[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 126 (Monday, July 1, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31232-31244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14004]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016]


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Request for information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is attempting to 
determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards 
for metal halide lamp fixtures. Under the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act, as amended, DOE must review these standards at least 
once every six years and publish either a proposal to amend these 
standards or a notice of determination that the existing standards do 
not need amending. DOE is soliciting the public for information to help 
determine whether the current standards require amending under the 
applicable statutory criteria. DOE welcomes written comments from the 
public on any subject within the scope of this document, including 
topics not specifically raised.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before August 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0016, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016 in the subject line of the message.
    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see section III of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, 
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov. The 
docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, 
including public comments, in the docket. See section III for 
information on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Ms. Lucy deButts, 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) 287-1604. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority and Background
    B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
    A. Equipment Covered by This Rulemaking
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Product/Equipment Classes
    2. Technology Assessment
    C. Screening Analysis
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Baselines
    2. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    E. Markups Analysis
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
    H. Shipments
    I. National Impact Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
    1. Market Failures
    2. Market-Based Approaches to Energy Conservation Standards
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 
(``EPCA''),\1\ among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the 
energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and industrial 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other 
Than Automobiles. These products include metal halide lamp fixtures 
(``MHLFs''), the subject of this request for information (``RFI'').\3\ 
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards 
(``ECS'') for

[[Page 31233]]

these products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)), and directed DOE to conduct 
two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend these 
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)-(3))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated as Part A.
    \3\ Although MHLFs (which are industrial lighting equipment) are 
treated as covered products under EPCA, as a matter of 
administrative convenience and to minimize confusion among 
interested parties, DOE adopted its MHLF provisions into subpart S 
of 10 CFR part 431 (the portion of DOE's regulations dealing with 
commercial and industrial equipment) because businesses, rather than 
individuals, purchase them. 74 FR 12058, 12062 (March 23, 2009). For 
the purpose of this notice, DOE refers to MHLFs generally as 
``equipment.'' When the notice refers to specific provisions in Part 
A of EPCA, the term ``product'' is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially 
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 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 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).
    DOE completed the first of these rulemaking cycles in 2014 by 
adopting amended performance standards for MHLFs manufactured on or 
after February 10, 2017 (``2014 MHLF ECS final rule''). 79 FR 7746 
(February 10, 2014). The current energy conservation standards are 
located in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``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 must conduct a second review of its energy 
conservation standards for MHLFs and publish a final rule to determine 
whether to amend those standards. This document initiates that second 
review.

B. Rulemaking Process

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or 
amended energy conservation standard be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy or water efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) To 
determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires 
that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its 
burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or 
maintenance expenses;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting 
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows 
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the 
requirements within EPCA.

       Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPCA requirement                Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological Feasibility...............   Market and Technology
                                           Assessment.
                                           Screening Analysis.
                                           Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
    1. Economic impact on manufacturers    Manufacturer Impact
     and consumers.                        Analysis.
                                           Life-Cycle Cost and
                                           Payback Period Analysis.
                                           Life-Cycle Cost
                                           Subgroup Analysis.
                                           Shipments Analysis.
    2. Lifetime operating cost savings     Markups for Product
     compared to increased cost for the    Price Determination.
     product.
                                           Energy and Water Use
                                           Determination.
                                           Life-Cycle Cost and
                                           Payback Period Analysis.
    3. Total projected energy savings...   Shipments Analysis.
                                           National Impact
                                           Analysis.
    4. Impact on utility or performance.   Screening Analysis.
                                           Engineering Analysis.
    5. Impact of any lessening of          Manufacturer Impact
     competition.                          Analysis.
    6. Need for national energy and        Shipments Analysis.
     water conservation.
                                           National Impact
                                           Analysis.
    7. Other factors the Secretary         Employment Impact
     considers relevant.                   Analysis.
                                           Utility Impact
                                           Analysis.
                                           Emissions Analysis.
                                           Monetization of
                                           Emission Reductions Benefits.
                                           Regulatory Impact
                                           Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document 
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the 
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely 
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for MHLFs.

II. Request for Information and Comments

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues 
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and 
economic analyses regarding whether to amend its standards for MHLFs. 
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be

[[Page 31234]]

identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under 
Executive Order 13771, executive branch agencies such as DOE are 
directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of 
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 
9339 (February 3, 2017) Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE 
encourages the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to 
lower the cost of its energy conservation standards rulemakings, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and compliance and 
certification requirements applicable to MHLFs while remaining 
consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
    Issue II.1: DOE seeks comment on whether there have been sufficient 
technological or market changes since the most recent standards update 
that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more stringent standards. 
Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that could enable the 
agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' 
determination because a more stringent standard: 1. Would not result in 
a significant savings of energy; 2. is not technologically feasible; 3. 
is not economically justified; or 4. any combination of the foregoing.
    Issue II.2: DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging smart 
technology appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (September 17, 
2018). In that RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market 
trends and issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial 
equipment that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing 
the RFI was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such 
innovation in fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting 
efficiency standards for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks 
comments, data and information on the issues presented in the RFI as 
they may be applicable to MHLFs.

