[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47472-47506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14540]



[[Page 47471]]

Vol. 85

Wednesday,

No. 151

August 5, 2020

Part II





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 431





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





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Metal 
Halide Lamp Fixtures; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 5, 2020 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 47472]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016]
RIN 1904-AD89


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

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of proposed determination and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
directs DOE to determine whether standards for metal halide lamp 
fixtures (``MHLFs'') should be amended. In this notice of proposed 
determination (``NOPD''), DOE has initially determined that the energy 
conservation standards for metal halide lamp fixtures do not need to be 
amended and also asks for comment on this proposed determination and 
associated analyses and results.

DATES: 
    Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Thursday, August 27, 2020, from 
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for 
webinar registration information, participant instructions, and 
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. 
If no participants register for the webinar than it will be cancelled. 
DOE will hold a public meeting on this proposed determination if one is 
requested by August 19, 2020.
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this NOPD no later than October 19, 2020.

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 this 
process, see section VII of this document.
    Docket: The docket, 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, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016. The docket web page contains simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section VII, ``Public Participation,'' for further 
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].
    Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email: 
[email protected].
    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. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
    A. Authority and Background
     1. Current Standards
     2. History of Standards Rulemaking for MHLFs
III. General Discussion
    A. Product/Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage
    B. Test Procedure
    C. Technological Feasibility
     1. General
     2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    D. Energy Savings
     1. Determination of Savings
     2. Significance of Savings
    E. Economic Justification
     1. Specific Criteria
     a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
     b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price 
(LCC and PBP)
     c. Energy Savings
     d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
     e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
     f. Need for National Energy Conservation
     g. Other Factors
     2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Overall
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
     1. Scope of Coverage
     2. Metric
     3. Equipment Classes
     a. Existing equipment classes
     b. Summary
     4. Technology Options
     5. Screening Analysis
     a. Screened-Out Technologies
     b. Remaining Technologies
    C. Engineering Analysis
     1. Representative Equipment Classes
     2. Baseline Ballasts
     3. More-Efficient Ballasts
     4. Efficiency Levels
     5. Design Standard
     6. Scaling to Other Equipment Classes
     7. Manufacturer Selling Price
     a. Fixtures
     b. Ballasts
    D. Markups Analysis
     1. Distribution Channels
     2. Estimation of Markups
     3. Summary of Markups
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
     1. Equipment Cost
     2. Installation Cost
     3. Annual Energy Consumption
     4. Energy Prices
     5. Replacement Costs
    6. Equipment Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    9. Payback Period Analysis
    G. Shipments Analysis
    H. National Impact Analysis
    1. National Energy Savings
    2. Net Present Value Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels

[[Page 47473]]

    B. Economic Impacts on Individual Customers
    1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    2. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    C. National Impact Analysis
    1. Significance of Energy Savings
    2. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits
    D. Proposed Determination
    1. Technological Feasibility
    2. Significant Conservation of Energy
    3. Economic Justification
    4. Summary
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Information Quality
VII. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Submission of Comments
    C. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination

    Title III, Part B \1\ of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include metal halide lamp fixtures 
(``MHLFs''), the subject of this notice of proposed determination 
(``NOPD''). (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA established initial standards for MHLFs. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(hh)(1)(A)) EPCA directed the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') 
to conduct a review of the statutory standards to determine whether 
they should be amended, and a subsequent review to determine if the 
standards then in effect should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2) and 
(3)) DOE conducted the first review of MHLF energy conservation 
standards and published a final rule amending standards on February 10, 
2014. 79 FR 7746.\3\ DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to the EPCA 
requirement that DOE conduct a second review of MHLF energy 
conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DOE notes that because of the codification of the MHLF 
provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295, MHLF energy conservation standards and 
the associated test procedures are subject to the requirements of 
the consumer products provisions of Part B of Title III of EPCA. 
However, because MHLFs are generally considered to be commercial 
equipment, DOE established the requirements for MHLFs in 10 CFR part 
431 (``Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and 
Industrial Equipment'') for ease of reference. DOE notes that the 
location of the provisions within the CFR does not affect either the 
substance or applicable procedure for MHLFs. Based upon their 
placement into 10 CFR part 431, MHLFs are referred to as 
``equipment'' throughout this document, although covered by the 
consumer product provisions of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed MHLFs subject to 
standards specified in 10 CFR 431.326(c). DOE first analyzed the 
technological feasibility of more efficient MHLFs. For those MHLFs for 
which DOE determined higher standards to be technologically feasible, 
DOE estimated energy savings that could result from potential energy 
conservation standards by conducting a national impacts analysis 
(``NIA''). DOE evaluated whether higher standards would be cost 
effective by conducting life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period 
(``PBP'') analyses, and estimated the net present value (``NPV'') of 
the total costs and benefits experienced by consumers.
    Based on the results of these analyses, summarized in section V of 
this document, DOE has tentatively determined that current standards 
for metal halide lamp fixtures do not need to be amended because more 
stringent standards would not have significant energy savings and would 
not be economically justified.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed determination, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
MHLFs.

A. Authority and Background

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles, which includes MHLFs that are the 
subject of this proposed determination. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) EPCA, 
as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 
110-140, EISA 2007), prescribed energy conservation standards for this 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) EPCA directed DOE to conduct two 
rulemaking cycles to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A)) DOE published a final rule amending 
the standards on February 10, 2014 (``2014 MHLF final rule''). 79 FR 
7746. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A), the agency must conduct a second 
review to determine whether current standards should be amended and 
publish a final rule. This second MHLF standards rulemaking was 
initiated through the publication of a request for information 
(``RFI'') document in the Federal Register. 84 FR 31231 (``July 2019 
RFI'')
    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
products, which as noted includes MHLFs, consists essentially of four 
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of the EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product, including 
MHLFs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Manufacturers of covered 
products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for 
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 
these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with 
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test 
procedures for MHLFs appear at 10 CFR 431.324.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, which

[[Page 47474]]

include MHLFs. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must 
be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency 
that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) 
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in 
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, 
including MHLFs, if no test procedure has been established for the 
product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not 
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory factors:

    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared 
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance 
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the 
standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, 
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 
covered 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))
    Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard 
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional 
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy 
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of 
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive 
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding'' 
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended 
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended 
or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE 
determines that products within such group: (A) Consume a different 
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such 
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related 
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have 
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature 
justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must 
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and 
other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a 
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher 
or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
    Pursuant to the amendments contained in the EISA 2007, any final 
rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after 
July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy 
use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard 
for a covered products, including MHLFs, after that date, it must, if 
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into 
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate 
standard for such energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's 
current test procedure for MHLFs addresses standby mode energy use. 
However, in the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE stated that it had yet to 
encounter an MHLF that used energy in standby mode and therefore 
concluded that it could not establish a standard that incorporated 
standby mode energy consumption. Regarding off mode, DOE concluded in 
the same final rule that it is not possible for MHLFs to meet off mode 
criteria because there is no condition in which the components of a 
MHLF are connected to the main power source and are not already in a 
mode accounted for in either active or standby mode. 79 FR 7757.
    EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the 
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE 
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the 
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). This NOPD also satisfies the 6-
year review provision of EPCA.
1. Current Standards
    In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE prescribed the current energy 
conservation standards for MHLFs manufactured on and after February 10, 
2017. 79 FR 7746. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 
10 CFR 431.326 and are repeated in Table II.1.

                           Table II.1--Current Energy Conservation Standards for MHLFs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Designed to be operated with lamps of
    the following rated lamp wattage        Tested input voltage *          Minimum standard equation * (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50W and <=100W........................  480 V.....................  (1/(1+1.24xP[supcaret](-0.351)))-0.0200.**
>=50W and <=100W........................  All others................  1/(1+1.24xP[supcaret](-0.351)).
>100W and <150W [dagger]................  480 V.....................  (1/(1+1.24xP[supcaret](-0.351)))-0.0200.
>100W and <150W [dagger]................  All others................  1/(1+1.24xP[supcaret](-0.351)).
>=150W [Dagger] and <=250W..............  480 V.....................  0.880.
>=150W [Dagger] and <=250W..............  All others................  For >=150W and <=200W: 0.880. For >200W
                                                                       and <=250W: 1/(1+0.876xP[supcaret](-
                                                                       0.351)).

[[Page 47475]]

 
>250W and <=500W........................  480 V.....................  For >250W and <265W: 0.880. For >=265W and
                                                                       <=500W: (1/(1+0.876xP[supcaret](-0.351)))-
                                                                       0.0100.
>250W and <=500W........................  All others................  1/(1+0.876xP[supcaret](-0.351)).
>500W and <=1,000W......................  480 V.....................  >500W and <=750W: 0.900. >750W and
                                                                       <=1,000W: 0.000104xP + 0.822. For >500W
                                                                       and <=1,000W: may not utilize a probe-
                                                                       start ballast.
>500W and <=1,000W......................  All others................  For >500W and <=750W: 0.910. For >750W and
                                                                       <=1,000W: 0.000104xP+0.832. For >500W and
                                                                       <=1,000W: may not utilize a probe-start
                                                                       ballast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Tested input voltage is specified in 10 CFR 431.324.
** P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.
[dagger] Includes 150 watt (W) fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, that are fixtures rated
  only for 150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the National Fire Protection Association
  (``NFPA'') 70 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.323), section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that
  is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by Underwriters Laboratory (UL)
  1029 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.323).
[Dagger] Excludes 150W fixtures specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, that are fixtures rated only for
  150W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section 410.4(A); and containing a
  ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029.

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for MHLFs
    As described in section II.A, EPCA, as amended by Public Law 110-
140, EISA 2007, prescribed energy conservation standards for MHLFs. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) EPCA directed DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles 
to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A)) DOE completed the first of these rulemaking 
cycles in 2014 by adopting amended performance standards for MHLFs 
manufactured on or after February 10, 2017. 79 FR 7746. The current 
energy conservation standards are located in 10 CFR part 431. See 10 
CFR 431.326 (detailing the applicable energy conservation standards for 
different classes of MHLFs). The currently applicable DOE test 
procedures for MHLFs appear at 10 CFR 431.324. Under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(hh)(3)(A), the agency is instructed to conduct a second review of 
its energy conservation standards for MHLFs and publish a final rule to 
determine whether to amend those standards. DOE initiated the second 
MHLF standards rulemaking process on July 1, 2019, by publishing the 
July 2019 RFI.
    DOE received five comments in response to the July 2019 RFI from 
the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

                                   Table II.2--July 2019 RFI Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Organization(s)                        Reference in this NOPD          Organization type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Electrical Manufacturers Association........  NEMA........................  Trade Association.
Edison Electric Institute............................  EEI.........................  Utility Association.
The Institute for Policy Integrity at New York         IPI.........................  Think Tank.
 University School of Law.
Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison,  CA IOUs.....................  Utilities.
 San Diego Gas and Electric.
Signify North America Corporation....................  Signify.....................  Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. 
(Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016, which is maintained at 
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016). The 
references are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket 
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written 
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent 
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues 
raised by these commenters.

A. Product/Equipment Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered product into product classes by the type of energy used 
or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
differing standards. In making a determination whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such 
factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors 
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) This proposed 
determination covers metal halide lamp fixtures defined as light 
fixtures for general lighting application designed to be operated with 
a metal halide lamp and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 
6291(64); 10 CFR 431.322. The scope of coverage is discussed in further 
detail in section IV.B.1 of this document.

B. Test Procedure

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered product must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation 
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE will 
finalize a test procedure establishing methodologies used to evaluate 
proposed energy conservation standards at least 180 days prior to 
publication of a NOPR proposing new or amended energy conservation 
standards. Section 8(d) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C 
(``Process Rule''). DOE's current energy conservation standards for 
MHLFs are

[[Page 47476]]

expressed in terms of the efficiency of the ballast contained within 
the fixture. (10 CFR 431.326)
    DOE established an active mode and standby mode power test method 
in a final rule published on March 9, 2010. 75 FR 10950. The current 
test procedure for MHLFs appears in 10 CFR 431.324 and specifies the 
ballast efficiency calculation as lamp output power divided by the 
ballast input power.
    DOE has since published an RFI to initiate a data collection 
process to consider whether to amend DOE's test procedure for MHLFs. 83 
FR 24680 (May 30, 2018).

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As 
the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list of technology 
options for consideration in consultation with manufacturers, design 
engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then determines which of 
those means for improving efficiency are technologically feasible. DOE 
considers technologies incorporated in commercially-available 
equipment, or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 
Section 7(b)(1) of the Process Rule.
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
Practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on equipment utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 
Section 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.B.5 of this 
document discusses the results of the screening analysis for MHLFs, 
particularly the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and 
those that are considered in this proposed determination. For further 
details on the screening analysis for this proposed determination, see 
chapter 4 of the NOPD technical support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is 
technologically feasible for such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum 
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy 
efficiency for MHLFs, using the design parameters for the most 
efficient equipment available on the market or in working prototypes. 
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are described 
in section IV.C.4 and in chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD.

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy 
savings from application of the TSL to MHLFs purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the year of compliance with the potential 
standards (2025-2054).\5\ The savings are measured over the entire 
lifetime of MHLFs purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE 
quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the 
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the 
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a 
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a 
product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy 
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each 
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPD are described in 
section V.A. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis that considers 
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate national energy 
savings (``NES'') from potential amended or new standards for MHLFs. 
The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document) 
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy 
directly consumed by equipment at the location where it is used. For 
electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms of site 
energy savings and source energy savings, the latter of which is the 
savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site 
electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of full-fuel-cycle 
(``FFC'') energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy consumed 
in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more complete 
picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.\6\ DOE's 
approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of 
the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For more 
information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy and 
notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended 
at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) The term ``significant'' is not 
defined in EPCA. DOE has established a significance threshold for 
energy savings. Section 6(b) of the Process Rule. In evaluating the 
significance of energy savings, DOE conducts a two-step approach that 
considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold and a 
threshold that is percent reduction in the covered energy use. Id. DOE 
first evaluates the projected energy savings from a potential max-tech 
standard over a 30-year period against a 0.3 quads of site energy 
threshold. Section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule. If the 0.3 quad-
threshold is not met, DOE then compares the max-tech savings to the 
total energy usage of the covered equipment to calculate a percentage 
reduction in energy usage. Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. If this 
comparison does not yield a reduction in site energy use of at least 10 
percent over a 30-year period, DOE proposes that no significant energy 
savings would likely result from setting new or amended standards. 
Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. The two-step approach allows DOE 
to ascertain whether a potential standard satisfies EPCA's significant 
energy savings requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) to ensure that 
DOE avoids setting a standard that ``will not result in significant 
conservation of energy.''
    EPCA defines ``energy efficiency'' as the ratio of the useful 
output of services from a product to the energy use of such product, 
measured according to the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(5), 
emphasis added) EPCA defines ``energy use'' as the quantity of energy 
directly consumed by a consumer product at point of use, as measured by 
the Federal test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)) Further, EPCA uses a 
household energy consumption metric as a threshold for setting 
standards for new covered products (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)). Given this 
context, DOE relies on site energy as the appropriate metric for 
evaluating the significance of energy savings.

