consumers that
experience
net cost
82.1
62.0
72.0
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
28 While it is generally true that higher-efficiency
equipment has lower operating costs, MHLF
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
operating costs in this analysis also incorporate the
costs of lamp and ballast replacements. Due to these
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
replacement costs, higher operating costs can be
experienced at efficiency levels above the baseline.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58786
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR THE >100 W AND <150 W EQUIPMENT CLASS
Average costs
(2020$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
0
1
2
3
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
846.76
860.27
898.69
1,015.69
Lifetime
operating
cost
154.76
153.78
152.03
155.72
LCC
1,915.54
1,902.10
1,891.30
1,926.47
Average
fixture
lifetime
(years)
Simple
payback
(years)
2,762.30
2,762.37
2,789.99
2,942.16
........................
13.8
19.0
Never
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline equipment.
TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR THE >100 W AND <150 W
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
Average
LCC
savings *
(2020$)
1
2
3
Percent of
consumers that
experience net
cost
(0.22)
(27.02)
(179.26)
10.3
24.1
46.5
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR THE ≥150 W AND ≤250 W EQUIPMENT CLASS
Average costs
(2020$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
0 ...............................................................
1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
994.60
1,018.48
1,172.73
Lifetime
operating
cost
190.93
190.63
188.56
LCC
2,336.03
2,329.74
2,294.58
Average
fixture
lifetime
(years)
Simple
payback
(years)
3,330.62
3,348.22
3,467.31
........................
80.2
75.4
23.5
23.5
23.5
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline equipment.
TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR THE ≥150 W AND >250 W
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
Average
LCC savings *
(2020$)
1
2
2
Percent of
consumers that
experience net
cost
(17.56)
(129.14)
(129.14)
53.5
88.4
88.4
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
TABLE V.8—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR THE >250 W AND ≤500 W EQUIPMENT CLASS
Average costs
(2020$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
0 ...............................................................
1 ...............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
1,121.20
1,142.97
PO 00000
Frm 00024
First year’s
operating
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
249.34
249.17
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3,016.36
3,011.71
Simple
payback
(years)
LCC
4,137.56
4,154.69
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
........................
127.3
Average
fixture
lifetime
(years)
23.5
23.5
58787
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.8—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR THE >250 W AND ≤500 W EQUIPMENT CLASS—Continued
Average costs
(2020$)
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
2 ...............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
1,378.00
Lifetime
operating
cost
258.46
LCC
3,123.86
Average
fixture
lifetime
(years)
Simple
payback
(years)
4,501.86
Never
23.5
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline equipment.
TABLE V.9—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR THE >250 W AND >500 W
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
Average
LCC savings *
(2020$)
1
2
2
Percent of
consumers that
experience
net cost
(17.14)
(364.34)
(364.34)
95.2
95.9
95.9
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR THE >500 W AND ≤1,000 W EQUIPMENT CLASS
Average costs
(2020)$
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
0 ...............................................................
1 ...............................................................
First year’s
operating
cost
1,396.65
1,429.96
Lifetime
operating
cost
582.23
581.32
Simple
payback
(years)
LCC
7,221.65
7,207.07
8,618.30
8,637.03
Average
fixture
lifetime
(years)
........................
36.4
23.7
23.7
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline equipment.
TABLE V.11—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR THE >500 W AND ≤1,000 W
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
Average
LCC Savings *
(2020$)
1
1
1
Percent of
consumers that
experience
net cost
(18.72)
(18.72)
(18.72)
91.9
91.9
91.9
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
TABLE V.12—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR THE >1,000 W AND ≤2,000 W EQUIPMENT CLASS
Average
costs
(2020$)
Simple
payback
(years)
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Efficiency level
Installed
cost
0 ...............................................................
1 ...............................................................
1,489.80
1,522.96
First year’s
operating
cost
Lifetime
operating
cost
188.40
186.62
2,387.30
2,364.56
Average
fixture lifetime
(years)
LCC
3,877.10
3,887.52
........................
18.6
23.7
23.7
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative
to the baseline equipment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58788
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.13—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR THE >1,000 W AND ≤2,000 W
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Life-cycle cost savings
Efficiency
level
TSL
1 .......................................................................................................................................
2 .......................................................................................................................................
3 .......................................................................................................................................
Average
LCC savings *
(2020$)
1
1
1
Percent of
consumers that
experience
net cost
(10.47)
(10.47)
(10.47)
48.5
48.5
48.5
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
values, and, as required by EPCA, based
the energy use calculation on the DOE
test procedures for MHLFs. In contrast,
the PBPs presented in section V.B.1.a
were calculated using distributions that
reflect the range of energy use in the
field.
Table V.14 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the
considered ELs for MHLFs. While DOE
examined the rebuttable-presumption
criterion, it considered whether the
standard levels considered for this rule
As discussed in section IV.F.9, EPCA
establishes a rebuttable presumption
that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the increased
purchase cost for a product that meets
the standard is less than three times the
value of the first-year energy savings
resulting from the standard. In
calculating a rebuttable presumption
payback period for each of the
considered ELs, DOE used discrete
are economically justified through a
more detailed analysis of the economic
impacts of those levels, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers
the full range of impacts to the
consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and
environment. The results of that
analysis serve as the basis for DOE to
definitively evaluate the economic
justification for a potential standard
level, thereby supporting or rebutting
the results of any preliminary
determination of economic justification.
TABLE V.14—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS
Rebuttable presumption payback period
(years)
EL
≥50 W and
≤100 W
1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
3 ...............................................................
2,150.5
21.4
21.9
≥150 W and
≤250 W **
>250 W and
≤500 W
>500 W and
≤1,000 W
>1,000 W and
≤2,000 W
102.9
90.2
........................
195.5
56.3
........................
38.1
........................
........................
18.6
........................
........................
>100 W and
<150 W *
14.3
10.0
87.6
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations,
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,
specified by UL 1029–2007.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations,
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,
specified by UL 1029–2007.
Table V.14 reports very large
rebuttable-presumption payback periods
for some equipment class-efficiency
level combinations. These payback
periods are the result of very small
operating cost savings under the
rebuttable-presumption criterion
compared to the increased installed cost
of moving from EL 0 to the EL under
consideration.
2. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE’s estimates
of the national energy savings and the
NPV of consumer benefits that would
result from each of the TSLs considered
as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings
attributable to potential amended
standards for MHLFs DOE compared
their energy consumption under the nonew-standards case to their anticipated
as
as
as
as
energy consumption under each TSL.
The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of products purchased in
the 30-year period that begins in the
first full year of anticipated compliance
with amended standards 2025–2054.
Table V.15 presents DOE’s projections
of the national energy savings for each
TSL considered for MHLFs. The savings
were calculated using the approach
described in section IV.H.1 of this
document.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
TABLE V.15—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MHLFS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2025–2054]
Trial standard level
Equipment class
1
Site Energy Savings (quads):
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:59 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
0.000006
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
2
3
0.00004
0.00006
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
58789
TABLE V.15—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MHLFS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS—Continued
[2025–2054]
Trial standard level
Equipment class
1
2
3
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
0.000001
0.000008
0.00002
0.00001
0.0000003
0.00001
0.00007
0.0001
0.00001
0.0000003
0.00001
0.00007
0.0001
0.00001
0.0000003
Total * .............................................................................................................................
0.00004
0.0002
0.0003
Primary Energy Savings (quads):
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
0.00002
0.000003
0.00002
0.00004
0.00003
0.0000007
0.0001
0.00003
0.0002
0.0003
0.00003
0.0000007
0.0002
0.00004
0.0002
0.0003
0.00003
0.0000007
Total * .............................................................................................................................
0.0001
0.0006
0.0007
FFC Energy Savings (quads):
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
0.00002
0.000003
0.00002
0.00004
0.00003
0.0000008
0.0001
0.00003
0.0002
0.0003
0.00003
0.0000008
0.0002
0.00004
0.0002
0.0003
0.00003
0.0000008
Total * .............................................................................................................................
0.0001
0.0007
0.0007
OMB Circular A–4 29 requires
agencies to present analytical results,
including separate schedules of the
monetized benefits and costs that show
the type and timing of benefits and
costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies
to consider the variability of key
elements underlying the estimates of
benefits and costs. For this rulemaking,
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis
using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of
product shipments. The choice of a 9year 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.30 The review
timeframe established in EPCA is
generally not synchronized with the
product lifetime, product manufacturing
cycles, or other factors specific to
MHLFs. Thus, such results are
presented for informational purposes
only and are not indicative of any
change in DOE’s analytical
methodology. The NES sensitivity
analysis results based on a 9-year
analytical period are presented in Table
V.16. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of MHLFs purchased in 2025–
2033.
TABLE V.16—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MHLFS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2025–2033]
Trial standard level
Equipment class
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
1
2
3
Site Energy Savings (quads):
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
0.000006
0.000001
0.000008
0.00002
0.00001
0.0000003
0.00004
0.00001
0.00007
0.0001
0.00001
0.0000003
0.00006
0.00001
0.00007
0.0001
0.00001
0.0000003
Total * .............................................................................................................................
0.00004
0.0002
0.0003
Primary Energy Savings (quads):
29 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a4/. (last accessed June 24, 2021).
30 Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review
its standards at least once every 6 years, and
requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
any new standard is promulgated before
compliance is required, except that in no case may
any new standards be required within 6 years of the
compliance date of the previous standards. While
adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may
undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
period and that the 3-year compliance date may
yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis
period may not be appropriate given the variability
that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and
the fact that for some products, the compliance
period is 5 years rather than 3 years.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58790
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE V.16—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR MHLFS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS—Continued
[2025–2033]
Trial standard level
Equipment class
1
2
3
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
0.00002
0.000003
0.00002
0.00004
0.00003
0.0000007
0.0001
0.00003
0.0002
0.0003
0.00003
0.0000007
0.0002
0.00004
0.0002
0.0003
0.00003
0.0000007
Total * .............................................................................................................................
FFC Energy Savings (quads):
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
0.0001
0.0006
0.0007
0.00002
0.000003
0.00002
0.00004
0.00003
0.0000008
0.0001
0.00003
0.0002
0.0003
0.00003
0.0000008
0.0002
0.00004
0.0002
0.0003
0.00003
0.0000008
Total * .............................................................................................................................
0.0001
0.0007
0.0007
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs
and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of
the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the
TSLs considered for MHLFs. In
accordance with OMB’s guidelines on
regulatory analysis,31 DOE calculated
NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-
percent real discount rate. Table V.17
shows the consumer NPV results with
impacts counted over the lifetime of
products purchased in 2025–2054.
TABLE V.17—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR MHLFS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2025–2054]
Trial standard level
Equipment class
1
2
3
3 percent (millions 2018$):
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
¥0.12
0.0027
¥0.11
¥0.25
¥0.077
¥0.00038
¥2.39
¥0.32
¥1.67
¥3.27
¥0.077
¥0.00038
¥2.44
¥0.66
¥1.67
¥3.27
¥0.077
¥0.00038
Total * .............................................................................................................................
¥0.56
¥7.72
¥8.12
7 percent (millions 2018$):
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1000 W ..........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
¥0.10
¥0.00059
¥0.10
¥0.21
¥0.080
¥0.0014
¥1.28
¥0.17
¥1.38
¥2.86
¥0.080
¥0.0014
¥1.35
¥0.41
¥1.38
¥2.86
¥0.080
¥0.0014
Total * ............................................................................................................................
¥0.49
¥5.78
¥6.10
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
* Total may not equal sum due to rounding.
The NPV results based on the
aforementioned 9-year analytical period
are presented in Table V.18. The
impacts are counted over the lifetime of
products purchased in 2025–2054. As
mentioned previously, such results are
presented for informational purposes
only and are not indicative of any
31 U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17,
2003. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/
circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed June 28, 2021).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
change in DOE’s analytical methodology
or decision criteria.
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
58791
TABLE V.18—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR MHLFS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS
[2025–2033]
Trial standard level
Equipment class
1
2
3
3 percent (millions 2020$):
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
¥0.12
0.0027
¥0.11
¥0.25
¥0.077
¥0.00038
¥2.39
¥0.32
¥1.67
¥3.27
¥0.077
¥0.00038
¥2.44
¥0.66
¥1.67
¥3.27
¥0.077
¥0.00038
Total * .............................................................................................................................
¥0.56
¥7.72
¥8.12
7 percent (millions 2020$):
≥50 W and ≤100 W ..............................................................................................................
>100 W and <150 W ............................................................................................................
≥150 W and ≤250 W ............................................................................................................
>250 W and ≤500 W ............................................................................................................
>500 W and ≤1,000 W .........................................................................................................
>1,000 W and ≤2,000 W ......................................................................................................
¥0.10
¥0.00059
¥0.10
¥0.21
¥0.080
¥0.0014
¥1.28
¥0.17
¥1.38
¥2.86
¥0.080
¥0.0014
¥1.35
¥0.41
¥1.38
¥2.86
¥0.080
¥0.0014
Total * .............................................................................................................................
¥0.49
¥5.78
¥6.10
* Total may not equal sum due to rounding.
The previous results reflect the use of
a default trend to estimate the change in
price for MHLFs over the analysis
period (see section IV.H.2 of this
document). DOE also conducted a
sensitivity analysis that considered one
scenario with a lower rate of price
decline than the reference case and one
scenario with a higher rate of price
decline than the reference case. The
results of these alternative cases are
presented in appendix 10C of the final
determination TSD. In the high-pricedecline case, the NPV of consumer
benefits is higher than in the default
case. In the low-price-decline case, the
NPV of consumer benefits is lower than
in the default case.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
C. Final Determination
For this final determination, DOE
analyzed whether amended standards
for MHLFs would be technologically
feasible and cost effective. (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2))
EPCA mandates that DOE consider
whether amended energy conservation
standards for MHLFs would be
technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has
determined that there are technology
options that would improve the
efficiency of MHLFs. These technology
options are being used in commercially
available MHLFs and therefore are
technologically feasible. (See section
IV.B for further information.) Hence,
DOE has determined that amended
energy conservation standards for
MHLFs are technologically feasible.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
EPCA requires DOE to consider
whether energy conservation standards
for MHLFs would be cost effective
through an evaluation of the savings in
operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the covered
product/equipment compared to any
increase in the price of, or in the initial
charges for, or maintenance expenses of,
the covered products/equipment which
are/is likely to result from the
imposition of an amended standard. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A),
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) As presented in the
prior section, the average customer
purchasing a representative MHLF
would experience an increase in LCC at
each evaluated standards case as
compared to the no-new-standards case.