A. Equipment Covered by This Rulemaking

    This RFI addresses equipment meeting the MHLF definition, as 
codified in 10 CFR 431.322. An 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. DOE has also defined several terms related to MHLF in 
10 CFR 431.322.
    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-
140 (December 19, 2007) (``EISA 2007''), established energy 
conservation standards for MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate 
lamps with rated wattages between 150 watts (``W'') and 500 W and 
excluded three types of fixtures within the covered wattage range from 
energy conservation standards: (1) MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts; 
(2) MHLFs that use electronic ballasts and operate at 480 volts; and 
(3) MHLFs that are rated only for 150 watt lamps, are rated for use in 
wet locations as specified by the National Fire Protection Association 
(``NFPA'') in NFPA 70, ``National Electrical Code 2002 Edition,'' \4\ 
and contain a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air 
temperatures above 50 [deg]C as specified by Underwriters Laboratory 
(``UL'') in UL 1029, ``Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge 
Lamp Ballasts.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) In the 2014 MHLF ECS final 
rule, DOE also promulgated standards for the group of MHLFs with 
ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 50 W-150 W and 501 W-1,000 W. 
DOE also promulgated standards for one type of previously excluded 
fixture: A 150 W MHLF rated for use in wet locations \4\ and containing 
a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures greater 
than 50 [deg]C--i.e., those fixtures that fall under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(hh)(1)(B)(iii). DOE continued to exclude from standards MHLFs with 
regulated-lag ballasts and 480 V electronic ballasts. In addition, due 
to a lack of applicable test method for high-frequency electronic 
(``HFE'') ballasts, in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE did not 
establish standards for MHLFs with HFE ballasts. 79 FR 7754-7756 
(February 10, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE notes that although the exclusion in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(hh)(1)(B)(iii)(II) identifies those fixtures that are rated for 
use in wet locations as specified by the National Electrical Code 
2002 section 410.4(A), the National Fire Protection Agency 
(``NFPA'') is responsible for authoring the National Electrical 
Code, which is identified as NFPA 70. Accordingly, DOE's use of NFPA 
70 under the MHLF-related provision in 10 CFR 431.326(b)(3)(iii) is 
identical to the statutory exclusion set out by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although current standards for MHLFs require them to contain a 
ballast that meets or exceeds a minimum ballast efficiency, the entity 
responsible for certifying compliance with the applicable standard is 
the MHLF manufacturer or importer. The MHLF manufacturer may opt to use 
a third-party to certify on its behalf, such as the ballast 
manufacturer. However, the MHLF manufacturer or importer is ultimately 
responsible for certifying compliance to DOE. See generally 42 U.S.C. 
6291(10)-(12) and 10 CFR 429.12.
    Issue A.1: DOE seeks input on whether definitions related to MHLFs 
in 10 CFR 431.322 require any revisions--and if so, how those 
definitions should be revised. DOE also seeks input on whether 
additional definitions are necessary for DOE to clarify or otherwise 
implement its regulatory requirements related to MHLFs.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts 
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy 
conservation standard provides information about the MHLF industry that 
will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE 
uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the 
structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers, 
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce 
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency 
improvements in the design and manufacturing of MHLFs. DOE also reviews 
product literature, industry publications, and company websites. 
Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to 
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for 
MHLFs.
1. Product/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.
    For MHLFs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 
10 CFR 431.326 are based on 24 equipment classes that were analyzed in 
the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule according to the following performance-
related features that provide utility to the customer: Input voltage, 
rated lamp wattage, and designation for indoor versus outdoor 
applications. Table II.1 lists the 24 MHLF equipment classes from the 
2014 MHLF ECS final rule.

[[Page 31235]]



                      Table II.1--MHLF Equipment Classes From the 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with lamps of the
       following rated lamp wattage                 Indoor/outdoor                    Input voltage type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................  Indoor..........................  Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................  Indoor..........................  All others.
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................  Outdoor.........................  Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W.......................  Outdoor.........................  All others.
>100 W and <150 W \*\....................  Indoor..........................  Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W \*\....................  Indoor..........................  All others.
>100 W and <150 W \*\....................  Outdoor.........................  Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W \*\....................  Outdoor.........................  All others.
>=150 W \**\ and <=250 W.................  Indoor..........................  Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W \**\ and <=250 W.................  Indoor..........................  All others.
>=150 W \**\ and <=250 W.................  Outdoor.........................  Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W \**\ and <=250 W.................  Outdoor.........................  All others.
>250 W and <=500 W.......................  Indoor..........................  Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W.......................  Indoor..........................  All others.
>250 W and <=500 W.......................  Outdoor.........................  Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W.......................  Outdoor.........................  All others.
>500 W and <=1,000 W.....................  Indoor..........................  Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W.....................  Indoor..........................  All others.
>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 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 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.