[[Page 47477]]

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The 
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven 
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    In determining the impacts of a potential amended standard on 
manufacturers, DOE conducts a manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA''). 
DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine the 
quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term assessment--
based on the cost and capital requirements during the period between 
when a regulation is issued and when entities must comply with the 
regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year period. The 
industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) industry net present value, 
which values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows, 
(2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in revenue and income, and (4) 
other measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and 
reports the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including 
impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of 
standards on domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing 
capacity, as well as the potential for standards to result in plant 
closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into 
account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and other 
regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in the LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. 
These measures are discussed further in the following section. For 
consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net 
present value of the consumer costs and benefits expected to result 
from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential 
standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be affected 
disproportionately by a standard.
    DOE has concluded amended standards for MHLFs would not result in 
significant energy savings and, as discussed further in section V.D of 
this document, would not be economically justified for the potential 
standard levels evaluated based on the PBP analysis. Therefore, DOE did 
not conduct an MIA analysis or LCC subgroup analysis for this NOPD.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and 
PBP)
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for 
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific 
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new 
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency 
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected 
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and 
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As 
discussed in section III.D, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to 
project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing product classes and in evaluating design options 
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) The Secretary may 
not prescribe an amended or new standard if the Secretary finds (and 
publishes such finding) that interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially similar 
in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General that is 
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the 
Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) Because DOE is not proposing standards for 
MHLFs, DOE did not transmit a copy of its proposed determination to the 
Attorney General.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    In evaluating the need for national energy conservation, 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE expects that energy savings from amended 
standards would likely provide improvements to the security and 
reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for 
electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the 
reliability of the nation's electricity system. Energy savings from 
amended standards also would likely result in environmental benefits in 
the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases 
primarily associated with fossil-fuel based energy production. Because 
DOE has tentatively concluded amended

[[Page 47478]]

standards for MHLFs would not be economically justified, DOE did not 
conduct a utility impact analysis or emissions analysis for this NOPD.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII))
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation 
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the 
consumer of a product that meets the standard is less than three times 
the value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the 
standard, as calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate values 
used to calculate the effects that proposed energy conservation 
standards would have on the payback period for consumers. These 
analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year payback period 
contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE 
routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range 
of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the 
environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results 
of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the 
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby 
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of 
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation 
is discussed in section V.B.2 of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
proposed determination with regard to MHLFs. Separate subsections 
address each component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new 
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a 
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and 
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total 
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy 
conservation standards. These spreadsheet tools are available on the 
DOE website for this proposed determination (see DOCKET section at the 
beginning of this proposed determination).

A. Overall

    DOE received several comments from stakeholders in response to the 
July 2019 RFI stating that DOE should not amend standards for MHLFs. 
NEMA stated that MHLF technology has reached its practical limits in 
terms of performance. NEMA noted that further investment in efficiency 
for MHLF products is no longer justified given substantial market 
decline and the inability for relevant manufacturers and distributors 
to recover investments in relatively minor efficiency gains. NEMA 
pointed out that DOE has previously declined to amend standards for a 
product when it was deemed that no new investments in higher efficiency 
products is likely. (NEMA, No. 3 at pp. 2, 6)
    NEMA also stated that a transition to light-emitting diode 
(``LED'') products is largely responsible for the declining market for 
MHLF products, and as a result, there is limited opportunity to 
recapture investments in new designs through sales of MHLF products. 
(NEMA, No. 3 at p. 2-3) NEMA noted that the decline of the MHLF market 
means relevant efficiency regulations have reached their end-states. 
(NEMA, No. 3 at p. 6) According to NEMA, the most likely outcome of 
strengthened efficiency standards for MHLFs is accelerated obsolescence 
of products unable to meet new standards and an accelerated decline of 
a market already in decline. (NEMA, No. 3 at p. 6-7) NEMA asserted that 
DOE does not need to further accelerate the decline of the MHLF market 
by further strengthening MHLF efficiency requirements. (NEMA, No. 3 at 
p. 9)
    EEI and Signify both argue that the best course of action is for 
DOE to issue a ``no new standard'' determination for MHLFs. EEI and 
Signify identified the significant decline in the MHLF market as a 
reason DOE should not consider standards for MHLFs. (EEI, No. 2 at p. 
3, Signify, No. 6 at p. 1) EEI added that the market for lighting 
products has outpaced the relevant regulatory framework and market 
forces alone have pushed customers away from MHLF products, so there is 
no need for further regulations. EEI commented that amending standards 
for MHLFs could be an inefficient and ineffective expenditure of DOE's 
resources. (EEI, No. 2 at p. 3).
    As discussed in section II.A, DOE is required to conduct two 
rulemaking cycles to determine whether to amend standards for MHLFs. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A) and (3)(A)) DOE completed the first 
rulemaking cycle by publishing a final rule amending MHLF standards on 
February 10, 2014. 79 FR 7746. This determination represents the second 
rulemaking cycle for MHLFs. DOE discusses the methodology used to 
analyze potential standards in section IV and the results of the 
analysis in section V.
    Commenting on the analyses conducted by DOE to evaluate standards 
for MHLFs, IPI stated that DOE should (1) continue to monetize the full 
climate benefits of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, using the best 
estimates, which were derived by the Interagency Working Group; (2) 
continue to use the global estimate of the social cost of greenhouse 
gases; and (3) rely only on the best available science and economics, 
and not on any ``interim'' estimates that do not include a range of 
discount rates or global climate impacts. They stated that DOE should 
factor these benefits into its choice of the maximum efficiency level 
that is economically justified, consistent with its statutory 
requirement to assess the national need to conserve energy. (IPI, No. 
4, pp. 1-5)
    In response, DOE notes that it has not conducted an analysis of 
emissions impacts that may result from amended standards for MHLFs. As 
discussed further in the document, DOE has tentatively concluded that 
imposition of a standard at any of the TSLs considered is not 
economically justified because the operating costs of the covered 
product are insufficient to recover the upfront cost. DOE continues to 
be of the view that failure to meet one aspect of the seven factors in 
EPCA's consideration of economic justification means that a revised 
standard is not economically justified without considering all of the 
other factors. For example, on October 17, 2016, DOE published in the 
Federal Register a final determination that more stringent energy 
conservation standards for direct heating equipment (``DHE'') would not 
be economically justified, and based this determination solely on 
manufacturer impacts, the first EPCA factor that DOE is required to 
evaluate in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I). 81 FR 71325. Specifically, 
due to the lack of advancement in the DHE industry in terms of product 
offerings, available technology options and associated costs, and 
declining shipment volumes, DOE concluded that amending the DHE energy 
conservation standards would impose a substantial burden on 
manufacturers of DHE, particularly to small manufacturers. Id. at 81 FR 
71328. Notably, DOE received no stakeholder

[[Page 47479]]

comments in opposition to its conclusions regarding economic 
justification in the DHE standards rulemaking.
    In this NOPD, DOE remains consistent with its approach in the DHE 
rule, and finds no economic justification for amending standards based 
on one of the seven factors in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), namely, that 
the energy savings in operating costs of the covered product are 
insufficient to recover the upfront cost.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment 
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry 
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used 
in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and 
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available 
information. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized 
in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD for further 
discussion of the market and technology assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage
    MHLF is defined as a light fixture for general lighting application 
designed to be operated with a metal halide lamp and a ballast for a 
metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6291(64); 10 CFR 431.322. Any equipment 
meeting the definition of MHLF is included in DOE's scope of coverage, 
though all equipment within the scope of coverage may not be subject to 
standards.
    In the July 2019 RFI, DOE requested comments on whether definitions 
related to MHLFs in 10 CFR 431.322 require any revisions or whether 
additional definitions are necessary for DOE to clarify or otherwise 
implement its regulatory requirements related to MHLFs. 84 FR 31234. 
NEMA commented that the MHLF technology is mature and noted that no 
relevant definitions have emerged since the last rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 
3 at p. 4-5) DOE agrees with NEMA and is not proposing to add any new 
definitions or update any existing definitions for MHLFs in this 
determination.
    In response to the July 2019 RFI, CA IOUs argued that DOE should 
consider adopting a technology-agnostic approach that groups together 
all products used for the same application. CA IOUs pointed out the 
transition away from MHLF products and toward LED products and 
suggested that DOE establish a class of products based on lumen output 
that would include all technologies that serve the same application. 
(CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 1-2)
    DOE agrees with CA IOUs that a technology-agnostic approach that 
groups together all products used for the same application could 
potentially have benefits with regards to energy savings. However, DOE 
notes that this proposed determination addresses only metal halide lamp 
fixtures defined as light fixtures 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 is not 
authorized to consider any product not meeting this definition, such as 
LED fixtures, as a part of this determination.
    CA IOUs also urged DOE to consider agricultural applications when 
developing an updated technology-agnostic standard for MHLFs. CA IOUs 
noted that in agricultural applications, there are limitations with LED 
technology for certain indoor growing operations that demand the use of 
high-intensity discharge (``HID'') products, and DOE should ensure that 
any new standards will not eliminate these HID products from the market 
(metal halide products are a type of HID product). (CA IOUs, No. 5 at 
p. 1-2)
    DOE reviewed commercially available MHLFs and found about 50 
products marketed for use in agricultural applications (compared to 
3,521 products in DOE's compliance certification database). The 
agricultural MHLFs range in wattage from 175 watts (``W'') to 1000 W. 
DOE did not find any performance characteristics or features of the 
agricultural MHLFs that would prevent them from being used in general 
lighting applications (i.e., providing an interior or exterior area 
with overall illumination). DOE reviewed available agricultural MHLFs 
in light of the efficiency levels discussed in section IV.C.4 and 
determined that agricultural MHLFs already meet or could meet the 
efficiency levels considered in this determination.
    EISA 2007 established energy conservation standards for MHLFs with 
ballasts designed to operate lamps with rated wattages between 150 W 
and 500 W and excluded three types of fixtures within that 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,'' \7\ and contain a ballast that is rated to operate at 
ambient air temperatures above 50 degrees Celsius (``[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))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE 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 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 volt (``V'') 
electronic ballasts. In addition, due to a lack of applicable test 
method for high-frequency electronic (``HFE'') ballasts, in the 2014 
MHLF final rule, DOE did not establish standards for MHLFs with HFE 
ballasts. 79 FR 7754-7756 (February 10, 2014).
    In this analysis, based on a review of manufacturer catalogs DOE 
again found a range of efficiencies for MHLFs with ballasts designed to 
operate lamps with rated wattages >1000 W to <=2000 W. Hence, in this 
determination, DOE assesses potential standards for this equipment.
    In summary, this proposed determination evaluates MHLFs with 
ballasts designed to operate lamps with rated wattages >=50 W to <=2000 
W with the exception of MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts and MHLFs 
that use electronic ballasts that operate at 480 volts.
    In response to the July 2019 RFI, EEI suggested that DOE adopt a 
more accurate description of the regulatory category for which it is 
issuing standards for MHLFs. EEI noted that DOE is specifically 
reviewing standards for metal halide ballasts, and not for metal halide 
fixtures. (EEI, No. 2 at p. 2) EEI also noted that the focus on metal 
halide ballasts and not fixtures during the 2014 MHLF rulemaking 
produced arguably flawed conclusions regarding the payback period for 
the MHLF efficiency standard adopted. (EEI, No. 2 at p. 2) In a comment 
on the previous

[[Page 47480]]