The simple PBP for the average MHLF
customer at most ELs is projected to be
generally longer than the mean lifetime
of the equipment, which further
indicates that the increase in installed
cost for more efficient MHLFs is not
recouped by their associated operating
cost savings. The NPV benefits at these
TSLs are also negative for all equipment
classes at 3-percent and 7-percent
discount rates. Based on the previous
considerations, DOE has determined
that more stringent amended energy
conservation standards for MHLFs
cannot satisfy the relevant statutory
requirements because such standards
would not be cost effective as required
under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(II); 42 U.S.C.
6316(a))
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Having determined that amended
energy conservation standards for
MHLFs would not be cost-effective,
DOE did not further evaluate the
significance of the amount of energy
conservation under the considered
amended standards because it has
determined that the potential standards
would not be cost-effective (and by
extension, would not be economically
justified) as required under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A);
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)).
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866
This final determination has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’)
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As
a result, OMB did not review this final
determination.
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’’) and a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) for any
rule that by law must be proposed for
public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As required by E.O. 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58792
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this final
determination under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. DOE has concluded
that amended energy conservation
standards for metal halide lamp fixtures
would not be cost effective (and by
extension not economically justified).
Because DOE is not amending the
current energy conservation standards
for MHLFs, DOE certifies that this final
determination will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an
FRFA for this final determination. DOE
will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
Manufacturers of covered products
must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy
conservation standards. To certify
compliance, manufacturers must first
obtain test data for their products
according to the DOE test procedures,
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.
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The
collection-of-information requirement
for the certification and recordkeeping
is subject to review and approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been
approved by OMB under OMB control
number 1910–1400. Public reporting
burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of
the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
This final determination, which
concludes that amended energy
conservation standards for MHLFs
would not be cost effective (and by
extension, not economically justified) as
required under the relevant statute,
imposes no new information or
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, clearance from the OMB is
not required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has analyzed this final
determination in accordance with NEPA
and DOE’s implementing regulations (10
CFR part 1021). DOE has determined
that this rule qualifies for categorical
exclusion A4 because it is an
interpretation or ruling in regards to an
existing regulations and otherwise
meets the requirements for application
of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR
1021.410. Therefore, DOE has
determined that promulgation of this
rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment within the meaning
of NEPA, and does not require an
environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR
43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain
requirements on Federal agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. As this final determination does
not amend the standards for MHLFs,
there is no impact on the policymaking
discretion of the States. Therefore, no
further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes
on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements:
(1) Eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
rather than a general standard, and (4)
promote simplification and burden
reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996).
Regarding the review required by
section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation (1) clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any,
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4)
specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of
applicable standards in section 3(a) and
section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one
or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this final
determination meets the relevant
standards of E.O. 12988.
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
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
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On
March 18, 1997, DOE published a
statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy
statement is also available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/
documents/umra_97.pdf.
This final determination does not
contain a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, nor is it expected to require
expenditures of $100 million or more in
any one year by the private sector. As
a result, the analytical requirements of
UMRA do not apply.
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
final determination would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),
DOE has determined that this final
determination would not result in any
takings that might require compensation
under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
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 information quality
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to
OMB Memorandum M–19–15,
Improving Implementation of the
Information Quality Act (April 24,
2019), DOE published updated
guidelines which are available at
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/
12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
IQA%20Guidelines%20
Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed
this final determination under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires
Federal agencies to prepare and submit
to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy
Effects for any significant energy action.
A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined
as any action by an agency that
promulgates or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that (1)
is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor
order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any significant energy action, the agency
must give a detailed statement of any
adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use should the proposal
be implemented, and of reasonable
alternatives to the action and their
expected benefits on energy supply,
distribution, and use.
Because this final determination does
not amend energy conservation
standards for MHLFs, it is not a
significant energy action, nor has it been
designated as such by the Administrator
at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects
on this final determination.
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’),
issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the
Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).
The Bulletin establishes that certain
scientific information shall be peer
reviewed by qualified specialists before
it is disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
Bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2664, 2667.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58793
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and prepared a
report describing that peer review.32
Generation of this report involved a
rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and
qualified and independent reviewers to
make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity
and management effectiveness of
programs and/or projects. DOE has
determined that the peer-reviewed
analytical process continues to reflect
current practice, and the Department
followed that process for developing its
determination in the case of the present
rulemaking.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this final determination prior to its
effective date. The report will state that
it has been determined that the final
determination is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on October 19, 2021,
by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
32 The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at:
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0 (June 18, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
58794
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 20,
2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021–23183 Filed 10–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2021–0520; Airspace
Docket No. 21–ASO–17]
RIN 2120–AA66
Amendment and Establishment of
Class D and E Airspace; Concord, NC
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action amends Class D
airspace, establishes Class E airspace
designated as an extension to a Class D
surface area, and amends Class E
airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at ConcordPadgett Regional Airport, Concord, NC.
The FAA is taking this action as a result
of the Charlotte Class B Biennial
Review. This action also updates the
airport’s name to Concord-Padgett
Regional Airport (formerly Concord
Regional Airport). In addition, this
action updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide
with the FAA’s database. This action
also makes an editorial change replacing
the term Airport/Facility Directory with
the term Chart Supplement in the legal
descriptions of associated Class D
airspace. Controlled airspace is
necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) in the area.
DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 27,
2022. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under 1 CFR part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA
Order JO 7400.11 and publication of
conforming amendments.
ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can
be viewed online at https://
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/.
For further information, you can contact
the Airspace Policy Group, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267–8783.
The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Oct 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA
Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
fr.inspection@nara.gov or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Fornito, Operations Support Group,
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave.,
College Park, GA 30337; Telephone
(404) 305–6364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability and Summary of
Documents for Incorporation by
Reference
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the
agency’s authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority as it establishes
and amends Class D and E airspace in
Concord, NC.
The Rule
History
The FAA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 35237, July 2, 2021) for
Docket No. FAA–2021–0520 to amend
Class D airspace, establish Class E
airspace designated as an extension to a
Class D surface area, and amend Class
E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at ConcordPadgett Regional Airport, Concord, NC.
In addition, the FAA proposed to
update the geographic coordinates of the
airport to coincide with the FAA’s
database, and make an editorial change
replacing the term Airport/Facility
Directory with the term Chart
Supplement in the legal description of
associated Class D airspace.
Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
Class D and Class E airspace
designations are published in
Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005,
respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F,
dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class E airspace designations
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This document amends FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly
available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. FAA Order JO
7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E
airspace areas, air traffic routes, and
reporting points.
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71
by amending the Class D airspace and
Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at ConcordPadgett Regional Airport, Concord, NC,
by updating the airport’s name to
Concord-Padgett Regional Airport,
(formerly Concord Regional Airport),
and updating the geographical
coordinates to coincide with the FAA’s
database. In addition, this action
amends Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Concord-Padgett Regional Airport,
Concord, NC, by increasing the radius to
8.8 miles (formerly 6.5 miles). This
action also establishes Class E airspace
designated as an extension to a Class D
surface area airspace for ConcordPadgett Regional Airport within 1 mile
each side of the 010° bearing from the
Concord-Padgett Regional Airport,
extending from the 4.0-mile radius to
6.3 miles northeast of the airport, and
within 1 mile each side of the 190°
bearing from the airport, extending from
the 4.0-mile radius to 6.3 miles
southwest from the airport. In addition,
the FAA replaces the outdated term
Airport/Facility Directory with the term
Chart Supplement in the associated
Class D airspace in the legal
descriptions for Concord-Padgett
Regional Airport.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on
September 15.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which
frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally
current. It therefore: (1) Is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
E:\FR\FM\25OCR1.SGM
25OCR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 203 (Monday, October 25, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58763-58794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23183]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 58763]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016]
RIN 1904-AD89
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including metal halide
lamp fixtures (``MHLFs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent,
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified,
and would result in significant energy savings. In this final
determination, DOE has determined that the energy conservation
standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended because they are not
economically justified.
DATES: The effective date of this final determination is November 24,
2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=14. The docket web page
contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for MHLFs
III. General Discussion
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
B. Test Procedure
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
E. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Overall
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Scope of Coverage
2. Test Procedure
3. Equipment Classes
4. Technology Options
5. Screening Analysis
a. Screened-Out Technologies
b. Remaining Technologies
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Representative Equipment Classes
2. Baseline Ballasts
3. More-Efficient Ballasts
4. Efficiency Levels
5. Scaling to Other Equipment Classes
6. Manufacturer Selling Price
D. Markups Analysis
1. Distribution Channels
2. Estimation of Markups
3. Summary of Markups
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Replacement Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Discount Rates
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
9. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. National Energy Savings
2. Net Present Value Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Customers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
C. Final Determination
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
[[Page 58764]]
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (``EPCA''),\2\ established the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These
products include metal halide lamp fixtures (``MHLFs''), the subject of
this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA established initial standards for MHLFs. (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(1)(A)) EPCA directed the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
to conduct a review of the statutory standards to determine whether
they should be amended, and a subsequent review to determine if the
standards then in effect should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2) and
(3)) DOE conducted the first review of MHLF energy conservation
standards and published a final rule amending standards on February 10,
2014. 79 FR 7746.\3\ DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant
to the EPCA requirement that DOE conduct a second review of MHLF energy
conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE notes that because of the codification of the MHLF
provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295, MHLF energy conservation standards and
the associated test procedures are subject to the requirements of
the consumer products provisions of Part B of Title III of EPCA.
However, because MHLFs are generally considered to be commercial
equipment, DOE established the requirements for MHLFs in 10 CFR part
431 (``Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and
Industrial Equipment'') for ease of reference. DOE notes that the
location of the provisions within the CFR does not affect either the
substance or applicable procedure for MHLFs. Based upon their
placement into 10 CFR part 431, MHLFs are referred to as
``equipment'' throughout this document, although covered by the
consumer product provisions of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE analyzed MHLFs subject to standards specified in 10 CFR
431.326(c). DOE first analyzed the technological feasibility of more
efficient MHLFs. For those MHLFs for which DOE determined higher
standards to be technologically feasible, DOE estimated energy savings
that could result from potential energy conservation standards by
conducting a national impacts analysis (``NIA''). DOE evaluated whether
higher standards would be cost effective by conducting life-cycle cost
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analyses, and estimated the net
present value (``NPV'') of the total costs and benefits experienced by
consumers.
Based on the results of these analyses, summarized in section V of
this document, DOE has determined that current standards for metal
halide lamp fixtures do not need to be amended because more stringent
standards would not be cost-effective (and by extension, would not be
economically justified).
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
MHLFs.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include MHLFs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) EPCA, as amended by
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140, EISA
2007), prescribed energy conservation standards for this equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) EPCA directed DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles
to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A)) DOE published a final rule amending the
standards on February 10, 2014 (``2014 MHLF final rule''). 79 FR 7746.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A), the agency must conduct a second review
to determine whether current standards should be amended and publish a
final rule. This second MHLF standards rulemaking was initiated on July
1, 2019 through the publication of a request for information (``RFI'')
document in the Federal Register. 84 FR 31232 (``July 2019 RFI''). On
August 5, 2020, DOE published a notice of proposed determination
(``NOPD'') regarding energy conservation standards for MHLFs. 85 FR
47472 (``August 2020 NOPD'').
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use
these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test
procedures for MHLF appear at 10 CFR 431.324.
In making a determination that the standards do not need to be
amended, DOE must evaluate under the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)
whether amended standards (1) will result in significant conservation
of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are cost effective
as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of cost effectiveness requires DOE
to consider savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance
expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the
imposition of the standard.
DOE is publishing this document to satisfy EPCA's requirement under
42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A) to complete a second rulemaking for MHLFs and
to satisfy the 6-year lookback provision at 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1).
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE prescribed the current energy
conservation standards for MHLFs manufactured on or after February 10,
2017. 79 FR 7746. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at
10 CFR 431.326 and are specified in Table II.1.
[[Page 58765]]
Table II.1--Current Energy Conservation Standards for MHLFs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with lamps
of the following rated lamp Tested input voltage * Minimum standard equation * (%)
wattage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50W and <=100W.................. 480 V........................ (1 / (1 + 1.24 x P[supcaret](-0.351)))-0.020.**
>=50W and <=100W.................. All others................... 1 / (1 + 1.24 x P[supcaret](-0.351)).
>100W and <150W [dagger].......... 480 V........................ (1 / (1 + 1.24 x P[supcaret](-0.351)))-0.020.
>100W and <150W [dagger].......... All others................... 1 / (1 + 1.24 x P[supcaret](-0.351)).
>=150W [Dagger] and <=250W........ 480 V........................ 0.880.
>=150W [Dagger] and <=250W........ All others................... For >=150W and <=200W: 0.880.
For >200W and <=250W: 1 / (1 + 0.876 x P[supcaret](-0.351)).
>250W and <=500W.................. 480 V........................ For >250W and <265W: 0.880.
For >=265W and <=500W: (1 / (1 + 0.876 x P[supcaret](-0.351)))-0.010.
>250W and <=500W.................. All others................... 1 / (1 + 0.876 x P[supcaret](-0.351)).
>500W and <=1,000W................ 480 V........................ >500W and <=750W: 0.900.
>750W and <=1,000W: 0.000104 x P + 0.822.
For >500W and <=1,000W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast.
>500W and <=1,000W................ All others................... For >500W and <=750W: 0.910.
For >750W and <=1,000W: 0.000104 x P + 0.832.
For >500W and <=1,000W: may not utilize a probe-start ballast.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.
[dagger] Includes 150 watt (``W'') fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only for 150W lamps; rated for use
in wet locations, as specified by the National Fire Protection Association (``NFPA'') 70, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to
operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by Underwriters Laboratory (``UL'') 1029.
[Dagger] Excludes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of 10 CFR 431.326, that are fixtures rated only for 150W 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
[deg]C, as specified by UL 1029.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for MHLFs
As described in section II.A, EPCA, as amended by Public Law 110-
140, EISA 2007, prescribed energy conservation standards for MHLFs. (42
U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) EPCA directed DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles
to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A)) DOE completed the first of these rulemaking
cycles in 2014 by adopting amended performance standards for MHLFs
manufactured on or after February 10, 2017. 79 FR 7746. The current
energy conservation standards are located in 10 CFR part 431. See 10
CFR 431.326 (detailing the applicable energy conservation standards for
different classes of MHLFs). The currently applicable DOE test
procedures for MHLFs appear at 10 CFR 431.324. Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(hh)(3)(A), the agency is instructed to conduct a second review of
its energy conservation standards for MHLFs and publish a final rule to
determine whether to amend those standards. DOE initiated the second
MHLF standards rulemaking by publishing the July 2019 RFI and
subsequently, DOE published the August 2020 NOPD to support this
rulemaking requirement. 84 FR 31232; 85 FR 47472.