    DOE notes that since Table II.1 represents all equipment classes in 
the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, it also includes a number of individual 
classes for which standards were not set. For example, DOE did not 
adopt standards in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule for MHLFs designed to 
be operated with lamps rated greater than 1,000 W and less than or 
equal to 2,000 W but they are included as one of the many different 
MHLF equipment classes that DOE is currently considering within the 
context of this RFI. Consequently, the table of standards presented in 
Table I.1 in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule does not include MHLFs that 
operate those lamps. 79 FR 7747-7748 (February 10, 2014). See also id. 
at 79 FR 7832-7836 (detailing DOE's reasoning under the ``Conclusions'' 
of the preamble discussion). Furthermore, because DOE adopted the same 
standards for indoor and outdoor equipment classes that are tested at 
the same input voltage and that operate lamps of the same wattage, DOE 
omitted the indoor/outdoor distinction when codifying the table of 
standards into 10 CFR 431.326(c). DOE previously analyzed indoor and 
outdoor fixtures separately as part of its prior rulemaking because 
these two types of fixtures offer different performance-related 
features. When electronic ballasts are used in outdoor applications, 
they require additional transient protection because of the potential 
for voltage surges in outdoor locations. Indoor fixtures with 
electronic ballasts also have an added feature to provide 120 V 
auxiliary power functionality for use in the event of a power outage. 
Based on these different features, DOE established separate equipment 
classes for indoor and outdoor fixtures, 79 FR 7763-7764 (February 10, 
2014), but adopted the same minimum energy conservation standards for 
these classes. (See section II.D for more information).
    Issue B.1: DOE requests feedback on the 24 MHLF equipment classes 
from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule and whether changes to these 
individual equipment classes and their descriptions should be made or 
whether certain classes should be merged or separated (e.g., indoor and 
outdoor, wattage ranges). DOE further requests feedback on whether 
combining certain classes could impact utility by eliminating any 
performance-related features or impact the stringency of the current 
energy conservation standard for this equipment. Specifically, DOE 
requests comment on whether the features associated with indoor and/or 
outdoor fixtures (e.g., thermal management, transient protection, 
auxiliary power functionality) remain in the market today.
    DOE is also aware that new configurations and features could be 
available for MHLFs that may not have been available at the time of the 
last energy conservation standards analysis. Based on DOE's review of 
the market, DOE found metal halide dimming ballasts available from 
multiple manufacturers that could be used in MHLFs. DOE has identified 
both step-level dimming and continuous dimming metal halide systems 
that are dimmable down to 50 percent of rated power.
    Issue B.2: DOE seeks information regarding any new equipment 
classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, 
DOE requests information on any performance-related features (e.g., 
dimmability, etc.) that may provide unique customer utility and data 
detailing the corresponding impacts on energy use that would justify 
separate equipment classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of 
these performance-related features would increase energy consumption).
    In describing which MHLFs are included in each equipment class, DOE 
incorporates by reference the 2002 version of NFPA 70 and the 2007 
version of UL 1029 in DOE's regulations. NFPA 70 is a national safety 
standard for electrical design, installation, and inspection, and is 
also known as the 2002 National Electrical

[[Page 31236]]

Code. UL 1029 is a safety standard specific to high intensity discharge 
(``HID'') lamp ballasts; a metal halide lamp ballast is a type of HID 
lamp ballast. Both NFPA 70 and UL 1029 are used to describe the 
applicable equipment class for MHLFs that EISA 2007 excluded from the 
statutory standards enacted by Congress but that were later included as 
part of the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule (see section II.A). DOE has found 
that a 2017 version of NFPA 70 (NFPA 70-2017) ``NFPA 70 National 
Electrical Code 2017 Edition'' \5\ and a 2014 version of UL 1029 (UL 
1029-2014) ``Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp 
Ballasts'' \6\ are now available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Approved August 24, 2016.
    \6\ Approved December 6, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue B.3: DOE requests comment on whether incorporating by 
reference the updated industry standards NFPA 70-2017 and UL 1029-2014 
will impact the MHLFs included in each equipment class in DOE's 
regulations.
2. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy 
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past 
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies 
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of 
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with 
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to 
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of 
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent 
rulemaking for MHLFs. A complete list of those prior options appears in 
Table II.2 of this RFI.

             Table II.2--Previously Considered Technology Options From the 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast type                                      Design option                    Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic.....................                 Improved Core Steel.                 Use a higher grade of
                                                                                    electrical steel, including
                                                                                    grain-oriented silicon
                                                                                    steel, to lower core losses.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Copper Wiring.                    Use copper wiring in place of
                                                                                    aluminum wiring to lower
                                                                                    resistive losses.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Increased Stack Height.               Add steel laminations to
                                                                                    lower core losses.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Increased Conductor Cross Section.          Increase conductor cross
                                                                                    section to lower winding
                                                                                    losses.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Electronic Ballast.                 Replace magnetic ballasts
                                                                                    with electronic ballasts.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Amorphous Steel.                   Create the core of the
                                                                                    inductor from laminated
                                                                                    sheets of amorphous steel
                                                                                    insulated from each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic...................  Improved Components.....  Magnetics...............  Use grain-oriented or
                                                                                    amorphous electrical steel
                                                                                    to reduce core losses.
                                                                                   Use optimized-gauge copper or
                                                                                    litz wire to reduce winding
                                                                                    losses.
                                                                                   Add steel laminations to
                                                                                    lower core losses.
                                                                                   Increase conductor cross
                                                                                    section to lower winding
                                                                                    losses.
                                                         Diodes..................  Use diodes with lower losses.
                                                         Capacitors..............  Use capacitors with a lower
                                                                                    effective series resistance
                                                                                    and output capacitance.
                                                         Transistors.............  Use transistors with lower
                                                                                    drain-to-source resistance.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Improved Circuit Design.  Integrated Circuits.....  Substitute discrete
                                                                                    components with an
                                                                                    integrated circuit.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Amorphous Steel.                   Create the core of the
                                                                                    inductor from laminated
                                                                                    sheets of amorphous steel
                                                                                    insulated from each other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue B.4: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in 
Table II.2 of this RFI regarding their applicability to the current 
market and how these technologies may impact the efficiency of MHLFs as 
measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks 
information on how these technologies may have changed since they were 
considered in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule analysis. Specifically, DOE 
seeks information on the range of efficiencies or performance 
characteristics that are currently available for each technology 
option.
    Issue B.5: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it 
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies 
may impact equipment features or customer utility.

C. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be considered in the engineering analysis.
    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria:
    (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 of a technology in commercial products 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the effective date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If a 
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or

[[Page 31237]]

result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b).
    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE's analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    Table II.3 summarizes the screened-out technology option, and the 
applicable screening criteria, from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule.

                                      Table II.3--Screened-Out Technology Options From the 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Screened technology option                                           Practicability to
                                                        Technological         manufacture, install,       Adverse impact on        Adverse impacts on
                                                         feasibility               and service             product utility          health and safety
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorphous Steel.................................                        X                         X                         X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue C.1: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the four 
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the 
technology options listed in Table II.2 of this RFI with respect to 
MHLFs. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same 
criteria would affect any other technology options not already 
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in 
MHLFs.
    Issue C.2: With respect to the screened-out technology option 
listed in Table II.3 of this RFI, DOE seeks information on whether this 
option would, based on current and projected assessments, remain 
screened out under the four screening criteria described in this 
section. With respect to this technology option, what steps, if any, 
could be (or have already been) taken to facilitate the introduction of 
the option as a means to improve the energy performance of MHLFs and 
the potential to impact customer utility of the MHLFs.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency 
(efficiency levels). This relationship serves as the basis for the 
cost-benefit calculations for customers, manufacturers, and the Nation. 
In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the 
increase in manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') associated with 
increasing the efficiency of equipment above the baseline, up to the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for 
each equipment class.
    DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to 
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency 
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which 
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design 
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level 
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in 
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design 
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or 
reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up'' 
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of 
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and 
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that 
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baselines
    For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model 
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from energy 
conservation standards can be measured. The baseline model in each 
equipment class represents the characteristics of common or typical 
equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets 
the current minimum energy conservation standard and provides basic 
customer utility.
    Consistent with this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to 
consider the current minimum energy conservation standards (which were 
required for compliance starting on February 10, 2017) to establish the 
baseline model for each equipment class. The current standards for each 
equipment class are based on ballast efficiency. The current standards 
for MHLFs are found in 10 CFR 431.326.
    Issue D.1: DOE requests feedback on whether using the current 
energy conservation standards for MHLFs provide an appropriate baseline 
efficiency level for DOE to use in evaluating whether to amend the 
current energy conservation standards for any of the equipment classes 
regulated by DOE. DOE requests data and suggestions to select the 
baseline models in order to better evaluate amending energy 
conservation standards for this equipment. In particular, DOE requests 
comment on the most common wattages and features of MHLFs sold today.
    Issue D.2: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline models 
for any newly analyzed equipment classes for which standards are not 
currently in place or for the contemplated combined equipment classes, 
as discussed in II.B.1 of this document.
2. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    For the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE did not analyze all 24 MHLF 
equipment classes. Rather, DOE focused on 12 equipment classes and then 
scaled the ELs from representative equipment classes to those equipment 
classes it did not analyze directly (see the end of this section for 
more detail on the scaling factor). DOE did not directly analyze the 
equipment classes containing only fixtures tested at 480 V because 
their low shipment volume (as indicated by manufacturer interviews) 
would not make them representative of the MHLF market. See 79 FR 7767 
(February 10, 2014) and chapter 5 of the final rule technical support 
document (``TSD'') for that rulemaking.

[[Page 31238]]

    In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, after identifying more efficient 
substitutes for each baseline model, DOE developed ELs. DOE developed 
ELs based on: (1) The design options associated with the equipment 
class studied, and (2) the max-tech level for that class. In the 2014 
MHLF ECS final rule, EL1 represented a moderately higher-efficiency 
magnetic ballast, and EL2 represented the max-tech magnetic ballast. 
EL3 represented the least efficient commercially available electronic 
ballast, and EL4 represented the max-tech level for all ballasts 
incorporated into MHLFs. 79 FR 7776 (February 10, 2014). In the 2014 
MHLF ECS final rule, DOE adopted the ELs representing the highest 
efficiency level available for magnetic ballasts that resulted in a 
positive NPV while also maintaining the same ELs for both indoor and 
outdoor fixtures.
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. The 
maximum available efficiencies for the 12 analyzed equipment classes 
from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule are included in Table II.4 of this 
RFI.