rulemaking, EEI stated that it is unclear whether manufacturers will 
devote resources to make new ballasts to meet the standard and keep 
producing replacement ballasts. EEI noted that replacement costs 
increase substantially if the entire fixture needs to be replaced after 
ballast failure rather than just the ballast. (EEI, No. 53 at pp. 3-4) 
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The full written comment in response to the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking for MHLFs published at 78 FR 51164 (August 20, 
2013) can be found in Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-STD-0018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE prescribes efficiency standards for MHLFs but, as noted by EEI, 
standards for MHLFs are applicable to the ballast contained within the 
MHLF and not replacement metal halide ballasts sold separately. In this 
proposed determination DOE only has the authority to evaluate amended 
standards for MHLFs, not metal halide ballasts sold outside of MHLFs. 
In section IV.B.2, DOE considers other metrics for MHLFs that pertain 
to the performance of the fixture rather than the ballast contained 
within the fixture. In section IV.F.6, DOE discusses the lifetime of 
ballasts and fixtures and in section IV.F.9, DOE discusses the payback 
period analysis.
2. Metric
    Current energy conservation standards for MHLFs are based on 
minimum allowable ballast efficiencies. The ballast efficiency for the 
fixture is calculated as the measured ballast output power divided by 
the measured ballast input power. The measurement of ballast output 
power (approximated in the test procedure as lamp output power) and 
ballast input power and the calculation of ballast efficiency for MHLFs 
is included in the current test procedure at 10 CFR 431.324.
    In response to the July 2019 RFI, CA IOUs recommended that DOE 
adopt a new standard for MHLFs based on a lumens-per-watt metric to 
align with standards for other lighting products. In addition, 
regarding agricultural MHLFs, CA IOUs suggested that DOE evaluate the 
metrics developed by the American National Standards Institute 
(``ANSI'') and the American Society of Agricultural and Biological 
Engineers for evaluating performance related to agricultural 
operations. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 1-2) CA IOUs noted that the current 
ballast efficiency metric for MHLFs does not promote more efficient 
fixture designs, more efficient lamps, or higher efficiency 
technologies such as LEDs. CA IOUs also pointed out that EISA 2007 
gives DOE permission to expand the scope of regulation for MHLFs and to 
propose not only performance requirements, but also design 
requirements. CA IOUs noted that a fixture-level metric could save up 
to 50 percent more energy than the current approach that only considers 
ballast efficiency and provide a standardized metric to assess and 
compare the performance of a product. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 2-3)
    DOE agrees that a fixture metric effectively accounts for the 
efficiency of a fixture in different applications, provides more 
technological flexibility, and has the potential to yield overall 
higher performance and energy savings. DOE notes that metrics for 
agricultural MHLFs focus on performance characteristics that affect the 
photosynthesis of plants and therefore are not appropriate for MHLFs 
used in general lighting applications. Instead, as part of this 
determination, DOE evaluated several alternative fixture performance 
metrics, including lumens per watt (``lm/W''), luminaire efficacy 
rating (``LER''), target efficacy rating (``TER''), and fitted target 
efficacy (``FTE'').
    A lumens-per-watt metric reflects the light produced and energy 
consumed for a lamp-and-ballast pairing. An increase in lm/W could 
reflect the use of a more efficacious lamp, a more efficient ballast, 
or both. Although DOE's current test procedure does not measure lm/W, 
ANSI C82.6-2015 \9\ and IES LM-51-2013 \10\ provide a test method that 
could be used to determine lm/W for lamp-and-ballast pairings. The 
inclusion of lumen output in the metric necessitates photometric 
measurements as part of the test procedure whereas the measurement of 
ballast efficiency requires only electrical measurements. Photometric 
measurements are more expensive to conduct than electrical measurements 
because of the equipment and time required. While a lumens-per-watt 
metric is based on more than just ballast performance, lm/W still does 
not account for directionality of a fixture (i.e., the fixture's 
effectiveness in delivering light to a specific target). Because the 
covered product is a fixture, DOE evaluated metrics that captured the 
performance of the lamp, ballast, and optics of a fixture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ American National Standards Institute. American National 
Standard for lamp ballasts--Ballasts for High-Intensity Discharge 
Lamps--Methods of Measurement. Approved September 17, 2015 available 
at www.ansi.org.
    \10\ Illuminating Engineering Society. IES Approved Method--The 
Electrical and Photometric Measurement of High-Intensity Discharge 
Lamps. Approved January 7, 2013 available at https://webstore.iec.ch/home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE next considered the LER metric, developed by NEMA in 1998. LER 
is expressed in units of lm/W but in addition to the lamp-and-ballast 
pairing described in the previous paragraph, LER includes a factor that 
accounts for luminaire efficiency, which is the ratio of the lumens 
emitted from a luminaire to the lumens emitted by the lamps alone. LER 
is used to establish minimum requirements for the Federal Energy 
Management Program (``FEMP'') for industrial luminaires.\11\ NEMA has 
developed a test procedure for LER in NEMA LE 5B-1998.\12\ The 
inclusion of lumen output and luminaire efficiency in the metric 
necessitates photometric measurements. As stated previously, 
photometric measurements are more expensive to conduct than electrical 
measurements. NEMA has since developed a TER metric which is similar to 
LER, but better accounts for directionality. DOE determined that TER 
would be a more applicable alternative metric to measure the 
performance of MHLFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FEMP provides guidance for purchasing Energy-Efficient 
Industrial Luminaires (High/Low Bay) with specifications in LER 
available here: https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/purchasing-energy-efficient-industrial-luminaires-highlow-bay.
    \12\ National Electrical Manufacturers Association. LE 5B--
Procedure for Determining Luminaire Efficacy Ratings for High-
Intensity Discharge Industrial Luminaires. Published January 1998 
available at www.nema.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TER metric was developed by NEMA's luminaire division to 
succeed the LER rating. TER calculates fixture efficacy by multiplying 
the lamp lumens by the coefficient of utilization (``CU''), which 
factors in the percentage of rated lumens reaching a specific target 
(that varies based on the type of fixture). The inclusion of lumen 
output and CU in the metric necessitates photometric measurements, 
which are more expensive to conduct than electrical measurements. NEMA 
developed the NEMA LE-6-2014 standard \13\ to provide a test procedure 
for determining the TER of commercial, industrial, and residential 
luminaires. TER has 22 different types of luminaire classifications, 
each with a different CU. Despite the variety of luminaire 
classifications available, TER explicitly excludes fixtures intended to 
be aimed, accent luminaires, rough or hazardous use luminaires, and 
emergency lighting. In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE considered the TER 
metric but ultimately chose not to adopt it out of concern that certain 
fixtures could fall within multiple luminaire classifications due to 
their designs. DOE

[[Page 47481]]

also determined that the exclusion of certain fixture types such as 
fixtures designed to be aimed does not allow all MHLFs to be measured 
using TER. 79 FR 7757. DOE has not found any new information since the 
2014 MHLF final rule regarding the TER metric. Therefore, DOE considers 
these reasons to still be valid and tentatively concludes that TER is 
not a suitable metric for measuring the performance of MHLFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ National Electrical Manufacturers Association. LE 6--
Procedure for Determining Target Efficacy Ratings for Commercial, 
Industrial, and Residential Luminaires. Published June 10, 2015 
available at www.nema.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTE metric was developed by DOE to quantify outdoor pole-
mounted fixture performance for ENERGY STAR qualification purposes.\14\ 
In the FTE approach, fixture performance is measured by the amount of 
light hitting a specified target. The target is defined as the 
rectangle enclosing the uniform ``pool'' of light produced by the 
unique intensity distribution of each luminaire. FTE is calculated by 
multiplying the luminous flux landing in this pool by the percent 
coverage of the rectangular target, and then dividing by input power to 
the fixture. The inclusion of lumen output in the metric necessitates 
photometric measurements. As stated previously, photometric 
measurements are more expensive to conduct than electrical 
measurements. In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE considered the FTE 
metric but ultimately chose not to adopt it because FTE is calculated 
using a rectangular area. 79 FR 7757. Therefore, fixtures designed to 
light non-rectangular areas, produce a large amount of unlighted area 
within the rectangle, or produce specific light patterns that light 
both a horizontal plane and a vertical plane, or even above the fixture 
would be at a disadvantage. DOE continues to find this rationale to be 
valid today. In addition, currently, there is no industry standard for 
determining FTE. For these reasons, DOE determined that FTE is not 
suitable for measuring the performance of MHLFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Overview of FTE metric available at: http://www.illinoislighting.org/resources/FTEoverview01Jul09.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, DOE reviewed several alternative metrics to ballast 
efficiency in this proposed determination. Changing metrics would 
impose a significant burden on manufacturers. A change in metric would 
require retesting all MHLFs. While industry test procedures exist for 
many of the metrics, an industry-accepted test procedure does not exist 
for the FTE metric. Further, all metrics would require photometric 
testing in addition to the electrical measurements currently required. 
Photometric measurements are more expensive to conduct than electrical 
measurements. While some fixture manufacturers provide photometric 
data, the information is not available for all fixtures, all lamp-and-
ballast pairings within fixtures, and all performance characteristics 
required to calculate the metrics described in this section. For 
example, the CU needed to calculate the TER metric is not available 
publicly. Finally, because the metrics account for the performance of 
both the lamp and ballast components of the fixture, adopting one of 
the metrics described in this section would require manufacturers to 
ship fixtures with lamps in addition to ballasts. Therefore, for the 
reasons described in this paragraph, DOE has tentatively concluded to 
maintain the current ballast efficiency metric for MHLFs.
    In addition to a metric that represents fixture-level performance, 
CA IOUs stated that DOE should consider the benefits of fixtures with 
good lumen maintenance because this will enable lighting designers 
avoid over-lighting spaces in anticipation of lumen depreciation. (CA 
IOUs, No. 5 at p. 3) DOE notes that lumen maintenance is the ratio of 
lumen output at a certain period in time during the life of a lamp to 
the initial lumen output. Because lumen maintenance requires conducting 
photometric testing, and because the testing must be conducted more 
than once and with a potentially significant period of time between 
tests, DOE tentatively concludes that lumen maintenance represents a 
significant test burden for manufacturers. For this reason, DOE did not 
consider adopting a metric based on lumen maintenance in this 
determination.
3. Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may divide covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination 
whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a 
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of 
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate. 
(Id.)
    In describing which MHLFs are included in current equipment 
classes, 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 Code. UL 1029 is a 
safety standard specific to 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 final rule. In the July 
2019 RFI, DOE found that a 2017 version of NFPA 70 (NFPA 70-2017) 
``NFPA 70 National Electrical Code 2017 Edition'' \15\ and a 2014 
version of UL 1029 (UL 1029-2014) ``Standard for Safety High-Intensity-
Discharge Lamp Ballasts'' \16\ are now available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Approved August 24, 2016.
    \16\ Approved December 6, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the July 2019 RFI, NEMA commented that updating the 
industry standards incorporated by reference in DOE's regulations, NFPA 
70 and UL 1029, to the newer versions, NFPA 70-2017 and UL 1029-2014, 
is unlikely to have any impact on MHLFs included in each equipment 
class. However, NEMA pointed out that any updates could impose 
financial and administrative burdens on manufacturers, especially given 
the general market decline of MHLF technology. (NEMA, No. 3 at p. 3-4)
    DOE agrees with NEMA that there is unlikely to be any impact on 
MHLFs included in each equipment class. Consequentially, DOE has not 
been able to identify any additional financial or administrative burden 
as testing requirements and equipment classes will remain unaffected. 
However, as discussed in section V.D, because DOE is not proposing to 
amend standards for MHLFs, DOE is not proposing to incorporate by 
reference the updated industry standards NFPA 70-2017 and UL 1029-2014 
in this determination.
    In this analysis, DOE reviewed metal halide lamp fixtures and the 
ballasts contained within them to identify performance-related features 
that could potentially justify a separate equipment class. In the 
following sections, DOE discusses the equipment classes considered in 
this analysis.
a. Existing Equipment Classes
    The current equipment classes are based on input voltage, rated 
lamp wattage, and designation for indoor versus outdoor application. 
NEMA commented in response to the July 2019 RFI that the current 
equipment classes for MHLFs remain viable and do not need to be 
changed. NEMA also noted that there are no new products that will 
benefit from an additional equipment class. (NEMA, No. 3 at p. 3; NEMA, 
No. 3 at p. 5)

[[Page 47482]]

    Regarding input voltage, MHLFs are available in a variety of input 
voltages (most commonly 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, 277 V, and 480 V), and the 
majority of fixtures are equipped with ballasts that are capable of 
operating at multiple input voltages (for example, quad-input-voltage 
ballasts are able to operate at 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, and 277 V). DOE 
determined in the 2014 MHLF final rule that the input voltage at which 
a MHLF is capable of operating represents a performance-related feature 
that affects consumer utility as certain applications demand specific 
input voltages. 79 FR 7762. In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE's ballast 
testing did not indicate a prevailing relationship between discrete 
input voltages and ballast efficiencies (e.g., higher voltages are not 
always more efficient), with one exception. DOE found that ballasts 
tested at 480 V were less efficient on average than ballasts tested at 
120 V or 277 V. 79 FR 7781. NEMA stated that it remains appropriate to 
include separate classes for 480 V products given the differences in 
how those products perform in testing. (NEMA, No. 3 at p. 6) Because 
dedicated 480 V ballasts have a distinct utility in that certain 
applications require 480 V operation and a difference in efficiency 
relative to ballasts tested at 120 V and 277 V, DOE maintains separate 
equipment classes for ballasts tested at 480 V in this determination. 
See chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD for further details.
    As lamp wattage increases, lamp-and-ballast systems generally 
produce increasing amounts of light (lumens). Because certain 
applications require more light than others, wattage often varies by 
application. For example, low-wattage (less than 150 W) lamps are 
typically used in commercial applications. Medium-wattage (150 W-500 W) 
lamps are commonly used in warehouse, street, and commercial lighting. 
High-wattage (greater than 500 W) lamps are used in searchlights, 
stadiums, and other applications that require powerful white light. 
Because different applications require different amounts of light and 
the light output of lamp-and-ballast systems is typically reflected by 
the wattage, wattage represents consumer utility. The wattage operated 
by a ballast is correlated with the ballast efficiency; ballast 
efficiency generally increases as lamp wattage increases. Therefore, 
DOE maintains separation of equipment classes by wattage. See chapter 3 
of the NOPD TSD for further details.
    DOE determined in the 2014 MHLF final rule that indoor and outdoor 
MHLFs are subject to separate cost-efficiency relationships at 
electronic ballast levels. 79 FR 7763-7764. First, as outdoor 
applications can be subject to large voltage transients, MHLFs in such 
applications require 10 kV voltage transient protection. Magnetic metal 
halide ballasts are typically resistant to voltage variations of this 
magnitude, while electronic metal halide ballasts are generally not as 
resilient. Therefore, in order to address large voltage transients, 
electronic ballasts in outdoor MHLFs would need either (1) an external 
surge protection device or (2) internal transient protection of the 
ballast using metal-oxide varistors (``MOVs'') in conjunction with 
other inductors and capacitors. Second, DOE noted that indoor fixtures 
can require the inclusion of a 120 V auxiliary tap. 79 FR 7763. This 
output is used to operate emergency lighting after a temporary loss of 
power while the metal halide lamp is still too hot to restart. These 
taps are generally required for only one out of every ten indoor lamp 
fixtures. A 120 V tap is easily incorporated into a magnetic ballast 
due to its traditional core and coil design, and incurs a negligible 
incremental cost. Electronic ballasts, however, require additional 
design to add this 120 V auxiliary power functionality. These added 
features impose an incremental cost to the ballast or fixture (further 
discussed in section IV.C.7 of this NOPD). As these incremental costs 
could affect the cost-effectiveness of fixtures for indoor versus 
outdoor applications, DOE maintains separate equipment classes for 
indoor and outdoor fixtures. See chapter 3 of the NOPD TSD for further 
details.
b. Summary
    In summary, for the purpose of this proposed determination DOE 
considered equipment classes using three class-setting factors: Input 
voltage, rated lamp wattage, and fixture application. DOE presents the 
resulting equipment classes in Table IV.1.

                      Table IV.1--Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Designed to be operated with
 lamps of the following rated   Indoor/outdoor     Input voltage type
         lamp wattage                                   [Dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W...........  Indoor.........  Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W...........  Indoor.........  All others.
>=50 W and <=100 W...........  Outdoor........  Tested at 480 V.
>=50 W and <=100 W...........  Outdoor........  All others.
>100 W and <150 W *..........  Indoor.........  Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W *..........  Indoor.........  All others.
>100 W and <150 W *..........  Outdoor........  Tested at 480 V.
>100 W and <150 W *..........  Outdoor........  All others.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......  Indoor.........  Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......  Indoor.........  All others.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......  Outdoor........  Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W.......  Outdoor........  All others.
>250 W and <=500 W...........  Indoor.........  Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W...........  Indoor.........  All others.
>250 W and <=500 W...........  Outdoor........  Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W...........  Outdoor........  All others.
>500 W and <=1000 W..........  Indoor.........  Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1000 W..........  Indoor.........  All others.
>500 W and <=1000 W..........  Outdoor........  Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1000 W..........  Outdoor........  All others.
>1000 W and <=2000 W.........  Indoor.........  Tested at 480 V.
>1000 W and <=2000 W.........  Indoor.........  All others.
>1000 W and <=2000 W.........  Outdoor........  Tested at 480 V.