DOE received five comments in response to the August 2020 NOPD from
the interested parties listed in Table II.2
Table II.2--August 2020 NOPD Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final
Commenter(s) determination Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA............................... Trade Association.
Association *.
Signify................................ Signify............................ Manufacturer.
California Investor-Owned Utilities CA IOUs............................ Utility Association.
(Pacific Gas and Electric Company
[PG&E], San Diego Gas and Electric
[SDG&E], and Southern California
Edison [SCE]).
Anonymous.............................. Anonymous.......................... Private Citizen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Submitted two separate comments.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for MHLFs. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0016-0007, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number at page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. General Discussion
DOE developed this final determination after considering oral and
written comments, data, and information from interested parties that
represent a variety of interests.
A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) This final
determination covers metal halide lamp fixtures defined as light
fixtures for general lighting application designed to be operated with
a metal halide lamp and a ballast
[[Page 58766]]
for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6291(64); 10 CFR 431.322. The scope
of coverage is discussed in further detail in section IV.B.1 of this
document.
B. Test Procedure
EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for MHLFs are expressed in terms
of the efficiency of the ballast contained within the fixture. (10 CFR
431.326)
DOE established an active mode and standby mode power test method
for MHLFs in a final rule published on March 9, 2010. 75 FR 10950. The
current test procedure for MHLFs appears in 10 CFR 431.324 and
specifies the ballast efficiency calculation as lamp output power
divided by the ballast input power. DOE has since published an RFI to
initiate a data collection process to consider whether to amend DOE's
test procedure for MHLFs. 83 FR 24680 (May 30, 2018). On July 14, 2021,
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend DOE's test
procedures for MHLFs (``July 2021 NOPR''). 86 FR 37069.
C. Technological Feasibility
1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. Section 6(c)(1) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C, appendix A (the ``Process Rule''). DOE considers technologies
incorporated in commercially available products or in working
prototypes to be technologically feasible. Sections 6(c)(3)(i) and
7(b)(1) of the Process Rule.
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies.
Sections 6(c)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule.
Additionally, it is DOE policy not to include in its analysis any
proprietary technology that is a unique pathway to achieving a certain
efficiency level (``EL''). Section IV.B.5 of this document 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 standards considered in this rulemaking. For further
details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of
the final determination technical support document (``TSD'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The final determination technical support document for this
notice can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-;2017-BT-STD-
0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically
feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for MHLFs
using the design parameters for the most efficient products available
on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE
determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.C.4 and in
chapter 5 of the final determination TSD.
D. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to MHLFs purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the
potential standards (2025-2054).\6\ The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of MHLFs purchased in the 30-year analysis period. DOE
quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a
product would likely evolve in the absence of energy conservation
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used its NIA spreadsheet models to estimate national energy
savings (``NES'') from potential amended standards for MHLFs. The NIA
spreadsheet model (described in section V.B.2 of this document)
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For
electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of primary
energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is used to
generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas, the
primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site energy
savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'')
energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.\7\ DOE's
approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of
the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more
information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and
notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended
at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered MHLFs, DOE must
determine that such action would result in significant energy savings.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term ``significant'' is not
defined in the EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of
Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington,
768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), opined that Congress intended
``significant'' energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings
that were not ``genuinely trivial.''
Historically, DOE did not provide specific guidance or a numerical
threshold for determining what constitutes significant conservation of
energy. Instead, DOE determined on a case-by-case basis whether a
particular rulemaking would result in significant conservation of
energy. In a final rule published February 14, 2020, DOE adopted a
numerical threshold for significant conservation of energy. 85 FR 8626,
8670. Specifically, the threshold requires that an energy conservation
standard result in a 0.30
[[Page 58767]]
quad reduction in site energy use over a 30-year analysis period or a
10-percent reduction in site energy use over that same period. Id.
E. 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)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how
DOE has addressed each of those seven factors in this final
determination.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of potential amended standards on
manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'').
DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the
quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term 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. The
industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) industry net present value,
which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows;
(2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4)
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 consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of
the consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected
disproportionately by a standard.
As discussed further in section V.C of this document, DOE has
concluded amended standards for MHLFs would not be cost-effective (and
by extension, would not be economically justified) for the potential
standard levels evaluated based on the PBP and LCC analysis. Therefore,
DOE did not conduct an MIA analysis or LCC subgroup analysis for this
final determination.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a 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 a product (including
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As
discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to
project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards analyzed in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration
in this rulemaking. DOE also determined that analyzed standards would
not result in the unavailability performance characteristics of
products under consideration that are generally available at the time
of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
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 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)) Because DOE is
not amending standards for MHLFs, DOE did not transmit a copy of its
proposed determination to the Attorney General.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy
savings from the adopted 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 maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when
[[Page 58768]]
considering the need for national energy conservation. Because DOE has
concluded that amended standards for MHLFs would not be economically
justified, DOE did not conduct a utility impact analysis or emissions
analysis for this final determination.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
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 consumer of a
product 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
consumers. 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 consumers, 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 rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F.9 of this final determination.
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regards to MHLFs. Separate subsections address each
component of DOE's analyses and respond to comments received.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. These spreadsheet tools are available on the
DOE website for this rulemaking: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=14.
A. Overall
DOE received several comments regarding its tentative conclusion in
the August 2020 NOPD to not amend standards for MHLFs. NEMA agreed with
DOE's proposed determination stating that the industry would not be
able to recover investments in new standards for MHLFs based on the
continued decline of shipments (80 percent reduction in MHLF shipments
from 2008 through 2018). (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Additionally, NEMA
stated that due to the rapidly declining market, attaining significant
energy savings in a reasonable time did not seem possible. (NEMA, No.
12 at p. 4) Signify agreed with DOE's proposed determination that
standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended. However, Signify stated
that it supported standards for metal halide (``MH'') ballasts designed
to operate lamps with wattages between >1,000 W and <=2,000 W as such
standards would incentivize a rational use of energy for high power MH
lamp luminaire applications. (Signify, No. 13 at pp. 2, 12)
A private citizen also agreed with DOE's proposed determination,
stating that shipments have declined over 90 percent in the last 10-15
years and will continue to do so. The citizen also stated that MH lamps
are not used in new buildings or new outdoor lighting. The citizen
recommended DOE not have to repeat this analysis in three years unless
shipment increased by at least some ``X'' percent during that time.
(Anonymous, No. 10, p. 1)
When expressing concerns regarding max-tech levels proposed in the
August 2020 NOPD, NEMA recommended DOE publish a supplemental notice to
the August 2020 NOPD rather than a final rule to avoid risking future
challenges. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3) (See section IV.C.4 for the
discussion of NEMA's comment regarding max-tech levels.) Additionally,
in response to a separate rule requesting comment regarding rulemaking
prioritizations, NEMA stated that if DOE were to quickly verify the
decline in sale and no notable energy saving opportunities for MHLFs, a
negative determination could be made and allow DOE resources to be
applied elsewhere with more significant energy savings. (NEMA, No. 15
\8\ at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This comment was received in response to a Request for
Comment on the prioritization of rulemakings pursuant to the
Department's updated and modernized rulemaking methodology titled,
``Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration of New
or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment'' (Process
Rule), Docket ID: EERE-2020-BT-STD-004, available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0004-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs stated that DOE's analysis was incomplete and that it
should consider revising its shipments and cost data. The CA IOUs urged
DOE to refrain from issuing a final determination until the adjustments
to the data have been made and shared with stakeholders. (CA IOUs, No.
14, pp. 2-3) (See section IV.C.6 for discussion of the CA IOU's
comments on prices and section IV.G for shipments.)
Concerns raised in comments received on the August 2020 NOPD are
addressed in this document and do not result in major changes to the
analysis. Hence, DOE is not publishing supplemental notice to the
August 2020 NOPD. In this final determination DOE is not amending
current standards for MHLFs because more stringent standards would not
be cost-effective (and by extension, would not be economically
justified). DOE made this determination by conducting an analysis of
covered MHLFs including those containing MH ballasts designed to
operate lamps with wattages between >1,000 W and <=2,000 W. As noted in
section II.A, DOE is completing this final determination as directed by
EPCA to conduct a secondary rulemaking for MHLFs.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE conducted a market and technology assessment in support of this
final determination. DOE develops information in the market and
technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market
for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the
industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and
technologies used in the products. This activity includes both
quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-
available information. The subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination
of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers
and
[[Page 58769]]
industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments
information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or
design options that could improve the energy efficiency of MHLFs. The
key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following
sections. See chapter 3 of the final determination TSD for further
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
MHLF is defined as a light fixture for general lighting application
designed to be operated with a metal halide lamp and a ballast for a
metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6291(64); 10 CFR 431.322. Any equipment
meeting the definition of MHLF is included in DOE's scope of coverage,
though all equipment within the scope of coverage may not be subject to
standards.
Signify stated that it appreciated the clarification in the August
2020 NOPD that DOE has does not have authority to evaluate amended
standards for metal halide ballasts sold outside of MHLFs as this is a
frequent question asked by its customers. (Signify, No. 13 at p. 13)
2. Test Procedure
The current test procedure for MHLFs appears in 10 CFR 431.324 and
specifies the ballast efficiency calculation as lamp output power
divided by the ballast input power. With regards to the max-tech levels
in the August 2020 NOPD, Signify questioned the certification data for
any ballast operating a MH lamp at a frequency higher than 400 hertz
(``Hz''). Signify stated that the current DOE test procedure references
ANSI C82.6-2015(R2020) \9\ which excludes from scope ballasts that
operate at higher than 400 Hz for high-intensity discharge (``HID'')
lamps. Therefore, energy efficiencies for ballasts operating at
frequencies higher than 400 Hz may have been reported to DOE in error.
Signify explained that a test setup specific to high-frequency ballasts
is needed as these ballasts are more susceptible to high-frequency
parasitic elements among wires and means of interconnections and
require the appropriate power supply impedance to prevent the injection
of high-frequency voltage components. Hence, Signify suggested that DOE
not adopt the max-tech efficiency levels for electronic ballasts until
the test method is amended to include accurate measurements of high-
frequency electronic MH lamp ballasts. (Signify, No. 13 at pp. 9-10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ American National Standards Institute. American National
Standard for Lamp ballasts--Ballasts for High-Intensity Discharge
Lamps--Methods of Measurement. Approved March 20, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2015 version and the 2015(R2020) \10\ version of ANSI C82.6 do
state that their procedures apply to low-frequency ballasts (i.e.,
ballasts that operate at less than 400 Hz). DOE's current test
procedure for MHLFs references the 2005 version of ANSI C82.6 which
does not explicitly exclude certain ballasts. In 2017, ANSI published
ANSI C82.17-2017, ``High Frequency (HF) Electronic Ballasts for Metal
Halide Lamps,'' which addressed HF electronic metal halide ballasts
with sinusoidal lamp operating current frequencies above 40 kilohertz.
ANSI C82.17-2017 also states in section 5.1 that ``all measurements
necessary to determine compliance with the ballast performance
requirements of this standard shall be made in accordance with ANSI
C82.6.'' In the July 2021 NOPR DOE tentatively determined that based on
its initial review, the specifications, and instructions in ANSI C82.6
cover the necessary methodology, while being general enough to be used
as a guide for taking measurements for HF electronic ballasts. 86 FR
37069, 37078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ There are no differences between the 2015(R2020) and 2015
versions of ANSI C82.6. The 2015(R2020) version is reaffirmation of
the 2015 version.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination
whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
(Id.)
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE reviewed metal halide lamp fixtures
and the ballasts contained within them to identify performance-related
features that could potentially justify a separate equipment class. DOE
proposed to maintain the current equipment classes which are based on
input voltage, rated lamp wattage, and designation for indoor versus
outdoor application. 85 FR 47472, 47482-47483. DOE received no comments
on this topic and maintains the current equipment classes in this final
determination.
The equipment classes considered in this final determination are
shown in Table IV.1.
Table IV.1--Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with
lamps of the following rated Indoor/outdoor Input voltage type
lamp wattage [Dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=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 <=1,000 W......... Indoor......... Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W......... Indoor......... All others.
[[Page 58770]]
>500 W and <=1,000 W......... Outdoor........ Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W......... Outdoor........ All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W....... Indoor......... Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W....... Indoor......... All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W....... Outdoor........ Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W....... Outdoor........ All others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W MHLFs initially 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
[deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W MHLFs initially 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
[deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
[Dagger] 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.
4. Technology Options
In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options
that would be expected to improve the efficiency of MHLFs, as measured
by the DOE test procedure. The energy conservation standard
requirements and DOE test procedure for MHLFs are based on the
efficiency of the MH ballast contained within the fixture. Hence DOE
identified technology options that would improve the efficiency of MH
ballasts. To develop a list of technology options, DOE reviewed
manufacturer catalogs, recent trade publications and technical
journals, and consulted with technical experts.
A complete list of technology options DOE considered in the August
2020 NOPD appears in Table IV.2. 85 FR 47472, 47484. DOE did not
receive comments on technology options considered in the August 2020
NOPD and therefore continues to consider them in this final
determination. See chapter 3 of final determination TSD for further
information.
Table IV.2--Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast type Design option Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic................. Improved Core
Steel:
Grain-Oriented Use a higher grade of
Silicon Steel. electrical steel,
including grain-
oriented silicon steel,
to lower core losses.
Amorphous Steel. Create the core of the
inductor from laminated
sheets of amorphous
steel insulated from
each other.
Improved Steel Add steel laminations to
Laminations. lower core losses by
using thinner
laminations.
Copper Wiring...... Use copper wiring in
place of aluminum
wiring to lower
resistive losses.
Improved Windings.. Use of optimized-gauge
copper wire; multiple,
smaller coils; shape-
optimized coils to
reduce winding losses.
Electronic Ballast. Replace magnetic
ballasts with
electronic ballasts.
Electronic............... Improved
Components:
Magnetics....... Improved Windings: Use
of optimized-gauge
copper wire; multiple,
smaller coils; shape-
optimized coils; litz
wire to reduce 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 Substitute discrete
Circuits. components with an
integrated circuit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
[[Page 58771]]
Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of the Process Rule.