                       Table II.4--Maximum Efficiency Levels From 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with      Indoor/outdoor....  Input voltage type         Maximum efficiency level
 lamps of the following rated
 lamp wattage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W..............  Indoor............  All others........     1/(1 + 0.360 x P[caret](-0.297))
>=50 W and <=100 W..............  Outdoor...........  All others........
>100 W and <150 W *.............  Indoor............  All others........     1/(1 + 0.360 x P[caret](-0.297))
>100 W and <150 W *.............  Outdoor...........  All others........
>=150 W ** and <=250 W..........  Indoor............  All others........     1/(1 + 0.360 x P[caret](-0.297))
>=150 W ** and <=250 W..........  Outdoor...........  All others........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>250 W and <=500 W..............  Indoor............  All others........     1/(1 + 0.360 x P[caret](-0.297))
>250 W and <=500 W..............  Outdoor...........  All others........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>500 W and <=1,000 W............  Indoor............  All others........  >500 W and <=750    >750 W and <=1,000
                                                                           W: 0.910.           W: 0.000104 x P +
                                                                                               0.832
>500 W and <=1,000 W............  Outdoor...........  All others........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W..........  Indoor............  All others........                   0.936
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W..........  Outdoor...........  All others........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * Includes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet
  locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to
  operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W MHLFs exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet
  locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to
  operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.

    DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the 
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options 
are incorporated in the equipment. In many cases, the max-tech 
efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not 
economically feasible. In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, all max-tech 
levels analyzed were commercially available. 79 FR 7777 (February 10, 
2014). Since the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE found metal halide 
ballasts that indicate ballast efficiency could be up to 0.8 percent 
more efficient in the 50 W to 500 W range, up to 3.3 percent more 
efficient in the 500 W to 1,000 W range, and up to 1.3 percent more 
efficient in the 1,000 W to 2,000 W range than the values indicated in 
Table II.4 of this RFI.
    Issue D.3: DOE requests shipment data that indicate the breakdown 
over the last five years (or longer) between MHLFs with electronic 
ballasts and those with magnetic ballasts.
    Issue D.4: DOE seeks input on whether the increased maximum 
available efficiency levels (discussed in the previous paragraph) are 
appropriate and technologically feasible for potential consideration as 
possible energy conservation standards for the equipment at issue--and 
if not, why not. DOE also requests feedback on whether the maximum 
available efficiencies discussed in the previous paragraph are 
representative of those for the other MHLF equipment classes not 
directly analyzed in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule. If the range of 
possible efficiencies is different for the other equipment classes not 
directly analyzed, what alternative approaches should DOE consider 
using for those equipment classes and why?
    Issue D.5: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be 
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies 
associated with those levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks 
information as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain 
combinations of design options that would be necessary to achieve the 
max-tech efficiency level.
    After developing ELs, DOE then scales the ELs from representative 
equipment classes to those equipment classes it does not analyze 
directly. In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE developed a scaling 
factor by comparing quad-voltage ballasts over all representative 
wattages to their 480 V ballast counterparts using catalog data. DOE 
found that the difference in efficiency between ballasts tested at 480 
V and ballasts tested at other input voltages varied based on the 
wattage of the ballast. DOE concluded a scaling factor of 2.0 percent 
(in the form of a subtraction of 2 percent from the representative 
equipment class ELs) to be appropriate from 50 W-150 W, a scaling 
factor of 1.0 percent to be appropriate from 150 W to 1,000 W, and a 
scaling factor of 0.0 percent (i.e., no reduction) to be appropriate 
from 1,001 W to 2,000 W. 79 FR 7780-7781 (February 10, 2014).
    Issue D.6: DOE requests feedback on how the performance of ballasts 
that are tested at 480 V compares to ballasts of the same wattage and 
indoor/outdoor classification that are in other equipment classes.

[[Page 31239]]

3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of 
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that 
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost 
associated with higher-efficiency equipment for the analyzed equipment 
classes. For the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE determined the MPC 
either through a teardown or retail pricing analysis. DOE generated 
ballast and empty fixture (i.e., physical enclosure and optics) MPCs 
separately and then combined the prices, as well as any relevant cost 
adders based on ballast and fixture type (e.g., electronic or magnetic 
ballast, indoor or outdoor fixture), to create an overall MHLF MPC.
    Issue D.7: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would 
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 to increase 
energy efficiency in MHLFs beyond the baseline. This includes 
information on the sequencing manufacturers would follow when 
incorporating the different technologies to incrementally improve MHLF 
efficiency. DOE also requests feedback on whether increased energy 
efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur 
otherwise. DOE is interested in information regarding any potential 
impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to incorporate 
additional functions or attributes in response to customer demand. DOE 
is also interested in the extent to which (if at all) any design 
changes may adversely impact the ability of a given MHLF to operate 
with currently compatible applications.
    Issue D.8: DOE seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with 
incorporating each particular design option (e.g., improved core 
steel). Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs 
estimated for design options in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule have 
changed since the time of that analysis (see chapter 5 of the 2014 MHLF 
ECS TSD). DOE also requests information on the investments necessary to 
incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to, 
costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials, 
engineering and development efforts to implement each design option, 
and manufacturing/production impacts.
    Issue D.9: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options 
may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) certain equipment 
classes.
    Issue D.10: DOE seeks input on any relevant cost adders necessary 
based on ballast and fixture type (e.g., electronic or magnetic 
ballast, indoor or outdoor fixture). Specifically, DOE is interested in 
whether and how the incremental costs for electronically ballasted 
fixtures in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule have changed since the time of 
that analysis.
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') 
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into 
commerce. The 2014 MHLF ECS final rule used separate markups for 
ballast manufacturers (1.47) and fixture manufacturers (1.58). DOE also 
assumed that fixture manufacturers apply the 1.58 markup to the 
ballasts used in their fixtures rather than to only the empty fixtures. 
In aggregate, the markup also accounted for the different markets 
served by fixture manufacturers. The 1.47 markup for ballast 
manufacturers applied only to ballasts sold to fixture original 
equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') directly impacted by this 
rulemaking. For the purpose of the life cycle cost (``LCC'') and 
national impact analysis (``NIA''), DOE assumed a higher markup of 1.60 
for ballasts that are sold to distributors for the replacement market. 
See chapter 5 of the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule TSD for more information 
regarding manufacturer markups.
    Issue D.11: DOE requests feedback on whether its assumptions 
regarding manufacturer markups and the values of the markups (1.47 and 
1.58) are appropriate for ballast manufacturers and fixture 
manufacturers, respectively--with the 1.58 markup applying to fixtures 
with and without ballasts). If they are appropriate, why--and if not, 
why not? If they are not appropriate, what should they be and why? DOE 
also requests the same feedback on the higher markup of 1.60 assumed 
for ballasts sold to distributors for the replacement market.