[[Page 47483]]

 
>1000 W and <=2000 W.........  Outdoor........  All others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W MHLFs initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs
  rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as
  specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A);); and containing a
  ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50
  [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W MHLFs initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are MHLFs
  rated only for 150 W lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as
  specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A);); and containing a
  ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50
  [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
[Dagger] Input voltage for testing would be specified by the test
  procedures. Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W would be
  tested at 120 V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps >=150 W would be
  tested at 277 V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these
  voltages would be tested at the highest voltage the ballast is
  designed to operate.

4. Technology Options
    In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options 
that would be expected to improve the efficiency of MHLFs, as measured 
by the DOE test procedure. The energy conservation standard 
requirements and DOE test procedure for MHLFs are based on the 
efficiency of the metal halide ballast contained within the fixture. 
Hence DOE identified technology options that would improve the 
efficiency of metal halide ballasts. To develop a list of technology 
options, DOE reviewed manufacturer catalogs, recent trade publications 
and technical journals, and consulted with technical experts.
    In response to the July 2019 RFI, NEMA commented that there are no 
new technology options for MHLFs given the maturity of MHLF technology. 
NEMA added that technology options such as ``increased stack height'' 
and ``increased conductor cross sections'' lead to an increase in the 
size of the ballast and have been implemented in accordance with 2014 
MHLF final rule to the limit of their practicality. (NEMA, No. 3 at p. 
4)
    DOE's review of technology options for this determination indicates 
that the technology options identified in the 2014 MHLF final rule 
remain valid with certain clarifications and additional detail. 
Specifically, DOE is revising ``increased stack height'' to be 
``improved steel laminations.'' As described for the 2014 MHLF final 
rule, increased stack height is adding steel laminations to increase 
the core cross-section and thereby lower the flux density and 
losses.\17\ Hence the mechanism for efficiency improvement is the 
addition of steel laminations. The 2014 MHLF final rule also noted that 
use of thinner laminations allows for maintaining the stack height and 
thereby ballast footprint.\18\ In addition thinner laminations and well 
insulated will reduce eddy current losses.\19\ To more appropriately 
reflect the technology in this document, DOE refers to this option as 
``improved steel laminations'' and describes it as adding steel 
laminations to lower core losses by using thin and insulated 
laminations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See chapter 3 of 2014 MHLF final rule TSD, available at 
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2009-BT-STD-0018.
    \18\ See chapter 3 of 2014 MHLF final rule TSD, available at 
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2009-BT-STD-0018.
    \19\ AK Steel, Selection of Electrical Steels for Magnetic 
Cores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2014 MHLF final rule ``increased conductor cross section'' 
was described as reducing winding losses through use of larger wire 
gauges, multiple strands of wire operating in parallel as well use of 
litz wire for electronic ballasts.\20\ In this analysis, DOE notes that 
improvements in windings can also be achieved by using multiple smaller 
coils to increase the number of turns and thereby increase the induced 
voltage. Additionally, optimizing the shape of the wires by wrapping 
them close together makes transfer of power through the core more 
efficient. Hence, to more appropriately reflect the technology, in this 
document DOE refers to this option as ``improved windings'' and 
describes it as use of optimized-gauge copper wire; multiple, smaller 
coils; shape-optimized coils to reduce winding losses for magnetic and 
electronic ballasts; and in addition, for electronic ballasts, the use 
of litz wire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See chapter 3 of 2014 MHLF final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA commented that technology options such as improved core steel, 
and copper winding have been implemented in accordance with the 2014 
MHLF final rule and reached the limit of their practicality. (NEMA, No. 
3 at p. 4) In this determination, DOE found magnetic ballasts with 
varying levels of efficiency in its compliance certification database. 
Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that technology options, such 
as a higher grade of steel could still be used to improve the 
efficiency of magnetic ballasts. DOE's research has not indicated any 
technological issues with utilizing higher-grade steel in magnetic 
ballasts. In addition, based on teardowns conducted in 2019, DOE 
determined that magnetic ballast manufacturers still utilize aluminum 
wiring in their ballasts. DOE determined that incorporating copper 
wiring in all magnetic ballasts can still be considered a technology 
option to improve the efficiency of magnetic ballasts. DOE has 
tentatively determined that it will continue to consider improved core 
steel and copper wiring as technology options to improve the efficiency 
of magnetic ballasts.
    NEMA noted that the use of electronic ballasts in new metal halide 
fixtures has declined significantly and at the same pace as magnetic 
ballasts and provided data to illustrate this. (NEMA, No. 3 at p. 4)
    DOE agrees that there has been a decline in the use of metal halide 
technology as whole affecting both electronic and magnetic metal halide 
ballasts. However, DOE determined that electronic ballast technology 
remains a viable technology option to improve the efficiency of MHLFs 
with magnetic ballasts, therefore, DOE considered electronic ballasts 
as a technology option in its analysis.
    DOE is removing the technology option of laminated grain-oriented 
silicon steel and amorphous steel for electronic ballasts. In the 
context of this determination, DOE has tentatively determined that 
using laminated sheets of steel (silicon or amorphous) to create the 
core of the inductor may not minimize losses in ballasts that operate 
at high frequencies.\21\ Because electronic ballasts operate at high 
frequencies, DOE is not considering improved steel laminations or 
amorphous steel laminations as technology options for improving the 
efficiency of these ballasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ DOE came to the same conclusion for fluorescent lamp 
ballasts. See notice of proposed determination for fluorescent lamp 
ballasts at 84 FR 56540, 56552 (October 22, 2019); available at 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2015-BT-STD-0006-0019.

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

[[Page 47484]]

    A complete list of technology options DOE considered for this 
analysis appears in Table IV.2.

                                         Table IV.2--Technology Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Ballast type                                 Design option                               Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic..................  Improved Core Steel..........................................  Use a higher grade of
                                                                                            electrical steel,
                                                                                            including grain-
                                                                                            oriented silicon
                                                                                            steel, to lower core
                                                                                            losses.
                            Copper Wiring................................................  Use copper wiring in
                                                                                            place of aluminum
                                                                                            wiring to lower
                                                                                            resistive losses.
                            Improved Steel Laminations...................................  Add steel laminations
                                                                                            to lower core losses
                                                                                            by using thin and
                                                                                            insulated
                                                                                            laminations.
                            Improved Windings............................................  Use of optimized-
                                                                                            gauge copper wire;
                                                                                            multiple, smaller
                                                                                            coils; shape-
                                                                                            optimized coils to
                                                                                            reduce winding
                                                                                            losses.
                            Electronic Ballast...........................................  Replace magnetic
                                                                                            ballasts with
                                                                                            electronic ballasts.
                            Amorphous Steel..............................................  Create the core of
                                                                                            the inductor from
                                                                                           laminated sheets of
                                                                                            amorphous steel
                                                                                           insulated from each
                                                                                            other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Electronic......................  Improved Components....  Magnetics..............  Improved Windings: Use of
                                                                                     optimized-gauge copper
                                                                                     wire; multiple, smaller
                                                                                     coils; shape-optimized
                                                                                     coils; litz wire to reduce
                                                                                     winding losses.
                                                           Diodes.................  Use diodes with lower
                                                                                     losses.
                                                           Capacitors.............  Use capacitors with a lower
                                                                                     effective series resistance
                                                                                     and output capacitance.
                                                           Transistors............  Use transistors with lower
                                                                                     drain-to-source resistance.
                                  Improved Circuit Design  Integrated Circuits....  Substitute discrete
                                                                                     components with an
                                                                                     integrated circuit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Screening Analysis
    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing 
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the 
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.
    (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option 
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to 
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be 
considered further.
    Sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b) of the Process Rule.
    In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of 
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it 
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis. DOE only considers potential efficiency levels achieved 
through the use of proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if 
they are not part of a unique pathway to achieve that efficiency level 
(i.e., if there are other non-proprietary technologies capable of 
achieving the same efficiency level).
    The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties 
pertinent to the screening criteria and whether DOE determined that a 
technology option should be excluded (``screened out'') based on the 
screening criteria.
a. Screened-Out Technologies
    For magnetic ballasts, DOE is screening out the technology option 
of using laminated sheets of amorphous steel. Due to the random 
arrangement of molecules allowing for an easier switch from 
magnetization to de-magnetization of the material, amorphous steel 
results in lower core losses than the commonly-used silicon steel. In 
the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE screened out amorphous steel technology 
because it failed to pass the ``practicable to manufacture, install, 
and service'' criterion. Additionally, DOE determined that using 
amorphous steel could have adverse impacts on consumer utility because 
increasing the size and weight of the ballast may limit the places a 
customer could use the ballast. 79 FR 7766.
    In response to the July 2019 RFI, NEMA commented that amorphous 
steel technology was screened out in the 2014 MHLF final rule because 
it increases the size and weight of metal halide ballasts, which 
remains true today. NEMA added that the current cost of amorphous steel 
ribbon that is used as a raw material for making magnetic cores is 20 
to 30 times higher than the cost of other higher-grade steel used in 
magnetic ballasts. (NEMA, No. 3 at p. 4)
    In its assessment for this analysis, DOE found that brittleness 
remained an issue in using amorphous steel in metal halide 
ballasts.\22\ Further amorphous steel is implemented as laminations to 
ensure losses due to eddy currents do not offset efficiency gains. 
Typically, amorphous steel laminations have a larger cross-sectional 
area, which increases the overall size of the ballast, when compared to 
silicon steel

[[Page 47485]]

laminations. Hence, in this analysis, DOE continues to screen out the 
use of amorphous steel due to practicability to manufacture and adverse 
impacts on equipment utility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Technical Editor, ``Advantages and disadvantages of an 
amorphous metal transformer.'' Polytechnic Hub, March 8, 2018, 
available at https://www.polytechnichub.com/advantages-disadvantages-amorphous-metal-transformer/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Remaining Technologies
    DOE tentatively concludes that all of the other identified 
technologies listed in section IV.B.4 meet all five screening criteria 
to be examined further as design options. In summary, DOE did not 
screen out the following technology options:

 Magnetic Ballasts
    [cir] Improved Core Steel
    [cir] Copper Wiring
    [cir] Improved Steel Laminations
    [cir] Improved Windings
    [cir] Electronic Ballast
 Electronic Ballasts
    [cir] Improved Components
    [cir] Improved Circuit Design

    For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPD TSD.

C. Engineering Analysis

    In the engineering analysis, DOE develops cost-efficiency 
relationships characterizing the incremental costs of achieving 
increased ballast efficiency. This relationship serves as the basis for 
cost-benefit calculations for individual consumers and the nation. The 
methodology for the engineering analysis consists of the following 
steps: (1) Selecting representative equipment classes; (2) selecting 
baseline metal halide ballasts; (3) identifying more efficient 
substitutes; (4) developing efficiency levels; and (5) scaling 
efficiency levels to non-representative equipment classes. The details 
of the engineering analysis are discussed in chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD.
1. Representative Equipment Classes
    DOE selects certain equipment classes as ``representative'' to 
focus its analysis. DOE chooses equipment classes as representative 
primarily because of their high market volumes and/or unique 
characteristics. DOE established 24 equipment classes based on input 
voltage, rated lamp wattage, and indoor/outdoor designation. DOE did 
not directly analyze the equipment classes containing only fixtures 
with ballasts tested at 480 V due to low shipment volumes. DOE 
determined that only 19 percent of fixtures in its compliance 
certification database are fixtures with ballasts tested at 480 V. DOE 
selected all other equipment classes as representative, resulting in a 
total of 12 representative classes covering the full range of lamp 
wattages, as well as indoor and outdoor designations.
    In summary, DOE directly analyzed the equipment classes shown in 
gray in Table IV.3 of this document. See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for 
further discussion.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 47486]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AU20.000

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    Metal halide lamp fixtures are designed to be operated with lamps 
of certain rated lamp wattages and contain ballasts that can operate 
lamps at these wattages. To further focus the analysis, DOE selected a 
representative rated wattage in each equipment class. Each 
representative wattage was the most common wattage within each 
equipment class. DOE found that common wattages within each equipment 
class were the same for outdoor and indoor fixtures. Specifically, DOE 
selected 70 W, 150 W, 250 W, 400 W, 1000 W and 1500 W as representative 
wattages to analyze.
    The >100 W and <150 W equipment class includes fixtures designed to 
operate 150 W lamps that are rated for use in wet locations, as 
specified by the National Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A) and 
contain a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures 
above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007. These fixtures were 
initially exempted by EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(B)(iii)) In the 
2014 MHLF final rule, DOE included 150 W MHLFs previously exempted by 
EISA 2007 in the >100 W and <150 W equipment class. 79 FR 7754-7755. In 
this analysis, DOE found that 150 W was the most common wattage in this 
equipment class and selected it as the representative wattage.
    The representative wattages for each equipment class are summarized 
in Table IV.4 of this document. See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for 
further discussion.

                   Table IV.4--Representative Wattages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Representative equipment class           Representative wattage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W......................  70 W
>100 W and <150 W *.....................  150 W
>=150 W and <=250 W **..................  250 W
>250 W and <=500 W......................  400 W
>500 W and <=1000 W.....................  1000 W

[[Page 47487]]

 
>1000 W and <=2000 W....................  1500 W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are
  fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet
  locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and
  containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air
  temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are
  fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet
  locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and
  containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air
  temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.

2. Baseline Ballasts
    For each representative equipment class, DOE selected baseline 
ballasts to serve as reference points against which DOE measured 
changes from potential amended energy conservation standards. 
Typically, the baseline ballast is the most common, least efficient 
ballast that meets existing energy conservation standards. In this 
analysis, DOE selected as baselines the least efficient ballast meeting 
standards that have common attributes for ballasts in each equipment 
class such as circuit type, input voltage and ballast type.
    DOE used the efficiency values of ballasts contained in MHLFs 
certified in DOE's compliance certification database to identify 
baseline ballasts for all equipment classes except the >1000 W and 
<=2000 W equipment class. Because fixtures in this equipment class are 
not currently subject to standards, and therefore do not have DOE 
certification data, DOE determined ballast efficiency values by using 
catalog data. In summary, DOE directly analyzed the baseline ballasts 
shown in Table IV.5 of this document. See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for 
more detail.