In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
DOE evaluated of each the technology options against the screening
analysis criteria and determined whether it should be excluded
(``screened out'') based on the screening criteria. DOE did not receive
comments on technology options screened out in the August 2020 NOPD and
therefore screened out the same technology options in this final
determination.
a. Screened-Out Technologies
For magnetic ballasts, DOE screened out the technology option of
using laminated sheets of amorphous steel. DOE determined that 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. 85 FR 47472, 47484.
b. Remaining Technologies
DOE concludes that all of the other identified technologies listed
in section IV.B.4 met all five screening criteria to be examined
further as design options in DOE's final determination. In summary, DOE
did not screen out the following technology options:
[squ] Magnetic Ballasts
[cir] Improved Core Steel
[cir] Copper Wiring
[cir] Improved Steel Laminations
[cir] Improved Windings
[cir] Electronic Ballast
[squ] Electronic Ballasts
[cir] Improved Components
[cir] Improved Circuit Design
85 FR 47472, 47485.
DOE determined that these technology options are technologically
feasible because they are being used or have previously been used in
commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE also finds
that all of the remaining technology options meet the other screening
criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and service; do
not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, product
availability, health, or safety; and do not utilize proprietary
technology). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the final
determination TSD.
C. Engineering Analysis
In the engineering analysis, DOE develops cost-efficiency
relationships characterizing the incremental costs of achieving
increased ballast efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for
cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers and the nation. The
methodology for the engineering analysis consists of the following
steps: (1) Selecting representative equipment classes; (2) selecting
baseline metal halide ballasts; (3) identifying more efficient
substitutes; (4) developing efficiency levels; and (5) scaling
efficiency levels to non-representative equipment classes. The details
of the engineering analysis are discussed in chapter 5 of the final
determination TSD.
1. Representative Equipment Classes
DOE selects certain equipment classes as ``representative'' to
focus its analysis. DOE chooses equipment classes as representative
primarily because of their high market volumes and/or unique
characteristics. DOE established 24 equipment classes based on input
voltage, rated lamp wattage, and indoor/outdoor designation. DOE did
not directly analyze the equipment classes containing only fixtures
with ballasts tested at 480 V due to low shipment volumes. DOE selected
all other equipment classes as representative, resulting in a total of
12 representative classes covering the full range of lamp wattages, as
well as indoor and outdoor designations. 76 FR 47472, 47485-47486.
In the August 2020 NOPD DOE directly analyzed the equipment classes
shown in gray in Table IV.3 of this document. 76 FR 47472, 47485-47486.
DOE did not receive any comments on the representative product classes
presented in the August 2020 NOPD. Therefore, DOE continues to analyze
the representative product classes shown in gray in Table IV.3 in this
final determination.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[[Page 58772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25OC21.007
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
Metal halide lamp fixtures are designed to be operated with lamps
of certain rated lamp wattages and contain ballasts that can operate
lamps at these wattages. To further focus the analysis, DOE selected a
representative rated wattage in each equipment class. Each
representative wattage was the most common wattage within each
equipment class. In the August 2020 NOPD DOE found that common wattages
within each equipment class were the same for outdoor and indoor
fixtures. Specifically, DOE selected 70 W, 150 W, 250 W, 400 W, 1,000 W
and 1,500 W as representative wattages to analyze. 85 FR 47472, 47486-
47487.
DOE did not receive any comments on the representative wattages
presented in the August 2020 NOPD and therefore continues to analyze
the same representative wattages in this final determination. The
representative wattages for each equipment class are summarized in
Table IV.4 of this document. See chapter 5 of this final determination
TSD for further details.
Table IV.4--Representative Wattages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative
Representative equipment class wattage (W)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W..................................... 70
>100 W and <150 W *.................................... 150
>=150 W and <=250 W **................................. 250
>250 W and <=500 W..................................... 400
>500 W and <=1,000 W................................... 1,000
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W................................. 1,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
[[Page 58773]]
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
2. Baseline Ballasts
For each representative equipment class, DOE selected baseline
ballasts to serve as reference points against which DOE measured
changes from potential amended energy conservation standards.
Typically, the baseline ballast is the most common, least efficient
ballast that meets existing energy conservation standards.
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE selected as baselines the least
efficient ballasts meeting standards that have common attributes for
ballasts in each equipment class such as circuit type, input voltage
and ballast type. DOE used the efficiency values of ballasts contained
in MHLFs certified in DOE's compliance certification database to
identify baseline ballasts for all equipment classes except the >1,000
W and <=2,000 W equipment class. Because fixtures in this equipment
class are not currently subject to standards, and therefore do not have
DOE certification data, DOE determined baseline ballast efficiency
values by using catalog data.
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE directly analyzed the baseline
ballasts shown in Table IV.5 of this document. 85 FR 47472, 47487. DOE
did not receive any comments on the baseline ballasts identified in the
August 2020 NOPD and therefore continues to analyze the same baseline
ballasts in this final determination. See chapter 5 of this final
determination TSD for further details.
Table IV.5--Baseline Ballasts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative equipment System input Ballast
class Wattage Ballast type Circuit type Starting method Input voltage power efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W.......... 70 Magnetic......... HX-HPF........... Pulse............ Quad............. 89.5 0.782
>100 W and <150 W *......... 150 Magnetic......... HX-HPF........... Pulse............ Quad............. 182.0 0.824
>=150 W and <=250 W **...... 250 Magnetic......... CWA.............. Pulse............ Quad............. 281.5 0.888
>250 W and <=500 W.......... 400 Magnetic......... CWA.............. Pulse............ Quad............. 443.0 0.903
>500 W and <=1,000 W........ 1,000 Magnetic......... CWA.............. Pulse............ Quad............. 1,068.4 0.936
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...... 1,500 Magnetic......... CWA.............. Probe............ Quad............. 1,625.0 0.923
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as
specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as
specified by UL 1029-2007.
3. More-Efficient Ballasts
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE selected more-efficient ballasts as
replacements for each of the baseline ballasts by considering
commercially available ballasts. DOE selected more-efficient ballasts
with similar attributes as the baseline ballast when possible (e.g.,
circuit type, input voltage). As with the baseline ballasts, DOE used
the ballast efficiency values from the compliance certification
database to identify more efficient ballasts for all equipment classes
except for the >1,000 W and <=2,000 W equipment class which does not
have certification data available. For this equipment class, DOE
determined ballast efficiency values by first gathering and analyzing
catalog data. DOE then tested the ballasts to verify the ballast
efficiency reported by the manufacturer. For instances where the
catalog data did not align with the tested data, DOE selected more-
efficient ballasts based on the tested ballast efficiency. 85 FR 47472,
47487.
DOE did not receive any comments on the more-efficient ballasts
selected in the August 2020 NOPD and therefore continues to analyze the
same more-efficient ballasts in this final determination. In the August
2020 NOPD and chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD there were typos in some
characteristics specified for the more-efficient ballasts. The system
input power for the 70 W EL 2 representative unit stated as 0.814 in
the August 2020 NOPD and TSD and should have been specified as 81.4.
The system input power for the 250 W EL 1 representative unit stated as
276.5 in the August 2020 NOPD and TSD should have been 278.7. The
system input power for the 1,500 W EL 1 representative unit stated as
1,000 W, Pulse start, with a system input power of 1063.8 and ballast
efficiency of 0.94 in the August 2020 NOPD should have been a 1,500 W,
Probe start with system input of 1,600.9 and ballast efficiency of
0.937. These typos have been corrected in this document and chapter 5
of this final determination TSD. The characteristics of the more-
efficient representative units are summarized in Tables IV.6 through
IV.11 of this document. See chapter 5 of this final determination TSD
for further details.
Table IV.6--70 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System input Ballast
Equipment class EL Technology Rated wattage Starting method Input voltage power efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W............ EL1 More Efficient 70 Pulse.............. Tri............... 88.3 0.793
Magnetic.
EL2 Standard 70 Pulse.............. Quad.............. 81.4 0.860
Electronic.
EL3 Electronic Max- 70 Pulse.............. Quad.............. 77.7 0.901
tech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.7--150 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System input Ballast
Equipment class EL Technology Rated wattage Starting method Input voltage power efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100 W and <150 W *........... EL1 More Efficient 150 Pulse.............. Quad.............. 178.6 0.84
Magnetic.
EL2 Standard 150 Pulse.............. Quad.............. 166.7 0.9
Electronic.
EL3 Electronic Max- 150 Pulse.............. Quad.............. 162.2 0.925
tech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as
specified by UL 1029-2007.
[[Page 58774]]
Table IV.8--250 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System input Ballast
Equipment class EL Technology Rated wattage Starting method Input voltage power efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=150 W and <=250 W *......... EL1 More Efficient 250 Pulse.............. Quad.............. 278.7 0.904
Magnetic.
EL2 Electronic Max 250 Pulse.............. Tri............... 266.2 0.939
Tech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as
specified by UL 1029-2007.
Table IV.9--400 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System input Ballast
Equipment class EL Technology Rated wattage Starting method Input voltage power efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>250 W and <=500 W............ EL1 More Efficient 400 Pulse.............. Quad.............. 440.5 0.908
Magnetic.
EL2 Electronic Max 400 Pulse.............. Tri............... 426.0 0.939
Tech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.10--1000 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System input Ballast
Equipment class EL Technology Rated wattage Starting method Input voltage power efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>500 W and <=1,000 W.......... EL1 More Efficient 1000 Pulse.............. Quad.............. 1063.8 0.94
Magnetic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.11--1500 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System input Ballast
Equipment Class EL Technology Rated Wattage Starting Method Input Voltage power efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W........ EL1 More Efficient 1500 Probe.............. Quad.............. 1600.9 0.937
Magnetic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Efficiency Levels
Based on the more-efficient ballasts selected for analysis, DOE
develops ELs for the representative equipment classes. DOE defines a
``max-tech'' efficiency level to represent the maximum possible
efficiency for a given product.
In the August 2020 NOPD DOE identified one magnetic EL in every
equipment class. The more-efficient magnetic EL represents a magnetic
ballast with a higher grade of steel compared to the baseline. DOE
identified a second EL (an electronic EL) for the >=150 W and <=250 W
and >250 W and <=500 W equipment classes. The standard electronic level
represents a ballast with standard electronic circuitry. DOE identified
a third EL (a more efficient electronic EL) in the >=50 W and <= 100 W
and >100 W and <150 W equipment classes. The more-efficient electronic
EL represents an electronic ballast with an improved circuit design
and/or more efficient components compared to the standard electronic
level. 85 FR 47472, 47487-47488.
DOE received several comments regarding the ELs proposed in the
August 2020 NOPD.
NEMA stated that DOE had not adequately explained the basis for
changing efficiency equations from the previous rulemaking. NEMA stated
that the modifications to the equations resulted in efficiency levels
inconsistent with DOE's intent. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2)
Current MHLF standards specify power-law equations for ballasts
operating lamps with rated wattages >=50 W and <=500 W and linear
equations for ballasts operating lamps with rated wattages >500 W and
<=1,000 W. Using MHLF efficiency data DOE determined that the current
equation forms remain valid. DOE modified only the coefficients and
exponents of the equations to best fit the MHLF efficiency data while
forming one continuous equation across equipment classes, where
possible. In this final determination, DOE maintains the equations put
forth in the August 2020 NOPD but makes minor adjustments, detailed in
the paragraphs below, to the proposed coefficients and exponents to
allow the most efficient products to meet max tech.
For the >=50 W and <=100 W equipment class tested at voltages other
than 480 V NEMA stated that EL 1 and EL 2 appeared feasible but would
require stretching the technological capability. NEMA stated that EL 3
for this equipment class may be achievable but would require physical
size changes that would render the product incompatible with the
existing fixture form factor. NEMA stated DOE should modify EL 1 and EL
2 according to current product capabilities and eliminate EL 3 for this
equipment class. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Signify stated that for the
ballasts in the >=50 W and <=100 W tested at voltages other than 480 V
equipment class the minimum efficiency requirement would increase by
0.10 at the proposed EL 3. This would require a ballast to operate a 70
W lamp at an efficiency higher than 0.90. Signify stated that a 0.90
ballast efficiency requirement would be higher than DOE's current
efficiency requirement for an external power supply, a device that is
simpler with less stages than an electronic ballast. Signify stated it
is difficult to explain how a ballast with the same power as an
external power supply would have a higher efficiency and still preserve
the necessary form factor. (Signify, No. 13 at pp. 8-10)
DOE identified ballasts in DOE's compliance certification database
that are in the >=50 W and <=100 W tested at voltages other than 480 V
equipment class and meet the proposed EL 3 for this equipment class.
These ballasts included models that operate 70 W lamps. Because there
are products that meet the max tech level, DOE is not adjusting ELs
proposed for this equipment class in this final determination.
For the >100 W and <150 W equipment classes for all voltages, NEMA
stated that EL 3 was unrealistically high for ballasts tested at 480 V
(88.9 percent versus the current 82 percent requirement) and as high as
90.9 percent for ballasts tested at voltages other than 480 V. NEMA
stated that based on its review of DOE's
[[Page 58775]]
compliance certification database only four products \11\ between 140 W
and 150 W currently met this level of efficiency. (NEMA, No. 12 at p.
2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ It was unclear from the comment whether NEMA was referring
to four products tested at 480 V or at voltages other than 480 V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE identified ballasts in DOE's compliance certification database
that are in the >100 W and <150 W tested at voltages other than 480 V
equipment class and meet the proposed EL 3 for this equipment class.
Because there are products that meet the max tech level, DOE is not
adjusting ELs proposed for this equipment class in this final
determination. However, DOE is adjusting the ELs for the >100 W and
<150 W tested at 480 V equipment class (see section IV.C.5 for further
details) in this final determination.
NEMA stated that for the >=150 W and <=250 W equipment classes for
all voltages the proposed ELs for 150 to 200 W are close to those in
the previous rulemaking and therefore, already screened for
technological feasibility. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3) DOE ensured that all
ELs analyzed represent commercially available products and therefore,
are technologically feasible.
NEMA stated that the proposed EL 1 for ballasts operating lamps
between 200 W to 250 W appears slightly lower than the current
standards, which is not permissible and should be amended. (NEMA, No.
12 at p. 3)
DOE reviewed all ELs developed for this analysis to ensure that
they are equal to or more stringent to the existing minimum MHLF
ballast efficiency standard (i.e., that backsliding is not occurring).
For EL 1 for the >=150 W and <=250 W equipment class tested at voltages
other than 480 V, DOE is modifying the equation to ensure no
backsliding occurs across the entire wattage range. Specifically, in
this final determination DOE is modifying the exponent in the equation
from 1/(1+0.5017*P[supcaret](-0.26)) to 1/(1+0.507*P[supcaret](-
0.263)).