E. Markups Analysis

    By applying markups to the MSPs estimated in the engineering 
analysis, DOE estimates the amounts customers would pay for baseline 
and more-efficient equipment. At each step in the distribution channel, 
companies mark up the price of the equipment to cover business costs 
and profit margin. Identification of the appropriate markups and the 
determination of customer equipment price depend on the type of 
distribution channels through which the equipment move from 
manufacturer to customer. Table II.5 provides the portion of equipment 
passing through different distribution channels, and Table II.6 
provides the associated markups used in the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule.

                           Table II.5--Metal Halide Lamp Fixture Distribution Channels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Outdoor         Indoor
                Channel                                  Markups                   fixtures (%)    fixtures (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................................  Wholesaler + Contractor + Sales Tax....              60             100
B......................................  Contractor + Sales Tax.................              20               0
C......................................  Sales Tax..............................              20               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Table II.6--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
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 31240]]

 
Sales Tax...............................................               1.07
                                                                       1.07
                                                                       1.07
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall.................................................            1.49            1.27            1.21            1.21            1.07            1.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue E.1: DOE requests data on the markups per distribution 
channel as well as the portion of equipment sold that pass through each 
distribution channel.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use 
analysis to identify how equipment is used by customers, and thereby 
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency 
improvements. To develop annual energy use estimates, DOE multiplies 
annual usage (in hours per year) by the lamp-and-ballast system input 
power (in watts). DOE characterizes representative lamp-and-ballast 
systems in the engineering analysis, which provide measured input power 
ratings.
    In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, to characterize the country's 
average use of fixtures for a typical year, DOE developed annual 
operating hour distributions by sector, using data published in the 
2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization (``LMC''), the Commercial 
Building Energy Consumption Survey (``CBECS''), and the Manufacturer 
Energy Consumption Survey (``MECS''). 79 FR 7784 (February 10, 2014). 
In addition, DOE assumed that MHLFs operate at full output (no 
dimming). Table II.7 provides the operating hours from the 2014 MHLF 
ECS final rule.

 Table II.7--Average Annual Metal Halide Lamp Fixture Operating Hours by
                                 Sector
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Average
                                                                annual
                           Sector                              operating
                                                               hours (h/
                                                                  yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial..................................................       3,615
Industrial..................................................       6,113
Outdoor Stationary..........................................       4,399
Sports Lighting (>1,000 W)..................................         350
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue F.1: DOE seeks data indicating whether its assumptions that 
MHLFs operate at full output and do not dim are reasonably accurate for 
estimating MHLF average annual operating hours.
    Issue F.2: DOE seeks feedback on the average annual operating hours 
for MHLFs by sector, and whether the values in Table II.7 continue to 
be adequate for future potential analyses.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis

    DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic 
effects of potential energy conservation standards for MHLFs on 
individual customers. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the 
PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated baseline level. The 
LCC is the total customer expense over the life of the equipment, 
consisting of purchase, installation, and operating costs (expenses for 
energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the calculation of 
total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--which includes 
MSPs, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--and installation 
costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual 
energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and 
maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and the year 
that compliance with new and amended standards is required.
    In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE defined equipment lifetime as 
the age (in hours in operation) when a fixture, ballast, or lamp is 
retired from service. 79 FR 7787 (February 10, 2014). Table II.8 to 
Table II.10 provide the operating life estimates for fixtures, 
ballasts, and lamps from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule.

                   Table II.8--Fixture Operating Life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Indoor                               Outdoor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 years............................  25 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Table II.9--Ballast Operating Life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Magnetic                            Electronic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50,000 hours........................  40,000 hours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table II.10--Lamp Operating Life
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Lamp wattage                      Rated life (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W..............................................                12,841
150 W.............................................                13,882
250 W.............................................                16,785
400 W.............................................                20,720
1,000 W...........................................                11,714
1,500 W...........................................                 3,375
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue G.1: DOE seeks feedback on whether the metal halide fixture, 
ballast, and lamp operating lifetime values in Table II.8, Table II.9, 
and Table II.10 are valid for use in additional analyses and if not, 
why not? If DOE's operating lifetime values are inadequate, what values 
should it use instead and why? Please provide relevant data in support 
of whatever alternative values that DOE should use in lieu of its 
values listed in these tables.
    In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE used a combination of RS-Means 
\7\ and Sweets \8\ labor rates to estimate the time to install a MHLF, 
ballast, or a lamp. Labor rates are the sum of the wage rate, employer-
paid fringe benefits (i.e., vacation pay, employer-paid health, and 
welfare costs), and any appropriate training and industry advancement 
funds costs. 79 FR 7785 (February 10, 2014). Table II.11 to Table II.13 
provide the labor costs from the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, expressed in 
2012$, as well as the labor costs updated to 2018$.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ R.S. Means Company, Inc. 2010 RS Means Electrical Cost Data. 
2010.
    \8\ Sweets-McGraw Hill Construction. Sweets Electrical Cost 
Guide 2013. 2012.
    \9\ Labor costs were updated to 2018$ using a ratio of the 
median hourly wage for ``49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and 
Repair Occupations'' in May 2018 compared to May 2012. See https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm.