                                                               Table IV.5--Baseline Models
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Representative equipment                                                                                                 System input       Ballast
            class                 Wattage        Ballast type       Circuit type     Starting method     Input voltage         power        efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W..........              70  Magnetic.........  HX-HPF...........  Pulse............  Quad.............            89.5           0.782
>100 W and <150 W *.........             150  Magnetic.........  HX-HPF...........  Pulse............  Quad.............           182.0           0.824
>=150 W and <=250 W **......             250  Magnetic.........  CWA..............  Pulse............  Quad.............           281.5           0.888
>250 W and <=500 W..........             400  Magnetic.........  CWA..............  Pulse............  Quad.............           443.0           0.903
>500 W and <=1000 W.........            1000  Magnetic.........  CWA..............  Pulse............  Quad.............          1068.4           0.936
>1000 W and <=2000 W........            1500  Magnetic.........  CWA..............  Probe............  Quad.............          1625.0           0.923
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as
  specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as
  specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as
  specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as
  specified by UL 1029-2007.

3. More-Efficient Ballasts
    DOE selected more-efficient ballasts as replacements for each of 
the baseline ballasts by considering commercially available ballasts. 
DOE also selected more-efficient ballasts with similar attributes as 
the baseline ballast when possible (e.g., circuit type, input voltage). 
As with the baseline ballasts, DOE used the ballast efficiency values 
from the compliance certification database to identify more efficient 
ballasts for all equipment classes except the >1000 W and <=2000 W 
equipment class which does not have certification data available. For 
this equipment class, DOE determined ballast efficiency values by first 
gathering and analyzing catalog data. DOE then tested the ballasts to 
verify the ballast efficiency reported by the manufacturer. For 
instances where the catalog data did not align with the tested data, 
DOE selected more-efficient ballasts based on the tested ballast 
efficiency.
    As noted in section IV.C.1, the representative wattage for the >100 
W and <150 W equipment class is 150 W. This equipment class includes 
150 W MHLFs that are rated for wet-location and high-temperature. All 
other 150 W MHLFs are included in the >=150 W and <=250 W equipment 
class. In the 2014 MHLF final rule, based on test data of wet-location 
and high-temperature 150 W ballasts, DOE identified two efficiency 
levels for electronic ballasts in the >100 W and <150 W equipment 
class. 79 FR 7777. In this analysis, based on its review of the 
compliance certification database DOE was unable to identify 150 W 
MHLFs rated for wet-location and high-temperature that contain 
electronic ballasts. DOE then assessed the efficiencies of 150 W 
electronic ballasts not rated for wet-location and high temperature 
that are certified in the compliance certification database. DOE found 
these electronic ballast efficiencies to be similar to those identified 
in the 2014 MHLF final rule for the >100 W and <150 W equipment class. 
Hence, for the >100 W and <150 W equipment class, DOE selected more-
efficient electronic ballasts based on compliance-certification-
database efficiencies of 150 W MHLFs not rated for wet-locations and 
high temperatures.
    In response to the July 2019 RFI, EEI commented that there is 
minimal energy savings potential for MHLF technology. EEI also 
expressed concerns about whether the metal halide ballasts reported in 
the RFI to be 0.8 percent to 3.3 percent more efficient than the 
maximum efficiency levels from the 2014 MHLF final rule are 
commercially available for all lamp wattages. EEI also raised questions 
about the possibility of these more efficient metal halide ballasts 
including proprietary technology or being exclusively manufactured by 
one company. (EEI, No. 2 at p. 2-3)
    DOE agrees with EEI that commercially available metal halide 
ballasts are not up to 0.8 percent to 3.3 percent more efficient than 
the maximum efficiency levels analyzed in the 2014 MHLF final rule. 
Since the July 2019 RFI, DOE updated its analysis and found that metal 
halide ballasts that were more efficient than the maximum efficiency 
levels analyzed in the 2014 MHLF final rule no longer appear in its 
compliance certification database. (See section IV.C.4 for further 
details.)
4. Efficiency Levels
    Based on the more-efficient ballasts selected for analysis, DOE 
developed ELs for the representative equipment classes. DOE identified 
one magnetic EL in every equipment class. The more-efficient magnetic 
EL represents a magnetic ballast with a higher grade of steel compared 
to the baseline. DOE identified one electronic EL for the >=150 W and 
<=250 W and >250 W and <=500 W equipment classes. The standard 
electronic level represents a ballast with standard electronic 
circuitry. DOE identified a more efficient electronic EL in the >=50 W 
and <=100 W and >100 W and <150 W equipment classes. The

[[Page 47488]]

more-efficient electronic EL represents an electronic ballast with an 
improved circuit design and/or more efficient components compared to 
the standard electronic level.
    The characteristics of the more-efficient representative units are 
summarized in Table IV.6 through Table IV.11 of this document. See 
chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for more detail.

                                                          Table IV.6--70 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           System  input      Ballast
        Equipment class              EL           Technology      Rated wattage    Starting method       Input voltage         power        efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W............  EL1           More Efficient                 70  Pulse..............  Tri...............            88.3           0.793
                                               Magnetic.
                                EL2           Standard                       70  Pulse..............  Quad..............           0.814           0.860
                                               Electronic.
                                EL3           Electronic Max                 70  Pulse..............  Quad..............            77.7           0.901
                                               Tech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                         Table IV.7--150 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           System input       Ballast
        Equipment class              EL           Technology      Rated wattage    Starting method       Input voltage         power        efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100 W and <150 W *...........  EL1           More Efficient                150  Pulse..............  Quad..............           178.6            0.84
                                               Magnetic.
                                EL2           Standard                      150  Pulse..............  Quad..............           166.7             0.9
                                               Electronic.
                                EL3           Electronic Max                150  Pulse..............  Quad..............           162.2           0.925
                                               Tech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as
  specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as
  specified by UL 1029-2007.


                                                         Table IV.8--250 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           System input       Ballast
        Equipment class              EL           Technology      Rated wattage    Starting method       Input voltage         power        efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=150 W and <=250 W *.........  EL1           More Efficient                250  Pulse..............  Quad..............           276.5           0.904
                                               Magnetic.
                                EL2           Electronic Max                250  Pulse..............  Tri...............           266.2           0.939
                                               Tech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Excludes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use in wet locations, as
  specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as
  specified by UL 1029-2007.


                                                         Table IV.9--400 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           System input       Ballast
        Equipment class              EL           Technology      Rated wattage    Starting method       Input voltage         power        efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>250 W and <=500 W............  EL1           More Efficient                400  Pulse..............  Quad..............           440.5           0.908
                                               Magnetic.
                                EL2           Electronic Max                400  Pulse..............  Tri...............           426.0           0.939
                                               Tech.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                        Table IV.10--1000 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           System input       Ballast
        Equipment class              EL           Technology      Rated wattage    Starting method       Input voltage         power        efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>500 W and <=1000 W...........  EL1           More Efficient               1000  Pulse..............  Quad..............          1063.8            0.94
                                               Magnetic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                        Table IV.11--1500 W Representative Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           System input       Ballast
        Equipment class              EL           Technology      Rated wattage    Starting method       Input voltage         power        efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>500 W and <=1000 W...........  EL1           More Efficient               1000  Pulse..............  Quad..............          1063.8            0.94
                                               Magnetic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE determined that except in a few 
cases where the linear form was more appropriate, a power-law equation 
best captured the metal halide ballast efficiency data. 79 FR 7777. In 
this analysis, DOE determined that the power-law equation and in some 
cases the linear equation remain valid representations of the metal 
halide ballast efficiency data. DOE ensured that equations best fit the 
more-efficient representative units identified in each equipment class 
while forming one continuous equation across equipment classes, where 
possible.
    Table IV.12 summarizes the efficiency requirements and associated 
equations at each EL for the representative equipment classes. DOE 
requests comment on the ELs under consideration for the representative 
equipment classes, including the max-tech levels.

                        Table IV.12--Summary of ELs for Representative Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Minimum efficiency
            Equipment class                      EL                  Technology          equation for  ballasts
                                                                                          not tested at 480 V *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W....................  EL1                   More Efficient Magnetic.  1/1+1.16*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.345))[dagger]
                                        EL2                   Standard Electronic.....  1/(1+1*P[caret](-0.42))
                                        EL3                   Electronic Max Tech.....  1/(1+0.4*P[caret](-0.3))

[[Page 47489]]

 
>100 W and <150 W.....................  EL1                   More Efficient Magnetic.  1/(1+1.16*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.345))
                                        EL2                   Standard Electronic.....  1/(1+1*P[caret](-0.42))
                                        EL3                   Electronic Max Tech.....  1/(1+0.4*P[caret](-0.3))
>=150 W and <=250 W...................  EL1                   More Efficient Magnetic.  1/(1+0.5017*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.26))
                                        EL2                   Standard Electronic.....  1/(1+1*P[caret](-0.42))
                                        EL3                   Electronic Max Tech.....  1/(1+0.4*P[caret](-0.3))
>250 W and <=500 W....................  EL1                   More Efficient Magnetic.  1/(1+0.5017*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.26))
                                        EL2                   Standard Electronic.....  1/(1+1*P[caret](-0.42))
                                        EL3                   Electronic Max Tech.....  1/(1+0.4*P[caret](-0.3))
>500 W and <=1000 W...................  EL1                   More Efficient Magnetic.  0.000057*P+0.881
>1000 W and <=2000 W..................  EL1                   More Efficient Magnetic.  -0.000008*P+0.946
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.

    CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider fixtures that include 
ballasts meeting the 90-92 percent efficiency California Appliance 
Efficiency Standards for fixtures between 13,050 and 43,500 lumens when 
determining new efficiency levels. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 2-3) CA IOUs 
also commented that if DOE is unable to move toward a technology-
agnostic standard that incorporates the entire fixture, DOE should at 
least adopt efficiency levels based on electronic ballast technology 
and not magnetic ballast technology. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 3)
    Table IV.6 through Table IV.11 in this section describe the more 
efficient ballasts analyzed at each EL, including the ballast 
efficiency of each unit. As described in this section, some ELs can 
only be met by electronic ballast technology. DOE considers the 
benefits and burdens of each level in section V.D of this document.
5. Design Standard
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(4), DOE is permitted to establish a 
standard based on both design and performance requirements. Existing 
design standards for MHLFs relate to fixtures that contain probe-start 
ballasts. EISA 2007 required that MHLFs designed to operate lamps rated 
at or above 150 W but at or less than 500 W contain magnetic probe-
start ballasts that are at least 94 percent efficient. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(hh)(1)(A)(ii)) In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE adopted a design 
standard that prohibits the sale of probe-start ballasts in newly sold 
fixtures that are designed to operate rated lamp wattages from 501 W-
1000 W. 79 FR 7778; 10 CFR 431.326(d). DOE reviewed MHLFs currently 
offered on the market and did not find any ballast characteristics or 
other performance features of the fixtures during the analysis for this 
NOPD to lead it to conclude that a new design standard would result in 
significant energy savings. Therefore, in this analysis, DOE is not 
proposing any new design standards for MHLFs.
6. Scaling to Other Equipment Classes
    DOE did not directly analyze MHLFs with ballasts that would be 
tested at an input voltage of 480 V. Thus, it was necessary to develop 
a scaling relationship to establish ELs for these equipment classes. To 
do so, for each representative wattage certified to DOE, DOE compared 
quad-voltage ballasts from the representative equipment classes to 
their 480 V ballast counterparts using information from the compliance 
certification database. Ballasts capable of operating 120 V or 277 V 
are predominantly quad-voltage ballasts, therefore, DOE chose to 
compare quad-voltage ballasts with 480 V ballasts to develop a scaling 
factor.
    Based on its review of the compliance certification database, DOE 
determined that the average reduction in ballast efficiency for 480 V 
ballasts compared to quad ballasts is greater for ballasts designed to 
operate lamps rated less than 150 W compared to ballasts designed to 
operate lamps rated greater than or equal to 150 W. Hence, using the 
method described above, DOE developed two separate scaling factors, one 
for the 50 W-150 W range and the second for the 150 W-1000 W range. For 
non-representative equipment classes in the 50 W-150 W range, DOE found 
the average reduction in ballast efficiency to be 3.0 percent, and for 
those in the 150 W-1000 W range, DOE found the average reduction in 
ballast efficiency to be 1.0 percent. DOE applied these scaling factors 
to the representative equipment class EL equations to develop 
corresponding EL equations for ballasts tested at an input voltage of 
480V. Specifically, for the non-representative equipment classes in the 
50 W-150 W range, DOE used a multiplier of 0.97, and for those in the 
150 W-1000 W range, DOE used a multiplier of 0.99.
    For ballasts greater than 1000 W, DOE determined the need for a 
scaling factor based on manufacturer catalog data. DOE determined that 
ballasts greater than 1000 W do not show a difference in efficiency 
between 480 V and non-480 V ballasts. DOE did not apply a scaling 
factor to develop efficiency levels for 480 V ballasts in this 
equipment class, however, DOE continues to consider the 480 V and non-
480 V equipment classes separately for MHLFs greater than 1000 W for 
the purposes of this analysis.
    Additionally, for the >=150 W and <=250 W non-representative 
equipment class, DOE adjusted the resulting scaled equations to ensure 
all ELs were equal to or more stringent than the EISA 2007 minimum 
ballast efficiency standard. See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for 
additional details.
    Table IV.13 summarizes the efficiency requirements at each EL for 
the non-representative equipment classes. DOE requests comment on the 
ELs under consideration for the non-representative equipment classes, 
including the max-tech levels.

                      Table IV.13--Summary of ELs for Non-Representative Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Minimum efficiency
            Equipment class                      EL                  Technology          equation for  ballasts
                                                                                             tested at 480 V
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W....................  EL1                   Improved magnetic.......  0.97/(1+1.16*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.345))

[[Page 47490]]

 
                                        EL2                   Standard Electronic.....  0.97/(1+1*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.42))
                                        EL3                   Electronic Max Tech.....  0.97/(1+0.4*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.3))
>100 W and <150 W *...................  EL1                   Improved magnetic.......  0.97*(0.0006*P+0.748)
                                        EL2                   Standard Electronic.....  0.97/(1+1*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.42))
                                        EL3                   Electronic Max Tech.....  0.97/(1+0.4*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.3))
>=150 W and <=250 W **................  EL1                   Improved magnetic.......  >=150 W and <210 W: 0.88
                                                                                        >=210 W and <=250 W:
                                                                                         0.99/
                                                                                         (1+0.5017*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.26))
                                        EL2                   Standard Electronic.....  0.99/(1+1*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.42))
                                        EL3                   Electronic Max Tech.....  0.99/(1+0.4*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.3))
>250 W and <=500 W....................  EL1                   Improved magnetic.......  0.99/(1+0.5017*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.26))
                                        EL2                   Standard Electronic.....  0.99/(1+1*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.42))
                                        EL3                   Electronic Max Tech.....  0.99/(1+0.4*P[caret](-
                                                                                         0.3))
>500 W and <=1000W....................  EL1                   Improved magnetic.......  0.99*(0.0001*P+0.881)
>1000 W and <=2000 W..................  EL1                   Improved magnetic.......  0.99*(-0.000008*P+0.946)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.