NEMA also stated that for ballasts operating lamps between 200 W
and 250 W, EL 2 appears technologically feasible. Additionally, NEMA
stated that based on its review of DOE's compliance certification
database only two products operating lamps between 200 W and 250 W,
both from a single manufacturer, met EL 3, which means EL 3 is arguably
infeasible. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
DOE identified ballasts in DOE's compliance certification database
that are in >=150 W and <=250 W tested at voltages other than 480 V
equipment class and meet the proposed EL 3 for this equipment class.
These ballasts are from multiple manufacturers. Because there are
products that meet the max tech level, DOE is not adjusting ELs (aside
from EL 1 to prevent backsliding) proposed for this equipment class in
this final determination. DOE addresses ELs for the >=150 W and <=250 W
tested at 480 V equipment class in section IV.C.5.
NEMA stated that the proposed EL 1 for ballasts operating lamps
between 200 W and 500 W for all voltages appears slightly lower than
the current standards, which is not permissible. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
For the >250 W and <=500 W equipment class tested at voltages other
than 480 V, NEMA stated that DOE's compliance certification database
does not have products meeting EL 2 and EL 3 for higher wattages
indicating that they are technologically infeasible. (NEMA, No. 12 at
p. 3)
DOE identified ballasts in DOE's compliance certification database
that are in the >250 W and <=500 W equipment class tested at voltages
other than 480 V equipment class and meet the proposed EL 3 for this
equipment class. These ballasts operate 250 W and 400 W lamps. Because
there are products that meet the max tech level, DOE is not adjusting
ELs proposed for this equipment class in this final determination. For
EL 1 for the >=250 W and <=500 W equipment class tested at voltages
other than 480 V, DOE is modifying the equation to ensure no
backsliding occurs across the entire wattage range. Specifically, in
this final determination DOE is modifying the exponent in the equation
from 1/(1 + 0.5017*P[supcaret](-0.26)) to 1/(1 + 0.507*P[supcaret](-
0.263)).
For the >500 W and <=1,000 W equipment class, NEMA stated that the
97 percent efficiency requirement at EL 1 would eliminate nearly all
currently certified products making it technologically infeasible. NEMA
stated that per DOE's compliance certification database the few
ballasts that reach the 93 percent efficiency level would not be able
to meet 97 percent efficiency because they operate 1,000 W lamps.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3)
The max tech level for the >500 W and <=1,000 W equipment class
tested at voltages other than 480V is based on a 1,000 W representative
unit with an efficiency of 0.94. DOE identified ballasts in DOE's
compliance certification database that are in the >500 W and <=1,000 W
tested at voltages other than 480 V equipment class and meet the
proposed EL 1 (max tech) for this equipment class. Because there are
products that meet the max tech level, DOE is not adjusting ELs
proposed for this equipment class in this final determination. DOE
addresses ELs for the >500 W and <=1,000 W tested at 480 V equipment
class in section IV.C.5.
For the >1,000 W and <=2,000 W equipment class, Signify stated DOE
should set a standard but disagreed with DOE's proposed EL for this
equipment class. Signify noted that, per some ballast catalogs, DOE
found that ballasts operating 2,000 W lamps are less efficient than
those operating 1,000 W. Signify stated that ballast efficiency
decreasing as wattage increases is contradictory to ballasts in other
equipment classes and it had found no documented scientific or
engineering explanation to substantiate such a trend. Signify stated
that research indicates that for a magnetic transformer (or magnetic
ballast) energy efficiency increases with the transformer power rate.
To align with this trend, Signify suggested DOE change its proposed EL
1 equation from -0.000008*P + 0.946 to 0.00001*P + 0.928 for the >1,000
W and <=2,000 W equipment class. (Signify, No. 13 at pp. 2-5)
NEMA also stated that based on its calculations DOE was proposing a
93 percent efficiency for ballasts operating lamps at 1,000 W and 92
percent efficiency for those operating lamps at 2,000 W and it was
unusual for efficiency requirements to decrease as wattage increases.
(NEMA, No. 12 at p. 3) NEMA also stated that the proposed levels for
the >1,000 W and <=2,000 W equipment class appear technologically
feasible. However, NEMA stated that because these products are not
currently subject to standards and thus have no certified products, it
cannot comment in detail on potential product availability. (NEMA, No.
12 at p. 3)
In developing the equation for the >1,000 W to <=2,000 W equipment
class DOE prioritized maintaining a continuous equation across product
classes. Ballasts in the >1,000 W to <=2,000 W equipment class are not
currently subject to standards and therefore are not certified in DOE's
compliance certification database. Based on the limited data available,
maintaining a continuous equation resulted in a slight negative slope
for the efficiency level equation.
Table IV.12 summarizes the efficiency requirements and associated
equations
[[Page 58776]]
at each EL for the representative equipment classes. See chapter 5 of
this final determination TSD for further details.
Table IV.12--Summary of ELs for Representative Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum efficiency
Equipment class EL Technology equation for ballasts
not tested at 480 V *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W.................... EL1................. More Efficient Magnetic. 1/(1+1.16*P[supcaret](-
0.345)).
EL2................. Standard Electronic..... 1/(1+1*P[supcaret](-
0.42)).
EL3................. Electronic Max Tech..... 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>100 W and <150 W..................... EL1................. More Efficient Magnetic. 1/(1+1.16*P[supcaret](-
0.345)).
EL2................. Standard Electronic..... 1/(1+1*P[supcaret](-
0.42)).
EL3................. Electronic Max Tech..... 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>=150 W and <=250 W **................ EL1................. More Efficient Magnetic. 1/(1+0.507*P[supcaret](-
0.263)).
EL2................. Electronic Max Tech..... 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>250 W and <=500 W **................. EL1................. More Efficient Magnetic. 1/(1+0.507*P[supcaret](-
0.263)).
EL2................. Electronic Max Tech..... 1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>500 W and <=1,000 W.................. EL1................. More Efficient Magnetic. 0.000057*P+0.881.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W................ EL1................. More Efficient Magnetic. -0.000008*P+0.946.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
** For this equipment class the EL 2 specified in the August 2020 NOPD was the same as EL 3. For clarity, only
an EL 2 is specified in this final determination.
5. Scaling to Other Equipment Classes
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE did not directly analyze MHLFs with
ballasts that would be tested at an input voltage of 480 V. DOE
developed a scaling relationship to establish ELs for these equipment
classes. Ballasts capable of operating at 120 V or 277 V are
predominantly quad-voltage ballasts, therefore, DOE chose to compare
quad-voltage ballasts with 480 V ballasts to develop a scaling factor.
85 FR 47472, 47489-47490.
Based on its review of the compliance certification database, DOE
determined that the average reduction in ballast efficiency for 480 V
ballasts compared to quad ballasts is greater for ballasts designed to
operate lamps rated less than 150 W compared to ballasts designed to
operate lamps rated greater than or equal to 150 W. DOE developed two
separate scaling factors, one for the 50 W-150 W range and the second
for the 150 W-1000 W range. In the August 2020 NOPD for 480 V equipment
classes in the 50 W-150 W range, DOE found the average reduction in
ballast efficiency to be 3.0 percent, and for those in the 150 W-1000 W
range, DOE found the average reduction in ballast efficiency to be 1.0
percent. DOE applied these scaling factors to the representative
equipment class EL equations to develop corresponding EL equations for
ballasts tested at an input voltage of 480 V. Accordingly, for the non-
representative equipment classes DOE applied a multiplier of 0.97 for
equations in the 50 W-150 W range and of 0.99 for equations in the 150
W-1000 W range. 85 FR 47472, 47489-47490.
DOE received comments on the scaled ELs proposed in the August 2020
NOPD. For >=50 W and <=100 W equipment class tested at 480 V, NEMA
stated that a valid max tech proposal for magnetic ballasts is achieved
with a 2 percent reduction of EL 1. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) For the >100
W and <150 W equipment class tested at 480 V, NEMA stated that based on
its review of products in DOE's compliance certification database only
EL 1 was technologically feasible. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2)
DOE reviewed the 3 percent scaling factor for the equipment classes
tested at 480 V in the 50 W-150 W range proposed in the August 2020
NOPD. Specifically, DOE reexamined the efficiencies of certified
products in this equipment class to ascertain the reduction in ELs for
the corresponding representative equipment class that would allow
products to meet max tech levels. Per this review, DOE is revising the
scaling factor to result in a 12 percent reduction (i.e., multiplier of
0.88) rather than a 3 percent reduction (i.e., multiplier of 0.97) to
allow certified products to meet the max tech level. DOE determined
that this adjustment results in EL 1 and EL 2 for the 480 V 50 W-150 W
equipment classes requiring a minimum efficiency less stringent than
the existing minimum standard. Hence, in this analysis, for equipment
classes in the 50 W-150 W range tested at 480 V to prevent backsliding
DOE maintained the current standard for EL 1 and EL 2 for this
analysis. For EL 3, DOE applied a 0.88 multiplier (as determined above)
to the corresponding representative equipment class EL 3 to develop a
scaled EL 3 for this analysis.
For the >250 W and <=500 W equipment class tested at 480 V, NEMA
stated that the 1 percent scaling factor still does not allow any
products in DOE's compliance certification database to meet the
proposed ELs, making them technologically infeasible. (NEMA, No. 12 at
p. 3) Signify stated that the proposed EL 1 for the >500 W and <=1,000
W equipment class tested at 480V did not seem technologically feasible.
Signify stated that such an efficiency for a magnetic ballast seemed
impractical, particularly when there has been no research or innovation
for the product. (Signify, No. 13 at pp. 6-8)
DOE identified ballasts in DOE's compliance certification database
that are in the >500 W and <=1,000 W tested at 480 V equipment class
and meet the proposed EL 1 (max tech) for this equipment class.
However, DOE did determine adjustments were needed to EL 1 (max tech)
for the >250 W and <=500 W equipment class tested at 480 V to allow for
certified products to meet it. Hence, DOE reviewed the 1 percent
scaling factor for the equipment classes tested at 480 V in the 150 W-
1,000 W range proposed in the August 2020 NOPD. 85 FR 47472, 47489-
47490. Per this review, DOE is revising the scaling factor to result in
a 4 percent reduction (i.e., multiplier of 0.96) rather than a 1
percent reduction (i.e., multiplier of 0.99) to allow certified
products to meet max tech. DOE determined that this adjustment results
in EL 1 and EL 2 for equipment classes in the 150 W-1,000 W range
requiring a minimum efficiency less stringent than the existing minimum
standard. Hence, in this analysis, for equipment classes in the 150 W-
1,000 W range tested at 480 V to prevent backsliding DOE maintained the
current standard for EL 1 and EL 2 for
[[Page 58777]]
this analysis. For EL 3, DOE applied a 0.96 multiplier (as determined
above) to the corresponding representative equipment class EL 3 to
develop the scaled EL 3 for this analysis.
Additionally, Signify stated the ELs in the August 2020 NOPD
resulted in an energy efficiency for a ballast from the >500 W and
<1,000 W equipment class tested at 480 V that is higher than ballast
efficiency of the equipment class with the same wattage range but
tested at other voltages. Signify stated that the opposite was true for
all other equipment classes. (Signify, No. 13 at p. 6) Specifically,
Signify stated that to meet the proposed EL 1 a ballast operating a
1,000 W lamp tested at 480 V would require an efficiency of 0.971 while
the same ballast tested at 277 V would require 0.936. Hence for the
>500 W and <=1,000 W equipment class for ballasts tested at 480 V,
Signify suggested DOE not adopt the proposed EL1 and instead maintain
the existing standard. (Signify, No. 13 at p. 8)
In the August 2020 NOPD DOE specified the scaled equation for EL 1
of the >500 W and <=1,000 W equipment class tested at 480 V as
0.99*(0.0001*P+0.881). 85 FR 47472, 47489-47490. The coefficient in
this equation was erroneously rounded in Table IV.13 of the August 2020
NOPD and is correctly specified in this final determination as
0.99*(0.000057*P+0.881). With this correction, ballasts in the >500 W
and <=1,000 W equipment class tested at 480 V must meet a lower minimum
efficiency than the same ballasts tested at voltages other than 480 V.
However, as noted above, to prevent backsliding DOE maintained current
standard for EL 1 of the >500 W and <=1,000 W equipment class tested at
480 V for this analysis.
In the August 2020 NOPD and in this final determination, for
ballasts greater than 1,000 W, DOE determined the need for a scaling
factor based on manufacturer catalog data. DOE determined that ballasts
greater than 1,000 W do not show a difference in efficiency between 480
V and non-480 V ballasts. DOE did not apply a scaling factor to develop
efficiency levels for 480 V ballasts in this equipment class, however,
DOE continues to consider the 480 V and non-480 V equipment classes
separately for MHLFs greater than 1,000 W for the purposes of this
analysis. 85 FR 47472, 47489-47490.
Table IV.13 summarizes the efficiency requirements at each EL for
the non-representative equipment classes. See chapter 5 of this final
determination TSD for further details.
Table IV.13--Summary of ELs for Non-Representative Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum efficiency equation
Equipment class EL Technology for ballasts tested at 480 V
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W................... EL1............... Improved magnetic...... 1/(1+1.24*P[supcaret](-
0.351))-0.02.
EL2............... Standard Electronic.... 1/(1+1.24*P[supcaret](-
0.351))-0.02.
EL3............... Electronic Max Tech.... 0.88/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>100 W and <150 W.................... EL1............... Improved magnetic...... 1/(1+1.24*P[supcaret](-
0.351))-0.02.
EL2............... Standard Electronic.... 1/(1+1.24*P[supcaret](-
0.351))-0.02.
EL3............... Electronic Max Tech.... 0.88/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>=150 W and <=250 W **............... EL1............... Improved magnetic...... 0.88.
EL2............... Electronic Max Tech.... 0.96/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
0.3)).
>250 W and <=500 W **................ EL1............... Improved magnetic...... For >250 and <265 W: 0.880.
For >=265 W and <=500 W: 1/
(1 + 0.876 x P[supcaret](-
0.351))-0.010.
EL2............... Electronic Max Tech.... For >250 and <265 W: 0.880.
For >=265 W and <=500 W: 1/
(1 + 0.876 x P[supcaret](-
0.351))-0.010.
>500 W and <=1,000 W................. EL1............... Improved magnetic...... For >500 W and <=750 W:
0.900. For >750 W and
<=1,000 W: 0.000104 x P +
0.822.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W............... EL1............... Improved magnetic...... -0.000008*P+0.946.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
** For this equipment class the EL 2 specified in the August 2020 NOPD was the same as EL 3. For clarity, only
an EL 2 is specified in this final determination.