[[Page 31241]]



                   Table II.11--Metal Halide Lamp Fixture Installation/Replacement Labor Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Indoor installation cost        Outdoor installation cost
                 Equipment class                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2012$           2018$           2012$           2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W............................................         $221.32         $247.03         $395.12         $441.02
150 W...........................................          230.42          257.19          371.94          415.15
250 W...........................................          241.80          269.89          499.63          557.67
400 W...........................................          281.32          314.00          542.80          605.86
1,000 W.........................................          327.15          365.15          625.70          698.39
1,500 W.........................................          384.04          428.65          637.40          711.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Table II.12--Metal Halide Ballast Replacement Labor Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Indoor installation cost        Outdoor installation cost
                 Equipment class                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2012$           2018$           2012$           2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W............................................         $138.58         $154.68         $278.43         $310.77
150 W...........................................          139.65          155.87          279.33          311.78
250 W...........................................          140.99          157.37          280.45          313.03
400 W...........................................          143.00          159.61          282.14          314.92
1,000 W.........................................          151.03          168.57          288.89          322.45
1,500 W.........................................          157.72          176.04          294.51          328.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Table II.13--Metal Halide Lamp Replacement Labor Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Indoor installation cost        Outdoor installation cost
                 Equipment class                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2012$           2018$           2012$           2018$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W............................................          $90.96         $101.53         $238.41         $266.11
150 W...........................................           91.49          102.12          238.86          266.61
250 W...........................................           92.16          102.87          239.42          267.23
400 W...........................................           93.17          103.99          240.27          268.18
1,000 W.........................................           97.18          108.47          243.64          271.94
1,500 W.........................................          100.53          112.21          246.45          275.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue G.2: DOE seeks feedback on the costs associated with 
installing a MHLF, replacing a metal halide lamp ballast, and replacing 
a metal halide lamp by equipment class as well as location (indoor 
versus outdoor).

H. Shipments

    DOE develops shipments forecasts of MHLFs to calculate the national 
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy 
consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash 
flows. Using a three-step process, the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule 
described DOE's development of the shipments portion of the NIA 
spreadsheet, a model that uses historical data as a basis for 
projecting future fixture shipments. First, DOE used U.S. Census Bureau 
fixture shipment data, National Electrical Manufacturers Association 
(``NEMA'') lamp shipment data, and NEMA ballast sales trends to 
estimate historical shipments of each fixture type analyzed. Second, 
DOE estimated an installed stock for each fixture in 2017 based on the 
average service lifetime of each fixture type. Third, DOE developed 
annual shipment projections for 2017-2046 by modeling fixture 
purchasing events, such as replacement and new construction, and 
applying growth rate, replacement rate, and alternative technologies 
penetration rate assumptions. 79 FR 7788 (February 10, 2014).
    In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE modeled two declining shipment 
scenarios (known as ``low'' and ``high'' scenarios) that started 
declining at different rates post-2015. DOE stated in the 2014 MHLF ECS 
final rule that DOE believed that shipments for MHLFs peaked somewhere 
between 2010 and 2015, as fixtures with other lighting technologies 
began to significantly displace the use of MHLFs. 79 FR 7789 (February 
10, 2014). Table II.14 provides the shipment projections from the 2014 
MHLF ECS final rule for the years 2017 and 2018.

                         Table II.14--Projected Shipments From 2014 MHLF ECS Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2017                            2018
                 Equipment class                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Low            High             Low            High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W............................................         630,977         645,961         603,506         629,500
150 W...........................................         266,897         273,235         255,277         266,273
250 W...........................................         572,608         581,854         550,906         567,026
400 W...........................................         716,351         727,317         689,759         708,783
1,000 W.........................................         218,347         222,806         208,841         217,836
1,500 W.........................................          11,492          11,765          10,992          11,465
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31242]]

    Issue H.1: DOE seeks shipment data on MHLF and metal halide lamp 
ballasts shipped over the last 5-year period, separated by wattage. DOE 
also seeks feedback on how the projected shipments in Table II.14 
compare to actual shipments of MHLFs in these years.
    NEMA periodically releases lamp indices. Although the indices do 
not contain ballast data, data related to lamp shipments are directly 
related to ballast shipments. Virtually all metal halide ballasts 
operate only one lamp; thus, changes in metal halide lamp shipments are 
indicative of trends related to metal halide ballast and fixture 
shipments. In a recent HID lamp index report, NEMA stated that 
shipments for metal halide lamps in the fourth quarter of 2017 
decreased by 17.6 percent compared to the same period the previous 
year.\10\ NEMA's data point to a continuing decline in metal halide 
lamp shipments--with 2016 shipments being roughly less than 60 percent 
of those in 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ HID Lamp Indexes Decline in Fourth Quarter 2017 Compared to 
Fourth Quarter 2016. See https://www.nema.org/Intelligence/Indices/Pages/HID-Lamp-Indexes-Decline-in-Fourth-Quarter-2017-Compared-to-Fourth-Quarter-2016.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue H.2: DOE seeks data on MHLF shipments, metal halide lamp 
ballast shipments, as well as any information relevant to the 
relationship between metal halide lamp shipments and ballast or fixture 
shipments.