7. Manufacturer Selling Price
    DOE develops manufacturer selling prices (``MSPs'') for covered 
equipment and applies markups to create end-user prices to use as 
inputs to the LCC analysis and NIA. The MSP of a MHLF comprises of the 
MSP of the fixture components including any necessary additional 
features and the MSP of the metal halide ballast contained in the 
fixture. For this analysis, DOE conducted teardown analyses on 31 
commercially available MHLFs and the ballasts included in these 
fixtures. Using the information from these teardowns, DOE summed the 
direct material, labor, and overhead costs used to manufacture a MHLF 
or metal halide ballast, to calculate the manufacturing production cost 
(``MPC'').\23\ The following sections describe the development of MSPs 
of fixture components and more-efficient MH ballasts identified for 
each efficiency level considered in this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ When viewed from the company-wide perspective, the sum of 
all material, labor, and overhead costs equals the company's sales 
cost, also referred to as the cost of goods sold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Fixtures
    To determine the fixture components MSPs, DOE conducted fixture 
teardowns to derive MPCs of empty fixtures (i.e., lamp enclosure and 
optics). The empty fixture does not include the ballast or lamp. DOE 
then added the other components required by the system (including 
ballast and any cost adders associated with electronically ballasted 
systems) and applied appropriate markups to obtain a final MSP for the 
entire fixture.
    To calculate an empty fixture price, DOE identified the 
applications commonly served by the representative wattage in each 
equipment class. DOE recognizes that technological changes in the 
ballast, specifically moving from magnetic ballasts to electronic 
ballasts, can necessitate alterations to the fixture. These changes 
often incur additional costs that are dependent on the price of the 
baseline fixture that is altered. DOE estimates a baseline empty 
fixture cost as well as incremental costs at ELs that require 
electronic ballasts. The cost adders to the fixtures are discussed 
later in this section.
    DOE selected one to four representative fixture types for each 
rated wattage range based on the most common application(s) within that 
range. DOE determined the common application(s) by reviewing all 
fixtures in DOE's compliance certification database, identifying the 
type of fixture for each basic model, and then using a product count to 
determine the most popular fixture types in each equipment class. DOE 
selected representative fixture types separately for indoor and outdoor 
applications. The representative fixture types for each equipment 
class, are shown in Table IV.14 below. See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD 
for further discussion.

                                    Table IV.14--Representative Fixture Types
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Representative fixture types
   Representative equipment class       Representative wattage   -----------------------------------------------
                                                                          Indoor                  Outdoor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W.................  70 W.......................  Downlight.............  Bollard, Flood, Post
                                                                                           Top, Wallpack.
>100 W and <150 W *................  150 W......................  Downlight.............  Area, Flood, Post Top,
                                                                                           Wallpack.
>=150 W and <=250 W **.............  250 W......................  High-Bay..............  Area, Flood, Post Top,
                                                                                           Cobrahead.
>250 W and <=500 W.................  400 W......................  High-Bay..............  Area, Flood, Post Top,
                                                                                           Cobrahead.
>500 W and <=1000 W................  1000 W.....................  High-Bay..............  Area, Flood, Sports.
>1000 W and <=2000 W...............  1500 W.....................  Sports................  Sports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps;
  rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast
  that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures initially exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps;
  rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70-2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a ballast
  that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2007.


[[Page 47491]]

    The MPCs of empty fixtures were determined using teardowns. 
Teardowns were conducted for 31 fixtures that spanned the 
representative wattages and the applications identified for each 
representative wattage. The MPC of the empty fixture for each 
representative wattage was calculated by weighting the empty fixture 
cost for each application by the popularity of each application. DOE 
determined the weightings based on the number of fixtures for each 
application at each representative wattage in DOE's certification 
database. See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for further details.
    While the empty fixture MPCs remain the same at each magnetic 
efficiency level, incremental costs are added when the fixture contains 
an electronic ballast. In the 2014 MHLF final rule DOE applied cost 
adders to fixtures that use electronic ballasts for (1) transient 
protection, (2) thermal management, and (3) 120 V auxiliary power 
functionality. 79 FR 7781. These costs varied based on whether the 
fixture application was indoor, indoor industrial, or outdoor.
    Fixtures with electronic ballasts that are used in outdoor or 
indoor industrial applications must be able to withstand 10 kilovolt 
voltage transients. Therefore, in the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE 
included the high-volume cost of a voltage transient protection device 
which it determined to be $10.31. 79 FR 7781. In this analysis, based 
on market research, DOE determined the price of voltage transient 
protection to be $9.03. DOE added $9.03 to the empty fixture MPC for 
outdoor and indoor industrial fixtures at efficiency levels requiring 
an electronic ballast.
    Compared to magnetic ballasts, electronic ballasts are more 
vulnerable to high ambient temperatures, which can cause premature 
ballast failure. Hence, in the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE included the 
cost of thermal management and determined it to be a 20 percent 
increase in MPC based on manufacturer feedback and teardown analysis. 
79 FR 7782. In this analysis, DOE determined that the 20 percent 
increase in the empty fixture cost for thermal management in mental 
halide fixtures containing electronic ballasts remains valid. 
Therefore, DOE applied a 20 percent increase to the empty fixture MPC 
at efficiency levels requiring an electronic ballast.
    As discussed in the 2014 MHLF final rule, indoor applications may 
require a 120 V auxiliary tap used to operate emergency lighting, which 
can be easily incorporated into a magnetic ballast but requires 
additional design for an electronic ballast. 79 FR 7782. In the 2014 
MHLF final rule, DOE included the cost of an auxiliary tap, determining 
that auxiliary taps cost about $7.50 but because the tap is needed in 
only 10 percent of the ballasts in indoor fixtures DOE applied a cost 
of $0.75. Id. In this determination, DOE conducted market research and 
found the average market price of the 120 V auxiliary tap to be $7.38. 
Similarly, because the auxiliary tap is needed in only 10 percent of 
the ballasts in indoor fixtures, DOE added $0.74 to the indoor empty 
fixture MPC for efficiency levels requiring an electronic ballast.
    The manufacturer markup converts MPC to MSP. For this analysis, DOE 
maintained the manufacturer markup developed in the 2014 MHLF final 
rule. In that rule, DOE determined the fixture manufacturer markup to 
be 1.58 based on financial information from manufacturers' SEC 10-K 
reports, as well as feedback from manufacturer interviews. 79 FR 7783. 
Hence, in this analysis, DOE applied the fixture manufacturer markup of 
1.58 to the empty fixture MPC to determine the MSP of the fixture at 
each efficiency level.
b. Ballasts
    To determine the MPCs of the metal halide ballasts identified in 
this analysis, DOE used data from the teardown analysis which included 
cost data for magnetic ballasts at the baseline in each equipment 
class. To determine the ballast MPC at the higher efficiency levels, 
DOE developed a ratio between the average retail price of ballasts at 
the efficiency level under consideration and ballasts at the baseline. 
DOE collected retail prices from electrical distributors (e.g., 
Grainger, Graybar) as well as internet retailers to determine average 
retail prices for ballasts. For efficiency levels without retail prices 
available, DOE used a ratio between the same efficiency levels in a 
different wattage class or interpolated based on efficiency and ballast 
MPC.
    The manufacturer markup converts MPC to MSP. For this analysis, DOE 
maintained the manufacturer markup developed in the 2014 MHLF final 
rule. In that rule, DOE determined the ballast manufacturer markup to 
be 1.47 based on financial information from manufacturers' SEC 10-K 
reports, as well as feedback from manufacturer interviews. 79 FR 7783. 
Hence, in this analysis, DOE applied the ballast manufacturer markup of 
1.47 to the ballast MPC to determine the MSP of replacement ballasts at 
each efficiency level. If the ballast was sold within a new fixture, 
DOE applied the ballast manufacturer markup of 1.47 and the fixture 
manufacturer markup of 1.58 to the ballast MPC.
    The total empty fixture MSPs, replacement ballast MSPs, and fixture 
with ballast MSPs are detailed the NOPD TSD. DOE requests comment on 
the methodology and resulting MSPs developed for all equipment classes.

D. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution 
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the 
engineering analysis to customer prices, which are then used in the LCC 
and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies 
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit 
margin. DOE used the same distribution channels and markups as in the 
2014 MHLF final rule.
1. Distribution Channels
    Before it could develop markups, DOE needed to identify 
distribution channels (i.e., how the equipment is distributed from the 
manufacturer to the end-user) for the MHLF designs addressed in this 
rulemaking. In an electrical wholesaler distribution channel, DOE 
assumed the fixture manufacturer sells the fixture to an electrical 
wholesaler (i.e., distributor), who in turn sells it to a contractor, 
who sells it to the end-user. In a contractor distribution channel, DOE 
assumed the fixture manufacturer sells the fixture directly to a 
contractor, who sells it to the end-user. In a utility distribution 
channel, DOE assumed the fixture manufacturer sells the fixture 
directly to the end-user (i.e., electrical utility). Indoor fixtures 
are all assumed to go through the electrical wholesaler distribution 
channel. Outdoor fixtures are assumed to go through all three 
distribution channels as follows: 60 percent electrical wholesaler, 20 
percent contractor, and 20 percent utility.
2. Estimation of Markups
    To estimate wholesaler and utility markups, DOE used financial data 
from 10-K reports of publicly owned electrical wholesalers and 
utilities. DOE's markup analysis developed both baseline and 
incremental markups to transform the fixture MSP into an end-user 
equipment price. DOE used the baseline markups to determine the price 
of baseline designs. Incremental markups are coefficients that relate 
the change in the MSP of higher-efficiency designs to the change in the 
wholesaler and utility sales prices, excluding sales tax. These markups 
refer to higher-efficiency designs sold under market

[[Page 47492]]

conditions with new and amended energy conservation standards.
    In the 2014 MHLF final rule, DOE assumed a wholesaler baseline 
markup of 1.23 and a contractor markup of 1.13, yielding a total 
wholesaler distribution channel baseline markup of 1.49. The lower 
wholesaler incremental markup of 1.05 yields a lower total incremental 
markup through this distribution channel of 1.27. DOE also assumed a 
utility markup of 1.00 for the utility distribution channel in which 
the manufacturer sells a fixture directly to the end-user. DOE again 
assumed a contractor markup of 1.13 for the utility distribution 
channel in which a manufacturer sells a fixture to a contractor who in 
turn sells it to the end-user yielding an overall markup of 1.21 for 
this channel. 79 FR 7783. DOE used these same markups for this NOPD 
analysis.
    The sales tax represents state and local sales taxes applied to the 
end-user equipment price. DOE obtained state and local tax data from 
the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\24\ These data represent weighted averages 
that include state, county, and city rates. DOE then calculated 
population-weighted average tax values for each census division and 
large state, and then derived U.S. average tax values using a 
population-weighted average of the census division and large state 
values. For this NOPD, this approach provided a national average tax 
rate of 7.2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc. The Sales Tax Clearinghouse. 
(Last accessed December 5, 2019.) https://thestc.com/STRates.stm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Summary of Markups
    Table IV.15 summarizes the markups at each stage in the 
distribution channels and the overall baseline and incremental markups, 
and sales taxes, for each of the three identified channels.

                                              Table IV.15--Summary of Fixture Distribution Channel Markups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Wholesaler distribution                          Utility distribution
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Via wholesaler and contractor        Direct to end user
                                                             Baseline       Incremental  ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Baseline       Incremental      Baseline       Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical Wholesaler (Distributor).....................            1.23            1.05             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
Utility.................................................             N/A             N/A            1.00            1.00            1.00            1.00
Contractor or Installer.................................            1.13            1.13            1.13            1.13             N/A             N/A
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales Tax...............................................               1.07
                                                                       1.07
                                                                       1.07
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall.................................................            1.49            1.27            1.21            1.21            1.07            1.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using these markups, DOE generated fixture end-user prices for each 
EL it considered, assuming that each level represents a new minimum 
efficiency standard. Chapter 6 of the NOPD TSD provides details on 
DOE's development of markups for MHLFs. DOE welcomes any relevant data 
and comments on the markups analysis methodology.

E. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of MHLFs at different efficiencies in the 
commercial, industrial, and outdoor stationary sectors, and to assess 
the energy savings potential of increased MHLF efficiency. The energy 
use analysis estimates the range of energy use of MHLFs in the field 
(i.e., as they are actually used by customers). The energy use analysis 
provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly 
assessments of the energy savings and the savings in operating costs 
that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
    To develop annual energy use estimates, DOE multiplied the lamp-
and-ballast system input power (in watts) by annual usage (in hours per 
year). DOE characterized representative lamp-and-ballast systems in the 
engineering analysis, which provided measured input power ratings. To 
characterize the country's average usage of fixtures for a typical 
year, DOE developed annual operating hour distributions by sector, 
using data published in the 2015 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization 
(``LMC'').\25\ For the >=50 W and <=100 W to >500 W and <=1000 W 
equipment classes, DOE obtained weighted-average annual operating hours 
for the commercial, industrial, and outdoor stationary sectors of 
approximately 2,300 hours, 5,100 hours, and 5,000 hours, respectively. 
For the 1,500 W equipment class, DOE assigned annual operating hours of 
approximately 770 hours for all lamps according to the 2015 LMC 
estimate of 2.1 hours per day for sports field lighting, consistent 
with the methodology from the 2014 MHLF final rule.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC 
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. (Last accessed December 5, 2019.) https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
    \26\ U.S. Department of Energy--Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. Technical Support Document: Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment: Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures. January 2014. Washington, DC 
(Last accessed December 5, 2019.) https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2009-BT-STD-0018-0069.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All comments received in response to the July 2019 RFI regarding 
the methodology to develop annual operating hours and energy use from 
the 2014 MHLF final rule were supportive, and DOE has continued to use 
the same methodology in this NOPD (with updated inputs as appropriate). 
(NEMA, No. 3 at pp. 7-8) Chapter 7 of the NOPD TSD provides details on 
DOE's energy use analysis for MHLFs. DOE welcomes any relevant data and 
comments on the energy use analysis methodology.

