Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures, 58763-58794 [2021-23183]

Download as PDF 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