6. Manufacturer Selling Price
DOE develops manufacturer selling prices (``MSPs'') for covered
equipment and applies markups to create end-user prices to use as
inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. The MSP of a MHLF comprises of the
MSP of the fixture components including any necessary additional
features and the MSP of the metal halide ballast contained in the
fixture. For the August 2020 NOPD, DOE conducted teardown analyses on
31 commercially available MHLFs and the ballasts included in these
fixtures. 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 manufacturing production cost
(``MPC'').\12\ DOE then determined the MSPs of fixture components and
more-efficient MH ballasts identified for each EL. 85 FR 47472, 47490-
47491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ When 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the fixture components MSPs, DOE conducted fixture
teardowns to derive MPCs of empty fixtures (i.e., lamp enclosure and
optics). The empty fixture does not include the ballast or lamp. DOE
then added the other components required by the system (including
ballast and any cost adders associated with electronically ballasted
systems) and applied appropriate markups to obtain a final MSP for the
entire fixture. 85 FR 47472, 47490-47491.
To calculate an empty fixture price, DOE first identified the
applications commonly served by the representative wattage in each
equipment class based on DOE's compliance certification database. DOE
selected the most popular fixture types for both indoor and outdoor
applications. The representative fixture types for each equipment class
selected in the August 2020 NOPD are shown in Table IV.14. 85 FR 47472,
47490.
[[Page 58778]]
Table IV.14--Representative Fixture Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative fixture types
Representative equipment class Representative wattage -----------------------------------------------
Indoor Outdoor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W................. 70 W....................... Downlight............. Bollard, Flood, Post
Top, Wallpack.
>100 W and <150 W *................ 150 W...................... Downlight............. Area, Flood, Post Top,
Wallpack.
>=150 W and <=250 W **............. 250 W...................... High-Bay.............. Area, Flood, Post Top,
Cobrahead.
>250 W and <=500 W................. 400 W...................... High-Bay.............. Area, Flood, Post Top,
Cobrahead.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............... 1,000 W.................... High-Bay.............. Area, Flood, Sports.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W............. 1,500 W.................... Sports................ Sports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
DOE then used teardown information for 31 fixtures that spanned the
representative wattages and the applications identified for each
representative wattage. The MPC of the empty fixture for each
representative wattage was calculated by weighting the empty fixture
cost for each application by the popularity of each application. DOE
determined the weightings based on the number of fixtures for each
application at each representative wattage in DOE's certification
database. 85 FR 47472, 47490-47491.
The empty fixture MPCs remained the same at each magnetic
efficiency level but incremental costs were added when the fixture
contained an electronic ballast. Specifically, in the August 2020 NOPD,
DOE applied cost adders to fixtures that use electronic ballasts for
(1) transient protection, (2) thermal management, and (3) 120 V
auxiliary power functionality. These costs varied based on whether the
fixture application was indoor, indoor industrial, or outdoor. 85 FR
47472, 47491.
In the August 2020 NOPD DOE conducted market research to determine
the prices of each cost adder. DOE determined the price of voltage
transient protection to be $9.03. DOE determined that the increase in
the empty fixture cost to be 20 percent for adding thermal management
to a fixture. DOE determined the average market price of the 120 V
auxiliary tap to be $7.38. DOE added these costs to the empty fixture
MPC for outdoor and indoor industrial fixtures at ELs requiring an
electronic ballast. Because the auxiliary tap is needed in only 10
percent of the ballasts in indoor fixtures, DOE added $0.74 to the
indoor empty fixture MPC for ELs requiring an electronic ballast. 85 FR
47472, 47491.
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE applied a fixture manufacturer markup
of 1.58 to the empty fixture MPC to determine the MSP of the fixture at
each EL. DOE maintained the manufacturer markup developed in the 2014
MHLF final rule. In that rule, DOE determined the fixture manufacturer
markup to be 1.58 based on financial information from manufacturers'
SEC 10-K reports, as well as feedback from manufacturer interviews. 85
FR 47472, 47491.
For the August 2020 NOPD, to determine the MPCs of the metal halide
ballasts identified in this analysis, DOE used data from the teardown
analysis which included cost data for magnetic ballasts at the baseline
in each equipment class. To determine the ballast MPC at the higher
efficiency levels, DOE developed a ratio between the average retail
price of ballasts at the efficiency level under consideration and
ballasts at the baseline. DOE collected retail prices from electrical
distributors (e.g., Grainger, Graybar) as well as internet retailers to
determine average retail prices for ballasts. For ELs without retail
prices available, DOE used a ratio between the same efficiency levels
in a different wattage class or interpolated based on efficiency and
ballast MPC. 85 FR 47472, 47491.
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE applied a ballast manufacturer markup
of 1.47 to the empty fixture MPC to determine the MSP of the fixture at
each EL. DOE maintained the manufacturer markup developed in the 2014
MHLF final rule. In that rule, DOE determined the ballast manufacturer
markup to be 1.47 based on financial information from manufacturers'
SEC 10-K reports, as well as feedback from manufacturer interviews. 79
FR 7746, 7783
The CA IOUs stated that DOE used cost assumptions for lamps,
ballasts, and housing from the previous rulemaking which was conducted
six years ago and did not provide empirical data to support that the
assumptions were still valid given the evolving lighting market. (CA
IOUs, No. 14, p. 2)
As noted, DOE developed fixture and ballast prices based on
teardowns and retail price collections conducted for this analysis.
Additionally, DOE conducted market research for this rulemaking to
confirm the cost adder estimates used in the 2014 MHLF final rule. DOE
determined that there are likely minimal changes to the financial
structure of fixture or ballast manufacturers and therefore, the
respective markups from the 2014 MHLF final rule remain valid.
DOE is maintaining the results of MSPs determined in the August
2020 NOPD for this final determination. The total empty fixture MSPs,
replacement ballast MSPs, and fixture with ballast MSPs are detailed in
chapter 5 of the final determination TSD.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g.,
manufacturer markups, retailer markups, distributor markups, contractor
markups) in the distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP
estimates derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, which
are then used in the LCC and PBP analysis and in the MIA. At each step
in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product
to cover business costs and profit margin. DOE used the same
distribution channels and wholesaler and contractor markups as in the
August 2020 NOPD, following the 2014 MHLF final rule, for this final
determination.
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
[[Page 58779]]
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). Indoor
fixtures are all assumed to go through the electrical wholesaler
distribution channel. Outdoor fixtures are assumed to go through all
three distribution channels as follows: 60 percent electrical
wholesaler, 20 percent contractor, and 20 percent utility.
2. Estimation of Markups
To estimate wholesaler and utility markups, DOE used financial data
from 10-K reports of publicly owned electrical wholesalers and
utilities. DOE's markup analysis developed both baseline and
incremental markups to transform the fixture MSP into an end-user
equipment price. DOE used the baseline markups to determine the price
of baseline designs. Incremental markups are coefficients that relate
the change in the MSP of higher-efficiency designs to the change in the
wholesaler and utility sales prices, excluding sales tax. These markups
refer to higher-efficiency designs sold under market conditions with
new and amended energy conservation standards.
In the August 2020 NOPD, DOE used the same wholesaler and
contractor markups as the 2014 MHLF final rule and assumed a wholesaler
baseline markup of 1.23 and a contractor markup of 1.13, yielding a
total wholesaler distribution channel baseline markup of 1.49. The
lower wholesaler incremental markup of 1.05 yields a lower total
incremental markup through this distribution channel of 1.27. DOE also
assumed a utility markup of 1.00 for the utility distribution channel
in which the manufacturer sells a fixture directly to the end-user. DOE
again assumed a contractor markup of 1.13 for the utility distribution
channel in which a manufacturer sells a fixture to a contractor who in
turn sells it to the end-user yielding an overall markup of 1.21 for
this channel. 85 FR 47472, 47492. DOE used these same markups for this
final determination analysis.
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.\13\ 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
population-weighted average of the census division and large state
values. For this final determination, this approach provided a national
average tax rate of 7.3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc. The Sales Tax Clearinghouse.
(Last accessed June 16, 2021.) https://thestc.com/STRates.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary of Markups
Table IV.15 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 IV.15--Summary of Fixture Distribution Channel Markups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wholesaler distribution Utility distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Via wholesaler and contractor Direct to end user
Baseline Incremental ---------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical Wholesaler (Distributor)..................... 1.23 1.05 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Utility................................................. N/A N/A 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Contractor or Installer................................. 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 N/A N/A
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Tax............................................... 1.07
1.07
1.07
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall................................................. 1.49 1.27 1.21 1.21 1.07 1.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 determination TSD provides details on DOE's
development of markups for MHLFs.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of MHLFs at different efficiencies in the
commercial, industrial, and outdoor stationary sectors, and to assess
the energy savings potential of increased MHLF efficiency. The energy
use analysis estimates the range of energy use of MHLFs in the field
(i.e., as they are actually used by customers). The energy use analysis
provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly
assessments of the energy savings and the savings in operating costs
that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
To develop annual energy use estimates, DOE multiplied the lamp-
and-ballast system input power (in watts) by annual usage (in hours per
year). DOE characterized representative lamp-and-ballast systems in the
engineering analysis, which provided measured input power ratings. To
characterize the country's average usage of fixtures for a typical
year, DOE developed annual operating hour distributions by sector,
using data published in the 2015 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization
(``LMC'').\14\ For the >=50 W and <=100 W to >500 W and <=1,000 W
equipment classes, DOE obtained weighted-average annual operating hours
for the commercial, industrial, and outdoor stationary sectors of
approximately 2,300 hours, 5,100 hours, and 5,000 hours, respectively.
For the 1,500 W equipment class, DOE assigned annual operating hours of
approximately 770 hours for all lamps according to the 2015 LMC
estimate of 2.1 hours per day for sports field lighting, consistent
with the methodology from the August 2020 NOPD analysis. 85 FR 47472,
47492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market
Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC.
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. (Last accessed February 3, 2020.) https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 7 of the final determination TSD provides details on DOE's
energy use analysis for MHLFs.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts
on individual customers of
[[Page 58780]]
potential energy conservation standards for MHLFs. The effect of new or
amended energy conservation standards on individual customers usually
involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase
cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure customer impacts:
[squ] The LCC is the total customer expense of equipment over the
life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost
(manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and
installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the equipment.
[squ] The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
customers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
For any given efficiency level, DOE measured the change in LCC
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the
estimated efficiency distribution of MHLFs in the absence of new or
amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline equipment.
For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of
building types. As stated previously, DOE developed customer samples
from the 2015 LMC. For each sample customer, DOE determined the energy
consumption for the MHLF and the appropriate electricity price. By
developing a representative sample of building types, the analysis
captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices
associated with the use of MHLFs.
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost
of the equipment--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer
and distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs.
Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created
distributions of values for operating hours, equipment lifetime,
discount rates, electricity prices, and sales taxes, with probabilities
attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and
variability. 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\TM\ (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 MHLF user
samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each
efficiency level for 10,000 customers per simulation run. The
analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing
the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the
no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard
level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a
consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for
consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids
overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all customers of MHLFs as if
each were to purchase new equipment in the expected year of required
compliance with new or amended standards. Any amended standards would
apply to MHLFs manufactured three years after the date on which any new
or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(B)) At this
time, DOE estimates publication of a final determination in the latter
half of 2021. Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2025 as
the first year of compliance with any amended standards for MHLFs.
Table IV.16 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8
of the final determination TSD and its appendices.
Table IV.16--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Cost............... Derived by multiplying MSPs by
distribution channel markups (taken from
the 2014 MHLF final rule) and sales tax.
Installation Costs........... Used the same installation costs as in
the 2014 MHLF final rule, but inflated
to 2020$. The 2014 MHLF final rule costs
were calculated using estimated labor
times and applicable labor rates from
``RS Means Electrical Cost Data''
(2013), Sweets Electrical Cost Guide
2013, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Annual Energy Use............ The total annual energy use multiplied by
the operating hours per year, which were
determined separately for indoor and
outdoor fixtures. Average number of
hours based on the 2015 LMC.
Energy Prices................ Electricity: Based on Edison Electric
Institute data for 2019.
Variability: Regional energy prices
determined for 13 census divisions and
large states.
Energy Price Trends.......... Based on AEO 2021 price projections.
Replacement Costs............ Used the same labor and material costs
for lamp and ballast replacements as in
the 2014 MHLF final rule, but inflated
to 2020$.
Equipment Lifetime........... Ballasts: Assumed an average of 50,000
hours for magnetic ballasts and 40,000
hours for electronic ballasts.
Fixtures: Assumed an average of 20 years
for indoor fixtures and 25 years for
outdoor fixtures.
[[Page 58781]]
Discount Rates............... Developed a distribution of discount
rates for the commercial, industrial,
and outdoor stationary sectors.
Compliance Date.............. 2025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the final
determination TSD.
1. Equipment Cost
To calculate customer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for
baseline equipment and higher-efficiency equipment, because DOE applies
an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency equipment. See section IV.D for further details.
2. Installation Cost
Installation cost is the cost to install the fixture such as the
labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed. DOE
used the installation costs from the 2014 MHLF final rule, but inflated
to 2020$ using the GDP price deflator.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Table 1.1.9.
Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product. U.S. Department
of Commerce: Washington, DC. www.bea.gov/iTable/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Annual Energy Consumption
For each sampled customer, DOE determined the energy consumption
for an MHLF at different efficiency levels using the approach described
previously in section IV.E of this document. For this final
determination, 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
(approximately 770 hours per year) for the 1,500 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
Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher
efficiency, it provides a better representation of incremental change
in consumer costs than average electricity prices. Therefore, DOE
applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the product
purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal electricity prices
for the incremental change in energy use associated with the other
efficiency levels considered in this final determination.
DOE derived annual electricity prices in 2019 for each census
division using data from the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Typical
Bills and Average Rates reports.\16\ Marginal prices depend on both the
change in electricity consumption and the change in monthly peak-
coincident demand. DOE used the EEI data to estimate both marginal
energy charges and marginal demand charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and Average Rates
Report. 2019. Winter 2019, Summer 2019: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE calculated weighted-average values for average and marginal
price for the 13 census divisions and large states for the commercial,
industrial, and outdoor stationary sectors.