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual customers of potential energy conservation standards for 
MHLFs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on 
individual customers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and 
an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to 
measure customer impacts:
     The LCC is the total customer expense of equipment over 
the life of that equipment, consisting of total installed cost 
(manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales tax, and 
installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use, 
maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts

[[Page 47493]]

future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the 
lifetime of the equipment.
     The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes customers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measured the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of MHLFs in the absence of new or 
amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given 
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline equipment.
    For each considered efficiency level in each equipment class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
building types. As stated previously, DOE developed customer samples 
from the 2015 LMC. For each sample customer, DOE determined the energy 
consumption for the MHLF and the appropriate electricity price. By 
developing a representative sample of building types, the analysis 
captured the variability in energy consumption and energy prices 
associated with the use of MHLFs.
    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the equipment--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer 
and distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. 
Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy 
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and 
maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created 
distributions of values for operating hours, equipment lifetime, 
discount rates, electricity prices, and sales taxes, with probabilities 
attached to each value, to account for their uncertainty and 
variability. For example, DOE created a probability distribution of 
annual energy consumption in its energy use analysis, based in part on 
a range of annual operating hours. The operating hour distributions 
capture variations across building types, lighting applications, and 
metal halide systems for three sectors (commercial, industrial, and 
outdoor stationary). In contrast, fixture MSPs were specific to the 
representative designs evaluated in DOE's engineering analysis, and 
price markups were based on limited, publicly available financial data. 
Consequently, DOE used discrete values instead of distributions for 
these inputs.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP, which 
incorporates Crystal Ball\TM\ (a commercially available software 
program), relies on a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty 
and variability into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly 
sample input values from the probability distributions and MHLF user 
samples. The model calculated the LCC and PBP for equipment at each 
efficiency level for 10,000 customers per simulation run. The 
analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing 
the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the 
no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an 
iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product 
efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product 
efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard 
level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a 
consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for 
consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids 
overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency.
    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all customers of MHLFs as if 
each were to purchase new equipment in the expected year of required 
compliance with new or amended standards. Any amended standards would 
apply to MHLFs manufactured three years after the date on which any new 
or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(B)) At this 
time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in the latter half of 
2021. Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2025 as the 
first year of compliance with any amended standards for MHLFs.
    Table IV.16 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of 
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 
of the NOPD TSD and its appendices.

Table IV.16--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inputs                           Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Cost...............  Derived by multiplying MSPs by
                                distribution channel markups (taken from
                                the 2014 MHLF final rule) and sales tax.
Installation Costs...........  Used the same installation costs as in
                                the 2014 MHLF final rule, but inflated
                                to 2018$. The 2014 MHLF final rule costs
                                were calculated using estimated labor
                                times and applicable labor rates from
                                ``RS Means Electrical Cost Data''
                                (2013), Sweets Electrical Cost Guide
                                2013, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor
                                Statistics.
Annual Energy Use............  The total annual energy use multiplied by
                                the operating hours per year, which were
                                determined separately for indoor and
                                outdoor fixtures. Average number of
                                hours based on the 2015 LMC.
Energy Prices................  Electricity: Based on Edison Electric
                                Institute data for 2018.
                               Variability: Regional energy prices
                                determined for 13 census divisions and
                                large states.
Energy Price Trends..........  Based on AEO 2019 price projections.
Replacement Costs............  Used the same labor and material costs
                                for lamp and ballast replacements as in
                                the 2014 MHLF final rule, but inflated
                                to 2018$.
Equipment Lifetime...........  Used the same lifetimes as in the 2014
                                MHLF final rule.
                               Ballasts: Assumed an average of 50,000
                                hours for magnetic ballasts and 40,000
                                hours for electronic ballasts.
                               Fixtures: Assumed an average of 20 years
                                for indoor fixtures and 25 years for
                                outdoor fixtures.
Discount Rates...............  Developed a distribution of discount
                                rates for the commercial, industrial,
                                and outdoor stationary sectors.
Compliance Date..............  2025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
  in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD.


[[Page 47494]]

1. Equipment Cost
    To calculate customer equipment costs, DOE multiplied the MSPs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described 
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for 
baseline equipment and higher-efficiency equipment, because DOE applies 
an incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency equipment. See section IV.D for further details.
2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost is the cost to install the fixture such as the 
labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed. DOE 
used the installation costs from the 2014 MHLF final rule but inflated 
to 2018$.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled customer, DOE determined the energy consumption 
for an MHLF at different efficiency levels using the approach described 
previously in section IV.E of this document. For this NOPD, DOE based 
the annual energy use inputs on sectoral operating hour distributions 
(commercial, industrial, and outdoor stationary sectors), with the 
exception of a discrete value (approximately 770 hours per year) for 
the 1,500 W equipment class that is primarily limited to sports 
lighting. DOE used operating hour (and, by extension, energy use) 
distributions to better characterize the potential range of operating 
conditions faced by MHLF customers.
4. Energy Prices
    DOE derived average and marginal annual commercial and industrial 
electricity prices for 13 regions (9 Census Divisions and 4 large 
states) using 2018 data from Edison Electric Institute.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and Average Rates 
Report. Winter 2017, Summer 2017: Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 
average regional energy prices by a projection of annual change in 
national-average commercial and industrial energy prices in the 
Reference case of Annual Energy Outlook 2019 (AEO 2019).\28\ AEO 2019 
has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE used 
the compound annual growth rate of change in prices between 2035 and 
2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy 
Outlook 2019 with Projections to 2050. 2019. Washington, DC Report 
No. AEO2019. (Last accessed May 13, 2019.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/aeo2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Replacement Costs
    Replacement costs include the labor and materials costs associated 
with replacing a ballast or lamp at the end of their lifetimes and are 
annualized across the years preceding and including the actual year in 
which equipment is replaced. The costs are taken from the 2014 MHLF 
final rule but inflated to 2018$. For the LCC and PBP analysis, the 
analysis period corresponds with the fixture lifetime that is assumed 
to be longer than that of either the lamp or the ballast. For this 
reason, ballast and lamp prices and labor costs associated with lamp or 
ballast replacements are included in the calculation of operating 
costs.
6. Equipment Lifetime
    DOE defined equipment lifetime as the age when a fixture, ballast, 
or lamp is retired from service. For fixtures in all equipment classes, 
DOE assumed average lifetimes for indoor and outdoor fixtures of 20 and 
25 years, respectively. DOE also assumed that magnetic ballasts had a 
rated lifetime of 50,000 hours and electronic ballasts had a rated 
lifetime of 40,000 hours. DOE used manufacturer catalog data to obtain 
rated lifetime estimates (in hours) for lamps in each equipment class. 
DOE accounted for uncertainty in the fixture, ballast, and lamp 
lifetimes by applying Weibull survival distributions to the components' 
rated lifetimes. Furthermore, DOE included a residual value calculation 
for lamps and ballasts to account for the residual monetary value 
associated with the remaining life in the lamp and ballast at the end 
of the fixture lifetime. All assumptions for estimating equipment 
lifetime are taken from the 2014 MHLF final rule. 79 FR 7787.
7. Discount Rates
    The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are 
discounted to estimate their present value. In this NOPD, DOE estimated 
separate discount rates for commercial, industrial, and outdoor 
stationary applications. DOE used discount rate data from a 2019 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report.\29\ The average discount 
rates, weighted by the shares of each rate value in the sectoral 
distributions, are 8.3 percent for commercial end-users, 8.8 percent 
for industrial end-users, and 3.2 percent for outdoor stationary end-
users. For more information regarding discount rates, see chapter 8 of 
the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Fujita, K.S. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional 
Discount Rate Estimation for Efficiency Standards Analysis: Sector-
Level Data 1998-2018. 2019. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: 
Berkeley, CA. (Last accessed January 15, 2020.) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/commercial-industrial-institutional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    DOE developed a no-new-standards case efficiency distribution using 
model count data from the compliance certification database collected 
on October 10, 2019. The compliance certification database does not 
contain models in the >1000 W and <=2000 W equipment class; therefore, 
DOE assumed 56 percent of the market is at the baseline and 44 percent 
of the market is at EL 1, based on MHLF catalog data. The complete 
efficiency distribution for 2025 is shown in Table IV.17.

                                          Table IV.17--MHLF Efficiency Distribution by Equipment Class for 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Equipment class *
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Efficiency level                        >=50 W and      >100 W and      >=150 W and     >250 W and      >500 W and      >1000 W and
                                                            <=100 W (%)     <150 W (%)      <=250 W (%)     <=500 W (%)    <=1000 W (%)    <=2000 W (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................            83.1            88.1            73.6            87.6            99.5            56.0
1.......................................................             0.3             6.0            18.9             0.3             0.5            44.0
2.......................................................             9.2             0.0             7.5            12.2  ..............  ..............
3.......................................................             7.4             5.9  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.


[[Page 47495]]

9. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time it takes the customer to 
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient equipment, 
compared to baseline equipment, through energy cost savings. Payback 
periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of 
the equipment mean that the increased total installed cost is not 
recovered in reduced operating expenses.
    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the 
change in total installed cost of the equipment and the change in the 
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The 
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 
discount rates are not needed.
    As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that 
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the 
additional cost to the customer of purchasing equipment complying with 
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the 
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, 
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE 
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating 
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test 
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price 
projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards 
would be required.
    DOE welcomes any relevant data and comments on the life-cycle cost 
and payback period analysis methodology.

G. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses projections of annual equipment shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation 
standards on energy use and NPV.\30\ The shipments model takes an 
accounting approach, tracking market shares of each equipment class and 
the vintage of units in the stock. Stock accounting uses equipment 
shipments as inputs to estimate the age distribution of in-service 
equipment stocks for all years. The age distribution of in-service 
equipment stocks is a key input to calculations of both the NES and 
NPV, because operating costs for any year depend on the age 
distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The stock turnover model calculates demand for new MHLFs based on 
the expected demand for replacement MHLFs and the decrease in MHLF 
demand due to the adoption of out-of-scope LED alternatives. The model 
is initialized using a time series of historical shipments data 
compiled from the 2014 MHLF final rule and data from NEMA. The 
historical shipments for 2008 from the 2014 MHLF final rule were 
projected to 2018 using NEMA sales indices from 2008 to 2018. 79 FR 
7788-7789.
    NEMA commented in response to the July 2019 RFI that out-of-scope 
LED alternatives are now the preferred technology for traditional MHLF 
customers. (NEMA, No. 3 at pp. 2-3) DOE assumed an increasing fraction 
of the MHLF market will move to out-of-scope LED alternatives over the 
course of the shipments analysis period. DOE modelled the incursion of 
LED equipment in the form of a Bass diffusion curve.\31\ The parameters 
for the Bass diffusion curve are based on fitting a Bass diffusion 
curve to market share data for general service LED lamps based on data 
published by NEMA. This same approach was used in the final 
determination for general service incandescent lamps; see chapter 9 of 
the final determination TSD.\32\ 84 FR 71626, 71658 (December 27, 
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Bass, F.M. A New Product Growth Model for Consumer 
Durables. Management Science. 1969. 15(5): pp. 215-227.
    \32\ Chapter 9 of the GSIL final determination TSD is available 
at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0022-0116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE apportioned the total shipments of MHLFs to each EL in the no-
new-standards case using data downloaded from the compliance 
certification database \33\ and data provided by NEMA in comments to 
the July 2019 RFI. (NEMA, No. 3 at pp.11-14). Equipment listed in the 
CCMS database were categorized by equipment class, efficiency level, 
and ballast type. The counts for each category were scaled based on 
ballast type by the NEMA market shares for magnetic and electronic 
ballasts reported in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html (Last accessed on January 21, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' approach to 
estimate market share for each EL for the year that standards are 
assumed to become effective (2025). For each standards case, the market 
shares of ELs in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the 
standard under consideration ``roll up'' to meet the new standard 
level, and the market share of equipment above the standard remains 
unchanged.
    For both the no-new-standards and standards cases, DOE assumed no 
efficiency trend over the analysis period. For a given case, market 
shares were held fixed to their 2025 distribution.
    DOE typically includes the impact of price learning in its 
analysis. In a standard price learning model,\34\ the price of a given 
technology is related to its cumulative production, as represented by 
total cumulative shipments. In response to the July 2019 RFI, NEMA 
indicated that MHLFs are a mature technology and are no longer a 
preferred technology. (NEMA, No. 3 at p. 2) DOE assumed MHLFs have 
reached a stable price point due to the high volume of total cumulative 
shipments and would not undergo price learning in this NOPD analysis. 
DOE welcomes any relevant data and comments on the shipments analysis 
methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Taylor, M. and S.K. Fujita. Accounting for Technological 
Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 
2013. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report 
No. LBNL-6195E. (Last accessed January 7, 2020.) https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/accounting-technological-change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of 
total customer costs and savings that would be expected to result from 
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\35\ DOE 
calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered 
based on projections of annual equipment shipments, along with the 
annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy 
use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE projected the 
energy savings, operating cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV of 
customer benefits over the lifetime of MHLFs sold from 2025 through 
2054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing 
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and customer costs for each 
equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with projections 
characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE adopted new 
or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels (i.e., the 
TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards cases, DOE 
considers

[[Page 47496]]

how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of equipment 
with efficiencies greater than the standard.
    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and 
the national customer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested 
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities 
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values 
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
    Table IV.18 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for this NOPD. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows 
the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPD TSD for further details.