I. National Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the NIA is to estimate the aggregate economic 
impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. The 
NIA assesses the NES and the national NPV of total customer costs and 
savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards 
at specific efficiency levels.
    In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE evaluated the impacts of new 
and amended standards for MHLFs by comparing ``no new standards''-case 
projections with standards-case projections. The no new standards-case 
projections characterize energy use and customer costs for each 
equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE compared these projections with projections 
characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE adopted new 
or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the 
trial standard levels (``TSLs'') or standards cases) for that class. In 
characterizing the no new standards and standards cases, DOE considered 
historical shipments, the mix of efficiencies sold in the absence of 
amended standards, and how that mix may change over time. 79 FR 7788 
(February 10, 2014). In the 2014 MHLF ECS final rule, DOE assumed no 
rebound effect for lighting. Id. The rebound effect refers to the 
tendency of a customer to respond to the cost savings associated with 
more efficient equipment in a manner that leads to marginally greater 
equipment usage, thereby diminishing some portion of anticipated 
benefits related to improved efficiency.
    Issue I.1: DOE seeks comment and information on whether a rebound 
rate of 0 percent is appropriate for MHLFs.
    As stated earlier, DOE understands that the MHLF market is 
declining. For example, fluorescent and light-emitting diode (``LED'') 
light fixtures are displacing MHLFs in many applications. DOE 
understands that, as a result of an amended energy conservation 
standard, customers might opt to purchase LED light fixtures in place 
of MHLFs in greater numbers.
    Issue I.2: DOE seeks information related to the potential variables 
that could cause customers to opt to purchase other technologies (such 
as LED or fluorescent light fixtures) instead of MHLFs. DOE 
specifically seeks input on the magnitude of the change in efficiency, 
first cost, payback, or other variables that could cause customers to 
opt for an alternate technology if energy conservation standards for 
MHLFs were amended.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of MHLFs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such 
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA 
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative 
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact 
Model, an industry cash-flow model adapted for the equipment in this 
rulemaking, with the key output of industry net present value. The 
qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy 
conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and industry 
competition, as well as factors such as equipment characteristics, 
impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and important market and 
equipment trends.
    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered 
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small 
Business Administration's (``SBA's'') small business size standards to 
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are 
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'') code.\11\ Manufacturing of MHLFs is classified under NAICS 
335122, ``Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting 
Fixture Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees 
or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. 
Manufacturing of metal halide ballasts is classified under NAICS 
335311, ``Power, Distribution and Specialty Transformer 
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less 
for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. The 
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company 
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Available online at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.
    Issue J.1: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact 
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that 
distribute MHLFs and metal halide ballasts in the United States.
    Issue J.2: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of 
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact 
information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's

[[Page 31243]]

size thresholds, of MHLFs and metal halide ballasts that distribute 
equipment in the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on 
any other manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally 
impacted by amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests 
feedback on any potential approaches that could be considered to 
address impacts on manufacturers, including small businesses.
    Issue J.3: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative 
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of MHLFs and metal halide 
ballasts associated with (1) other DOE standards applying to different 
equipment that these manufacturers may also make and (2) product-
specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also 
requests comment on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory 
burden and whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that 
would reduce this burden while remaining consistent with the 
requirements of EPCA.

K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics

1. Market Failures
    In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which 
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome 
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on 
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of 
amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs.
2. Market-Based Approaches to Energy Conservation Standards
    As part of its regulatory reform efforts, DOE published a request 
for information discussing key issues and requesting feedback on 
market-based approaches to energy conservation standards. 82 FR 56181 
(November 28, 2017). DOE requests comment on how market-based 
approaches to energy conservation standards might impact standards for 
these products, and specifically seeks comment on any considerations 
with respect to MHLFs.
    In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE 
welcomes comment on any other aspect of energy conservation standards 
for MHLFs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in 
this document.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by August 
15, 2019, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice 
and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy 
conservations standards for MHLFs. After the close of the comment 
period, DOE will review the public comments received and may begin 
collecting data and conducting the analyses discussed in this RFI.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will 
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, 
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). 
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical 
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your 
comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments 
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the 
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the 
Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov 
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of 
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being 
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to 
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal 
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your 
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy 
of the document marked confidential including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential 
deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE 
will make its own determination about the confidential status of the 
information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the 
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the 
information has previously been made

[[Page 31244]]

available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, 
(5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person 
which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information 
might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and 
(7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public 
interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively 
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the 
comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions 
with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of 
the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes 
to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and 
information about this rulemaking or would like to request a public 
meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff 
at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

    Signed in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2019.
Alexander Fitzsimmons,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019-14004 Filed 6-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P