To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the
average regional energy prices by a projection of annual change in
national-average commercial and industrial energy prices in the
Reference case of Annual Energy Outlook 2021 (AEO 2021). \17\ AEO 2021
has an end year of 2050. DOE assumed regional electricity prices after
2050 are constant at their 2050 price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. 2021. Washington, DC. (Last
accessed March 18, 2021.) www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Replacement Costs
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. The costs are taken from the 2014 MHLF
final rule but inflated to 2020$ using the GDP price deflator. 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
associated with lamp or ballast replacements are included in the
calculation of operating costs.
The CA IOUs suggested that DOE update the MHLF cost data for lamps,
ballasts, and housings, rather than using the costs from the 2014 MHLF
final rule. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) DOE notes that replacement costs
for ballasts come directly from this final determination engineering
analysis (see section IV.C). However, DOE has continued to use the
replacement lamp costs from the 2014 MHLF final rule (but inflated to
2020$). The CA IOUs acknowledged that MHLFs are a legacy lighting
technology, and NEMA stated that there has been an 80 percent decline
in the MHLFs market from 2008-2018. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at pp. 1-2; NEMA,
No. 12 at p. 2) Given this recent substantial decline in the MHLFs
market, it is unlikely that prices would have changed appreciably due
to price learning since the 2014 MHLF final rule analysis was
conducted. Therefore, DOE has only applied inflation to the MHLF
replacement lamp prices since the 2014 MHLF final rule analysis.
6. Equipment Lifetime
DOE defined equipment lifetime as the age when a fixture, ballast,
or lamp is retired from service. For fixtures in all equipment classes,
DOE assumed average lifetimes for indoor and outdoor fixtures of 20 and
25 years, respectively. DOE also assumed that magnetic ballasts had a
rated lifetime of 50,000 hours and electronic ballasts had a rated
lifetime of 40,000 hours. DOE used manufacturer catalog data to obtain
rated lifetime estimates (in hours) for lamps in each equipment class.
DOE accounted for uncertainty in the fixture, ballast, and lamp
lifetimes by applying Weibull survival distributions to the components'
rated lifetimes. Furthermore, DOE included a residual value calculation
for lamps and ballasts to account for the residual monetary value
associated with the remaining life in the lamp and ballast at the end
of the fixture lifetime. As stated in the 2020 NOPD, DOE based all
assumptions for estimating equipment lifetime from the 2014 MHLF final
rule. 85 FR 47472, 47494.
7. Discount Rates
The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are
discounted to
[[Page 58782]]
estimate their present value. In this final determination, DOE
estimated separate discount rates for commercial, industrial, and
outdoor stationary applications. DOE used discount rate data from a
2019 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report.\18\ The average
discount rates, weighted by the shares of each rate value in the
sectoral distributions, are 8.3 percent for commercial end-users, 8.8
percent for industrial end-users, and 3.2 percent for outdoor
stationary end-users. For more information regarding discount rates,
see chapter 8 of the final determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Fujita, K.S. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional
Discount Rate Estimation for Efficiency Standards Analysis: Sector-
Level Data 1998-2018. 2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory:
Berkeley, CA. (Last accessed January 15, 2020.) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/commercial-industrial-institutional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
DOE developed a no-new-standards case efficiency distribution using
model count data from the compliance certification database collected
on May 5, 2021. The compliance certification database does not contain
models in the >1,000 W and <=2,000 W equipment class; therefore, DOE
assumed 56 percent of the market is at the baseline and 44 percent of
the market is at EL 1, based on MHLF catalog data. The complete
efficiency distribution for 2025 is shown in Table IV.17.
Table IV.17--MHLF Efficiency Distribution by Equipment Class for 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level >=50 W and >100 W and >=150 W and >250 W and >500 W and >1000 W and
<=100 W (%) <150 W (%) <=250 W (%) <=500 W (%) <=1,000 W (%) <=2,000 W (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 82.0 16.4 53.6 95.6 97.1 56.0
1....................................................... 1.2 32.9 40.1 1.1 2.9 44.0
2....................................................... 9.5 0.0 6.3 3.3 .............. ..............
3....................................................... 7.4 50.7 .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
See chapter 8 of the final determination TSD for further
information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions.
9. Payback Period Analysis
The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient products,
compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback
periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of
the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not
recovered in reduced operating expenses.
The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that
discount rates are not needed.
As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price
projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards
would be required.
G. Shipments Analysis
DOE uses projections of annual equipment shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation
standards on energy use and NPV.\19\ The shipments model takes an
accounting approach, tracking market shares of each equipment class and
the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting uses equipment
shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service
equipment stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-service
equipment stocks is a key input to calculations of both the NES and
NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age
distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stock turnover model calculates demand for new MHLFs based on
the expected demand for replacement MHLFs and the decrease in MHLF
demand due to the adoption of out-of-scope LED alternatives. The model
is initialized using a time series of historical shipments data
compiled from the 2014 MHLF final rule and data from NEMA. The
historical shipments for 2008 from the 2014 MHLF final rule were
projected to 2018 using NEMA sales indices from 2008 to 2018. 79 FR
7746, 7788-89. DOE used NEMA provided sales indices for the second
quarter of 2020 for metal halide lamps to project the historical
shipments forward to 2020.\20\ The updated projection from the NEMA
data gives a faster decline of historical shipments compared to the
projection used in the MHLF NOPD. 85 FR 47472, 47495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ HID Lamp Sales Indices. National Electrical Manufacturing
Association. www.nema.org/analytics/Indices/view/Fourth-Quarter-2019-HID-Lamp-Indexes-Decrease-Compared-to-Previous-Quarter-and-Year. (Last accessed on May 5, 2021.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEMA commented in their response to the MHLF NOPD that the market
for MHLFs has continued to show a steady decline since the July 2019
RFI in favor of LED Technology. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) With the
diminishing shipments there is no reasonable possibility of industry
recovering investments in new conservation standards of MHLFs. As in
the previous rulemaking, DOE continued to assume that an increasing
fraction of the MHLF market will move to out-of-scope LED alternatives
over the course of the shipments analysis period. 85 FR 47472, 47495.
DOE modelled the incursion of LED equipment in the form of a Bass
diffusion curve.\21\ The parameters for the Bass diffusion curve are
based on fitting a Bass diffusion curve to market share data for
general service LED lamps based on data
[[Page 58783]]
published by NEMA. This same approach was used in the final
determination for general service incandescent lamps (GSILs); see
chapter 9 of that final determination TSD.\22\ 84 FR 71626 (December
27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer
Durables. Management Science. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.
\22\ Chapter 9 of the GSIL final determination TSD is available
at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0022-0116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs commented on the MHLF NOPD that DOE's current A-Line
based shipment curves approach to modelling shipments for MHLF products
should be replaced by a diffusion curve based on linear fluorescent
shipments. (CA IOUs, No. 14 at p. 2) However, DOE found that a Bass
diffusion curve based on market share data for general service LED
lamps provided a better fit to the historic MHLF shipments data from
NEMA than a Bass diffusion curve based on linear fluorescent shipments,
and NEMA expressed support for the shipment declines projected in the
NOPD. (NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2) Additionally, the lighting power allowance
from the 2019 update to ASHRAE 90.1, noted during the MHLF NOPD public
meeting, suggests a rapid transition to LED technology. (EEI, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 11 at p. 47) As a result, DOE continued to base
the Bass diffusion model on market share data for general service LED
lamps for this final determination.
Another key input to the national impacts analysis is the
distribution of MHLF shipments by EL in the no-new standards case and
the standards cases. DOE apportioned the total shipments of MHLFs to
each EL in the no-new-standards case using data downloaded from the
compliance certification database \23\ and data provided by NEMA in
comments to the July 2019 RFI. (NEMA, No. 3 at pp. 11-14). Equipment
listed in the CCMS database were categorized by equipment class,
efficiency level, and ballast type. The counts for each category were
scaled based on ballast type by the NEMA market shares for magnetic and
electronic ballasts reported in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html (Last accessed on May 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' approach to
estimate market share for each EL for the year that standards are
assumed to become effective (2025). For each standards case, the market
shares of ELs in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the
standard under consideration ``roll up'' to meet the new standard
level, and the market share of equipment above the standard remains
unchanged.
For both the no-new-standards and standards cases, DOE assumed no
efficiency trend over the analysis period. For a given case, market
shares were held fixed to their 2025 distribution.
DOE typically includes the impact of price learning in its
analysis. In a standard price learning model,\24\ the price of a given
technology is related to its cumulative production, as represented by
total cumulative shipments. DOE assumed MHLFs have reached a stable
price point due to the high volume of total cumulative shipments and
would not undergo price learning in this final determination analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Taylor, M. and S.K. Fujita. Accounting for Technological
Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique.
2013. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report
No. LBNL-6195E. (Last accessed January 7, 2020.) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/accounting-technological-change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. National Impact Analysis
The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of
total customer costs and savings that would be expected to result from
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\25\ DOE
calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered
based on projections of annual equipment shipments, along with the
annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy
use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE projected the
energy savings, operating cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV of
customer benefits over the lifetime of MHLFs sold from 2025 through
2054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S.
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and customer costs for each
equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE compares the no-new-standards case 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. For the standards cases, DOE
considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of
equipment with efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and
the national customer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Table IV.18 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for this final determination. Discussion of these inputs and
methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the final determination
TSD for further details.
Table IV.18--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.................... Annual shipments from shipments model for
each considered TSL.
First Full Year of Standard 2025.
Compliance.
No-new-standards Case No trend assumed.
Efficiency Trend.
Standards Case Efficiency No trend assumed.
Trend.
Annual Energy Consumption per Calculated for each efficiency level
Unit. based on inputs from the energy use
analysis.
Total Installed Cost per Unit MHLF prices and installation costs from
the LCC analysis.
Repair and Maintenance Cost Cost to replace lamp and ballast over the
per Unit. lifetime of the fixture.
Residual Value per Unit...... The monetary value of remaining lamp and
ballast lifetime at the end of the
fixture lifetime.
Electricity Prices........... Estimated marginal electricity prices
from the LCC analysis.
Electricity Price Trends..... AEO 2021 forecasts (to 2050) and
extrapolation thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and A time-series conversion factor based on
FFC Conversion. AEO 2021.
Discount Rate................ 3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year................. 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 58784]]
1. National Energy Savings
The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of
national energy consumption of the considered equipment between each
potential TSL and the case with no new or amended energy conservation
standards. DOE calculated the national energy consumption by
multiplying the number of units (stock) of each equipment type (by
vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE
calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy
consumption for the no-new standards case and for each higher
efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings
based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and
savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to
generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from
AEO 2021. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each
year over the timeframe of the analysis.
DOE generally accounts for the direct rebound effect in its NES
analyses. Direct rebound reflects the idea that as appliances become
more efficient, customers use more of their service because their
operating cost is reduced. In the case of lighting, the rebound effect
could be manifested in increased hours of use or in increased lighting
density (lumens per square foot). In response to the July 2019 RFI,
NEMA commented that a rebound rate of 0 is appropriate. (NEMA, No. 3 at
p. 9) DOE assumed no rebound effect for MHLFs in this final
determination.
In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences,
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and
greenhouse gas and other emissions to the extent that emissions
analyses are conducted. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating
the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination
that Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) National Energy
Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most appropriate tool for its FFC
analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \26\ that EIA uses to
prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors incorporate losses
in production and delivery in the case of natural gas (including
fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to produce and deliver
the various fuels used by power plants. The approach used for deriving
FFC measures of energy use and emissions is described in appendix 10B
of the final determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009.
Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Net Present Value Analysis
The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits
experienced by customers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs),
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs.
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of equipment
shipped during the analysis period.
Energy cost savings, which are part of operating cost savings, are
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average national marginal
electricity prices by the forecast of annual national-average
commercial or industrial electricity price changes in the Reference
case from AEO 2021, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price
trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices
from 2041 to 2050.
DOE includes the cost of replacing failed lamps and ballasts over
the course of the lifetime of the fixture. DOE assumed that lamps and
ballasts were replaced at their rated lifetime. When replacing a
ballast, DOE assumed the lamp was also replaced at the same time,
independent of the timing of the previous lamp replacement. For more
details see chapter 10 of the final determination TSD.
DOE also estimates the residual monetary value remaining in the
lamp and ballast at the end of the fixture lifetime and applies it as a
credit to operating costs (i.e., the residual value is deducted from
operating costs). See chapter 10 of the final determination TSD for
more details on DOE's calculation of the residual value.
In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this
final determination, DOE estimated the NPV of customer benefits using
both a 3-percent and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these
discount rates in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development
of regulatory analysis.\27\ The discount rates for the determination of
NPV are in contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis,
which are designed to reflect a customer's perspective. The 7-percent
real value is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to
private capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value
represents the ``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at
which society discounts future consumption flows to their present
value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for MHLFs.
It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE and the projected impacts of each
of these levels. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are
contained in the final determination TSD supporting this document.
A. Trial Standard Levels
DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three TSLs for MHLFs. TSL
1 is composed of EL 1 for all equipment classes. TSL 2 is composed of
the efficiency levels corresponding to the least efficient electronic
ballast level for each equipment class, if any efficiency levels
corresponding to an electronic ballast exist. TSL 3 is composed of the
max-tech level for each equipment class. Table V.1 presents the TSLs
and the corresponding efficiency levels that DOE has identified for
potential amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs.
[[Page 58785]]
Table V.1--Trial Standard Levels for MHLFs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and >100 W and >=150 W and >250 W and >500 W and >1,000 W and
<=100 W <150 W <=250 W <=500 W <=1,000 W <=2,000 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 0................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
TSL 1................................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1
TSL 2................................................... 2 2 2 2 1 1
TSL 3................................................... 3 3 2 2 1 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Customers
DOE analyzed the economic impacts on MHLF customers by looking at
the effects that potential amended standards at each TSL would have on
the LCC and PBP. These analyses are discussed in the following
sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs
decrease.\28\ Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price
trends, and replacement costs). The LCC calculation also uses product
lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the final determination TSD
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ While it is generally true that higher-efficiency equipment
has lower operating costs, MHLF operating costs in this analysis
also incorporate the costs of lamp and ballast replacements. Due to
these replacement costs, higher operating costs can be experienced
at efficiency levels above the baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table V.2 through Table V.13 show the LCC and PBP results for the
ELs and TSLs considered for each equipment class, with indoor and
outdoor installations aggregated together using equipment shipments in
the analysis period start year (2025). The results provided here will
differ from the LCC and PBP results from the NOPD due to updated data
used for this final determination. Results for each equipment class are
shown in two tables. In the first table, the simple payback is measured
relative to the baseline product. For ELs having a higher first year's
operating cost than that of the baseline, the payback period is
``Never,'' because the additional installed cost relative to the
baseline is not recouped. In the second table, impacts are measured
relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in
the compliance year (see section IV.F.8 of this document). Because some
customers purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-
standards case, the average savings are less than the difference
between the average LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at
each TSL. The savings refer only to customers who are affected by a
standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase equipment with
efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected. Customers for whom
the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.
Table V.2--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >=50 W and <=100 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2020$) Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback fixture
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 889.82 131.20 1,731.71 2,621.53 .............. 24.2
1....................................................... 903.12 131.14 1,729.46 2,632.58 239.0 24.2
2....................................................... 935.77 131.96 1,750.88 2,686.65 Never 24.2
3....................................................... 953.36 131.27 1,739.77 2,693.13 Never 24.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table V.3--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >=50 W and <=100 W Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Efficiency Percent of
TSL level Average LCC consumers that
savings * (2020$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 1 (11.05) 82.1
2......................................................... 2 (64.72) 62.0
3......................................................... 3 (64.68) 72.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
[[Page 58786]]
Table V.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >100 W and <150 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2020$) Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback fixture
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 846.76 154.76 1,915.54 2,762.30 .............. 23.5
1....................................................... 860.27 153.78 1,902.10 2,762.37 13.8 23.5
2....................................................... 898.69 152.03 1,891.30 2,789.99 19.0 23.5
3....................................................... 1,015.69 155.72 1,926.47 2,942.16 Never 23.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table V.5--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >100 W and <150 W Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Efficiency Percent of
TSL level Average LCC consumers that
savings * (2020$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 1 (0.22) 10.3
2......................................................... 2 (27.02) 24.1
3......................................................... 3 (179.26) 46.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >=150 W and <=250 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2020$) Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback fixture
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 994.60 190.93 2,336.03 3,330.62 .............. 23.5
1....................................................... 1,018.48 190.63 2,329.74 3,348.22 80.2 23.5
2....................................................... 1,172.73 188.56 2,294.58 3,467.31 75.4 23.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table V.7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >=150 W and <=250 W Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Efficiency Percent of
TSL level Average LCC consumers that
savings * (2020$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 1 (17.56) 53.5
2......................................................... 2 (129.14) 88.4
3......................................................... 2 (129.14) 88.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.8--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >250 W and <=500 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2020$) Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback fixture
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 1,121.20 249.34 3,016.36 4,137.56 .............. 23.5
1....................................................... 1,142.97 249.17 3,011.71 4,154.69 127.3 23.5
[[Page 58787]]
2....................................................... 1,378.00 258.46 3,123.86 4,501.86 Never 23.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table V.9--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >250 W and <=500 W Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Efficiency Percent of
TSL level Average LCC consumers that
savings * (2020$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 1 (17.14) 95.2
2......................................................... 2 (364.34) 95.9
3......................................................... 2 (364.34) 95.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.10--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >500 W and <=1,000 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2020)$ Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback fixture
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 1,396.65 582.23 7,221.65 8,618.30 .............. 23.7
1....................................................... 1,429.96 581.32 7,207.07 8,637.03 36.4 23.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
Table V.11--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >500 W and <=1,000 W Equipment
Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Efficiency Percent of
TSL level Average LCC consumers that
Savings * (2020$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 1 (18.72) 91.9
2......................................................... 1 (18.72) 91.9
3......................................................... 1 (18.72) 91.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Table V.12--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >1,000 W and <=2,000 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs (2020$) Average
---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback fixture
Efficiency level First year's Lifetime (years) lifetime
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0....................................................... 1,489.80 188.40 2,387.30 3,877.10 .............. 23.7
1....................................................... 1,522.96 186.62 2,364.56 3,887.52 18.6 23.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
baseline equipment.
[[Page 58788]]
Table V.13--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >1,000 W and <=2,000 W Equipment
Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life-cycle cost savings
-------------------------------------
Efficiency Percent of
TSL level Average LCC consumers that
savings * (2020$) experience net
cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 1 (10.47) 48.5
2......................................................... 1 (10.47) 48.5
3......................................................... 1 (10.47) 48.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
b. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
As discussed in section IV.F.9, EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically
justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the
standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy
savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable
presumption payback period for each of the considered ELs, DOE used
discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy use
calculation on the DOE test procedures for MHLFs. In contrast, the PBPs
presented in section V.B.1.a were calculated using distributions that
reflect the range of energy use in the field.
Table V.14 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for
the considered ELs for MHLFs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-
presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels
considered for this rule are economically justified through a more
detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to
the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment. The results of
that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the
economic justification for a potential standard level, thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification.
Table V.14--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebuttable presumption payback period (years)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL >=50 W and >100 W and >=150 W and >250 W and >500 W and >1,000 W and
<=100 W <150 W * <=250 W ** <=500 W <=1,000 W <=2,000 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 2,150.5 14.3 102.9 195.5 38.1 18.6
2....................................................... 21.4 10.0 90.2 56.3 .............. ..............
3....................................................... 21.9 87.6 .............. .............. .............. ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as
specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially 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 [deg]C, as
specified by UL 1029-2007.
Table V.14 reports very large rebuttable-presumption payback
periods for some equipment class-efficiency level combinations. These
payback periods are the result of very small operating cost savings
under the rebuttable-presumption criterion compared to the increased
installed cost of moving from EL 0 to the EL under consideration.
2. National Impact Analysis
This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of
the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended
standards for MHLFs DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-
new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each
TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the first full year of
anticipated compliance with amended standards 2025-2054. Table V.15
presents DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL
considered for MHLFs. The savings were calculated using the approach
described in section IV.H.1 of this document.
Table V.15--Cumulative National Energy Savings for MHLFs; 30 Years of Shipments
[2025-2054]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Energy Savings (quads):
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... 0.000006 0.00004 0.00006
[[Page 58789]]
>100 W and <150 W........................................... 0.000001 0.00001 0.00001
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... 0.000008 0.00007 0.00007
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... 0.00002 0.0001 0.0001
>500 W and <=1,000 W........................................ 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... 0.0000003 0.0000003 0.0000003
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................. 0.00004 0.0002 0.0003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy Savings (quads):
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... 0.00002 0.0001 0.0002
>100 W and <150 W........................................... 0.000003 0.00003 0.00004
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... 0.00002 0.0002 0.0002
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... 0.00004 0.0003 0.0003
>500 W and <=1,000 W........................................ 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... 0.0000007 0.0000007 0.0000007
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................. 0.0001 0.0006 0.0007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFC Energy Savings (quads):
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... 0.00002 0.0001 0.0002
>100 W and <150 W........................................... 0.000003 0.00003 0.00004
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... 0.00002 0.0002 0.0002
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... 0.00004 0.0003 0.0003
>500 W and <=1,000 W........................................ 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... 0.0000008 0.0000008 0.0000008
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................. 0.0001 0.0007 0.0007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Circular A-4 \29\ requires agencies to present analytical
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking,
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30
years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised
standards.\30\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing
cycles, or other factors specific to MHLFs. Thus, such results are
presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any
change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis
results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table
V.16. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of MHLFs purchased in
2025-2033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/. (last accessed June 24, 2021).
\30\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous
standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews
at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance
date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may
not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing
of standards reviews and the fact that for some products, the
compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.
Table V.16--Cumulative National Energy Savings for MHLFs; 9 Years of Shipments
[2025-2033]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Energy Savings (quads):
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... 0.000006 0.00004 0.00006
>100 W and <150 W........................................... 0.000001 0.00001 0.00001
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... 0.000008 0.00007 0.00007
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... 0.00002 0.0001 0.0001
>500 W and <=1,000 W........................................ 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... 0.0000003 0.0000003 0.0000003
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................. 0.00004 0.0002 0.0003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Energy Savings (quads):
[[Page 58790]]
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... 0.00002 0.0001 0.0002
>100 W and <150 W........................................... 0.000003 0.00003 0.00004
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... 0.00002 0.0002 0.0002
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... 0.00004 0.0003 0.0003
>500 W and <=1,000 W........................................ 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... 0.0000007 0.0000007 0.0000007
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................. 0.0001 0.0006 0.0007
FFC Energy Savings (quads):
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... 0.00002 0.0001 0.0002
>100 W and <150 W........................................... 0.000003 0.00003 0.00004
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... 0.00002 0.0002 0.0002
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... 0.00004 0.0003 0.0003
>500 W and <=1,000 W........................................ 0.00003 0.00003 0.00003
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... 0.0000008 0.0000008 0.0000008
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................. 0.0001 0.0007 0.0007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for MHLFs. In
accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\31\ DOE
calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount
rate. Table V.17 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted
over the lifetime of products purchased in 2025-2054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4:
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed
June 28, 2021).
Table V.17--Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for MHLFs; 30 Years of Shipments
[2025-2054]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent (millions 2018$):
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... -0.12 -2.39 -2.44
>100 W and <150 W........................................... 0.0027 -0.32 -0.66
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... -0.11 -1.67 -1.67
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... -0.25 -3.27 -3.27
>500 W and <=1,000 W........................................ -0.077 -0.077 -0.077
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... -0.00038 -0.00038 -0.00038
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................. -0.56 -7.72 -8.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 percent (millions 2018$):
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... -0.10 -1.28 -1.35
>100 W and <150 W........................................... -0.00059 -0.17 -0.41
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... -0.10 -1.38 -1.38
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... -0.21 -2.86 -2.86
>500 W and <=1000 W......................................... -0.080 -0.080 -0.080
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... -0.0014 -0.0014 -0.0014
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................ -0.49 -5.78 -6.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total may not equal sum due to rounding.
The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical
period are presented in Table V.18. The impacts are counted over the
lifetime of products purchased in 2025-2054. As mentioned previously,
such results are presented for informational purposes only and are not
indicative of any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision
criteria.
[[Page 58791]]
Table V.18--Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for MHLFs; 9 Years of Shipments
[2025-2033]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Equipment class -----------------------------------------------
1 2 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent (millions 2020$):
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... -0.12 -2.39 -2.44
>100 W and <150 W........................................... 0.0027 -0.32 -0.66
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... -0.11 -1.67 -1.67
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... -0.25 -3.27 -3.27
>500 W and <=1,000 W........................................ -0.077 -0.077 -0.077
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... -0.00038 -0.00038 -0.00038
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................. -0.56 -7.72 -8.12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 percent (millions 2020$):
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................................... -0.10 -1.28 -1.35
>100 W and <150 W........................................... -0.00059 -0.17 -0.41
>=150 W and <=250 W......................................... -0.10 -1.38 -1.38
>250 W and <=500 W.......................................... -0.21 -2.86 -2.86
>500 W and <=1,000 W........................................ -0.080 -0.080 -0.080
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...................................... -0.0014 -0.0014 -0.0014
-----------------------------------------------
Total *................................................. -0.49 -5.78 -6.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total may not equal sum due to rounding.
The previous results reflect the use of a default trend to estimate
the change in price for MHLFs over the analysis period (see section
IV.H.2 of this document). DOE also conducted a sensitivity analysis
that considered one scenario with a lower rate of price decline than
the reference case and one scenario with a higher rate of price decline
than the reference case. The results of these alternative cases are
presented in appendix 10C of the final determination TSD. In the high-
price-decline case, the NPV of consumer benefits is higher than in the
default case. In the low-price-decline case, the NPV of consumer
benefits is lower than in the default case.
C. Final Determination
For this final determination, DOE analyzed whether amended
standards for MHLFs would be technologically feasible and cost
effective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) EPCA
mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation
standards for MHLFs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(B)) DOE has
determined that there are technology options that would improve the
efficiency of MHLFs. These technology options are being used in
commercially available MHLFs and therefore are technologically
feasible. (See section IV.B for further information.) Hence, DOE has
determined that amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs are
technologically feasible.
EPCA requires DOE to consider whether energy conservation standards
for MHLFs would be cost effective through an evaluation of the savings
in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered
product/equipment compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products/
equipment which are/is likely to result from the imposition of an
amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A), 42
U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) As presented
in the prior section, the average customer purchasing a representative
MHLF would experience an increase in LCC at each evaluated standards
case as compared to the no-new-standards case. The simple PBP for the
average MHLF customer at most ELs is projected to be generally longer
than the mean lifetime of the equipment, which further indicates that
the increase in installed cost for more efficient MHLFs is not recouped
by their associated operating cost savings. The NPV benefits at these
TSLs are also negative for all equipment classes at 3-percent and 7-
percent discount rates. Based on the previous considerations, DOE has
determined that more stringent amended energy conservation standards
for MHLFs cannot satisfy the relevant statutory requirements because
such standards would not be cost effective as required under EPCA. (See
42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
Having determined that amended energy conservation standards for
MHLFs would not be cost-effective, DOE did not further evaluate the
significance of the amount of energy conservation under the considered
amended standards because it has determined that the potential
standards would not be cost-effective (and by extension, would not be
economically justified) as required under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)).
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
This final determination has been determined to be not significant
for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result, OMB did not
review this final determination.
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'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities
[[Page 58792]]
in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this final determination under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. DOE has concluded that amended energy conservation
standards for metal halide lamp fixtures would not be cost effective
(and by extension not economically justified). Because DOE is not
amending the current energy conservation standards for MHLFs, DOE
certifies that this final determination will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared an FRFA for this final determination. DOE will
transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of covered products must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, 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. (See generally 10 CFR part
429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification
and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for
the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Notwithstanding any other
provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall
any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA,
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number. This final determination, which concludes that amended
energy conservation standards for MHLFs would not be cost effective
(and by extension, not economically justified) as required under the
relevant statute, imposes no new information or recordkeeping
requirements. Accordingly, clearance from the OMB is not required under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this final determination in accordance
with NEPA and DOE's implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE
has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion A4
because it is an interpretation or ruling in regards to an existing
regulations and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has
determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. As this final determination does not amend
the standards for MHLFs, there is no impact on the policymaking
discretion of the States. Therefore, 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 E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1)
clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies
any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and
burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5)
adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued
by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this final determination meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
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 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
[[Page 58793]]
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
This final determination does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures
of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. As a
result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
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 final determination would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this final determination would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
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
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this final determination does not amend energy conservation
standards for MHLFs, it is not a significant energy action, nor has it
been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE
has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this final
determination.
L. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer
review.\32\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process
for developing its determination in the case of the present rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer
Review Report'' is available at: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (June 18, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this final determination prior to its effective date.
The report will state that it has been determined that the final
determination is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 19,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
[[Page 58794]]
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-23183 Filed 10-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