   Table IV.18--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments....................  Annual shipments from shipments model for
                                each considered TSL.
First Full Year of Standard    2025.
 Compliance.
No-new-standards Case          No trend assumed.
 Efficiency Trend.
Standards Case Efficiency      No trend assumed.
 Trend.
Annual Energy Consumption per  Calculated for each efficiency level
 Unit.                          based on inputs from the energy use
                                analysis.
Total Installed Cost per Unit  MHLF prices and installation costs from
                                the LCC analysis.
Repair and Maintenance Cost    Cost to replace lamp and ballast over the
 per Unit.                      lifetime of the fixture.
Residual Value per Unit......  The monetary value of remaining lamp and
                                ballast lifetime at the end of the
                                fixture lifetime.
Electricity Prices...........  Estimated marginal electricity prices
                                from the LCC analysis.
Electricity Price Trends.....  AEO 2019 forecasts (to 2050) and
                                extrapolation thereafter.
Energy Site-to-Primary and     A time-series conversion factor based on
 FFC Conversion.                AEO 2019.
Discount Rate................  3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year.................  2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. National Energy Savings
    The NES analysis involves a comparison of national energy 
consumption of the considered equipment between each potential TSL and 
the case with no new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE 
calculated the national energy consumption by multiplying the number of 
units (stock) of each equipment type (by vintage or age) by the unit 
energy consumption (also by vintage). DOE calculated annual NES based 
on the difference in national energy consumption for the no-new 
standards case and for each higher efficiency standard case. DOE 
estimated energy consumption and savings based on site energy and 
converted the electricity consumption and savings to primary energy 
(i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to generate site 
electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from AEO 2019. 
Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year over the 
timeframe of the analysis.
    DOE generally accounts for the direct rebound effect in its NES 
analyses. Direct rebound reflects the idea that as appliances become 
more efficient, customers use more of their service because their 
operating cost is reduced. In the case of lighting, the rebound effect 
could be manifested in increased hours of use or in increased lighting 
density (lumens per square foot). In response to the July 2019 RFI, 
NEMA commented that a rebound rate of 0 is appropriate. (NEMA, No. 3 at 
p. 9) DOE assumed no rebound effect for MHLFs in this NOPD.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and 
greenhouse gas and other emissions to the extent that emissions 
analyses are conducted. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating 
the approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 proposal, DOE published 
a statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination 
that Energy Information Administration's (EIA's) National Energy 
Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most appropriate tool for its FFC 
analysis and its intention to use NEMS for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 
(Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi-sector, partial 
equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \36\ that EIA uses to 
prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors incorporate losses 
in production and delivery in the case of natural gas (including 
fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to produce and deliver 
the various fuels used by power plants. The approach used for deriving 
FFC measures of energy use and emissions is described in appendix 10B 
of the NOPD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview 2009, DOE/EIA-0581(2009), October 2009. 
Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by customers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), 
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between 
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total 
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed costs. 
DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of equipment 
shipped during the analysis period.
    Energy cost savings, which are part of operating cost savings, are 
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the 
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy 
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average national marginal 
electricity prices by the forecast of annual national-average 
commercial or industrial electricity price changes in the Reference 
case from AEO 2019, which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price 
trends after 2050, DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices 
from 2041 to 2050.
    DOE includes the cost of replacing failed lamps and ballasts over 
the course of the lifetime of the fixture. DOE assumed that lamps and 
ballasts were replaced at their rated lifetime. When replacing a 
ballast, DOE assumed the lamp was also replaced at the same time, 
independent of the timing of the previous lamp replacement. For more 
details see chapter 10 of the NOPD TSD.
    DOE also estimates the residual monetary value remaining in the 
lamp and ballast at the end of the fixture lifetime and applies it as a 
credit to

[[Page 47497]]

operating costs (i.e., the residual value is deducted from operating 
costs). See chapter 10 of the NOPD TSD for more details on DOE's 
calculation of the residual value.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
NOPD, DOE estimated the NPV of customer benefits using both a 3-percent 
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in 
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and 
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory 
analysis.\37\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in 
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are 
designed to reflect a customer's perspective. The 7-percent real value 
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private 
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the 
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society 
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for MHLFs. 
It addresses the ELs examined by DOE and the projected impacts of each 
of these levels. Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are 
contained in the NOPD TSD.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of three TSLs for MHLFs. TSL 
1 is composed of EL 1 for all equipment classes. TSL 2 is composed of 
the efficiency levels corresponding to the least efficient electronic 
ballast level for each equipment class, if any efficiency levels 
corresponding to an electronic ballast exist. TSL 3 is composed of the 
max-tech level for each equipment class. Table V.1 presents the TSLs 
and the corresponding efficiency levels that DOE has identified for 
potential amended energy conservation standards for MHLFs.

                                                       Table V.1--Trial Standard Levels for MHLFs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            >=50 W and      >100 W and      >=150 W and     >250 W and      >500 W and      >1000 W and
                                                              <=100 W         <150 W          <=250 W         <=500 W        <=1000 W        <=2000 W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL 0...................................................               0               0               0               0               0               0
TSL 1...................................................               1               1               1               1               1               1
TSL 2...................................................               2               2               2               2               1               1
TSL 3...................................................               3               3               2               2               1               1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Economic Impacts on Individual Customers

    DOE analyzed the cost effectiveness (i.e., any savings in operating 
costs compared to any increase in purchase price likely to result from 
the imposition of a standard) by considering the LCC and PBP. These 
analyses are discussed in the following sections.
1. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher efficiency equipment affects consumers in two 
ways: (1) Purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease.\38\ Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, and replacement costs). The LCC calculation also uses product 
lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD provides 
detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ While it is generally true that higher-efficiency equipment 
has lower operating costs, MHLF operating costs in this analysis 
also incorporate the costs of lamp and ballast replacements. Due to 
these replacement costs, higher operating costs can be experienced 
at efficiency levels above the baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V.2 through Table V.13 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
ELs and TSLs considered for each equipment class, with indoor and 
outdoor installations aggregated together using equipment shipments in 
the analysis period start year (2025). Results for each equipment class 
are shown in two tables. In the first table, the simple payback is 
measured relative to the baseline product. For ELs having a higher 
first year's operating cost than that of the baseline, the payback 
period is ``Never,'' because the additional installed cost relative to 
the baseline is not recouped. In the second table, impacts are measured 
relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in 
the compliance year (see section IV.F.8 of this document). Because some 
customers purchase products with higher efficiency in the no-new-
standards case, the average savings are less than the difference 
between the average LCC of the baseline product and the average LCC at 
each TSL. The savings refer only to customers who are affected by a 
standard at a given TSL. Those who already purchase equipment with 
efficiency at or above a given TSL are not affected. Customers for whom 
the LCC increases at a given TSL experience a net cost.

                                    Table V.2--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >=50 W and <=100 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2018$)                                          Average
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      fixture
                    Efficiency level                                       First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................          835.94          123.58        1,534.59        2,370.53  ..............            24.1
1.......................................................          848.48          123.51        1,532.13        2,380.61           182.0            24.1
2.......................................................          878.81          124.20        1,549.40        2,428.21           Never            24.1

[[Page 47498]]

 
3.......................................................          895.39          123.51        1,538.46        2,433.85           893.2            24.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline equipment.


 Table V.3--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >=50 W and <=100 W Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                              Efficiency                           Percent of
                            TSL                                  level         Average LCC       consumers that
                                                                            savings * (2018$)    experience net
                                                                                                      cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................               1            (10.09)               83.2
2.........................................................               2            (57.39)               62.7
3.........................................................               3            (57.38)               72.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                    Table V.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >100 W and <150 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2018$)                                          Average
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      fixture
                    Efficiency level                                       First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................          803.46          146.31        1,702.74        2,506.20  ..............            23.5
1.......................................................          817.04          145.35        1,690.07        2,507.11            14.2            23.5
2.......................................................          853.41          143.65        1,678.31        2,531.72            18.8            23.5
3.......................................................          970.98          147.00        1,706.26        2,677.25           Never            23.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline equipment.


 Table V.5--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >100 W and <150 W Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                              Efficiency                           Percent of
                            TSL                                  level         Average LCC       consumers that
                                                                            savings * (2018$)    experience net
                                                                                                      cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................               1             (0.87)               57.4
2.........................................................               2            (25.22)               50.4
3.........................................................               3           (170.66)               90.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                   Table V.6--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >=150 W and <=250 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2018$)                                          Average
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      fixture
                    Efficiency level                                       First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................          963.46          181.07        2,089.02        3,052.48  ..............            23.5
1.......................................................          988.66          180.75        2,082.57        3,071.23            79.4            23.5
2.......................................................        1,149.72          184.26        2,123.00        3,272.71           Never            23.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline equipment.


[[Page 47499]]


Table V.7--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >=150 W and <=250 W Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                              Efficiency                           Percent of
                            TSL                                  level         Average LCC       consumers that
                                                                            savings * (2018$)    experience net
                                                                                                      cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................               1            (18.70)               73.4
2.........................................................               2           (216.24)               90.9
3.........................................................               2           (216.24)               90.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                    Table V.8--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >250 W and <=500 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2018$)                                          Average
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      fixture
                    Efficiency level                                       First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................        1,098.78          237.28        2,713.41        3,812.19  ..............            23.5
1.......................................................        1,122.58          237.08        2,708.49        3,831.07           121.8            23.5
2.......................................................        1,376.47          245.60        2,800.48        4,176.95           Never            23.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline equipment.


 Table V.9--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >250 W and <=500 W Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                              Efficiency                           Percent of
                            TSL                                  level         Average LCC       consumers that
                                                                            savings * (2018$)    experience net
                                                                                                      cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................               1            (18.87)               86.9
2.........................................................               2           (364.30)               87.2
3.........................................................               2           (364.30)               87.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


                                   Table V.10--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >500 W and <=1000 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2018$)                                          Average
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      fixture
                    Efficiency level                                       First year's      Lifetime                         (years)        lifetime
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                           (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................        1,305.39          555.06        6,526.50        7,831.89  ..............            23.7
1.......................................................        1,336.23          554.15        6,512.29        7,848.52            33.6            23.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline equipment.


   Table V.11--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >500 W and <=1000 W Equipment
                                                      Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                              Efficiency                           Percent of
                            TSL                                  level         Average LCC       consumers that
                                                                            savings * (2018$)    experience net
                                                                                                      cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................               1            (16.64)               93.3
2.........................................................               1            (16.64)               93.3
3.........................................................               1            (16.64)               93.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.


[[Page 47500]]


                                  Table V.12--Average LCC and PBP Results for the >1000 W and <=2000 W Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average costs (2018$)
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback      Average
                    Efficiency level                                       First year's      Lifetime                          years          fixture
                                                          Installed cost  operating cost  operating cost        LCC                       lifetime years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................        1,392.61          179.13        2,145.92        3,538.52             0.0            23.7
1.......................................................        1,423.31          177.41        2,124.97        3,548.28            17.9            23.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The results for each EL are calculated assuming that all customers use equipment at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the
  baseline equipment.


  Table V.13--Average LCC Savings Relative to the No-New-Standards Case for the >1000 W and <=2000 W Equipment
                                                      Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Life-cycle cost savings
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                              Efficiency                           Percent of
                            TSL                                  level         Average LCC       consumers that
                                                                            savings * (2018$)    experience net
                                                                                                      cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................               1             (9.80)               48.0
2.........................................................               1             (9.80)               48.0
3.........................................................               1             (9.80)               48.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.

2. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section IV.F.9 of this document, EPCA establishes a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the increased purchase cost for equipment 
that meets the standard is less than three times the value of the 
first-year energy savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a 
rebuttable presumption payback period for each of the considered ELs, 
DOE used discrete values, and, as required by EPCA, based the energy 
use calculation on the DOE test procedure for MHLFs. In contrast, the 
PBPs presented in section V.B.1 of this document were calculated using 
distributions that reflect the range of energy use in the field. See 
chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD for more information on the rebuttable 
presumption payback analysis.

C. National Impact Analysis

    This section presents DOE's estimates of NES and the NPV of 
customer benefits that would result from each of the TSLs considered as 
potential amended standards.
1. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for MHLFs, DOE compared the energy consumption under the no-
new-standards case to the anticipated energy consumption under each 
TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of equipment 
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated 
compliance with amended standards (2025-2054). Table V.14 presents 
DOE's projections of the national energy savings for each TSL 
considered for MHLFs. The savings were calculated using the approach 
described in section IV.H.1 of this document.

                 Table V.14--Cumulative National Energy Savings for MHLFs; 30 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2025-2054]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                             Equipment class     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Energy Savings (quads)...........  >=50 W and <=100 W......        0.000006         0.00004         0.00006
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......        0.000005         0.00002         0.00003
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....         0.00001         0.00007         0.00007
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......         0.00001          0.0001          0.0001
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....         0.00001         0.00001         0.00001
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....       0.0000003       0.0000003       0.0000003
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............         0.00005          0.0002          0.0003
Primary Energy Savings (quads)........  >=50 W and <=100 W......         0.00002          0.0001          0.0002
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......         0.00001         0.00007         0.00008
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....         0.00003          0.0002          0.0002
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......         0.00004          0.0003          0.0003
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....         0.00003         0.00003         0.00003
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....       0.0000007       0.0000007       0.0000007
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............          0.0001          0.0007          0.0007
FFC Energy Savings (quads)............  >=50 W and <=100 W......         0.00002          0.0001          0.0002
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......         0.00001         0.00007         0.00009
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....         0.00003          0.0002          0.0002

[[Page 47501]]

 
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......         0.00004          0.0003          0.0003
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....         0.00003         0.00003         0.00003
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....       0.0000008       0.0000008       0.0000008
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............          0.0001          0.0007          0.0008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total may not equal sum due to rounding.

    OMB Circular A-4 \39\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 
years, of equipment shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\40\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the equipment lifetime, equipment manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to MHLFs. Thus, such results are 
presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any 
change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis 
results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table V.15 
of this document. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of MHLFs 
purchased in 2025-2033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
    \40\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards 
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before 
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards 
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous 
standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews 
at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance 
date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may 
not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing 
of standards reviews and the fact that for some products, the 
compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

                 Table V.15--Cumulative National Energy Savings for MHLFs; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2025-2033]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                             Equipment class     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site Energy Savings (quads)...........  >=50 W and <=100 W......        0.000006         0.00004         0.00006
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......        0.000005         0.00002         0.00003
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....         0.00001         0.00007         0.00007
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......         0.00001          0.0001          0.0001
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....         0.00001         0.00001         0.00001
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....       0.0000003       0.0000003       0.0000003
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............         0.00005          0.0002          0.0003
Primary Energy Savings (quads)........  >=50 W and <=100 W......         0.00002          0.0001          0.0002
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......         0.00001         0.00007         0.00008
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....         0.00003          0.0002          0.0002
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......         0.00004          0.0003          0.0003
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....         0.00003         0.00003         0.00003
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....       0.0000007       0.0000007       0.0000007
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............          0.0001          0.0007          0.0007
FFC Energy Savings (quads)............  >=50 W and <=100 W......         0.00002          0.0001          0.0002
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......         0.00001         0.00007         0.00009
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....         0.00003          0.0002          0.0002
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......         0.00004          0.0003          0.0003
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....         0.00003         0.00003         0.00003
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....       0.0000008       0.0000008       0.0000008
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............          0.0001          0.0007          0.0008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total may not equal sum due to rounding.

    The NES results for the 30-years and 9-years of shipments presented 
in Table V.15 and Table V.16, respectively, are nearly identical due to 
the significant shift to out-of-scope LED equipment that occurs over 
the course of the analysis period. DOE projects that MHLF shipments 
drop by more than 99 percent in 2030 relative to shipments in 2019 due 
to the incursion of out-of-scope LED equipment.

[[Page 47502]]

2. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
customers that would result from the TSLs considered for MHLFs. In 
accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\41\ DOE 
calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 
rate. Table V.16 shows the customer NPV results with impacts counted 
over the lifetime of equipment purchased in 2025-2054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.

         Table V.16--Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for MHLFs; 30 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2025-2054]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                             Equipment class     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent (millions 2018$)............  >=50 W and <=100 W......           -0.13           -2.08           -2.11
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......           0.012           -0.49           -1.19
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....           -0.19           -4.57           -4.57
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......           -0.29           -3.33           -3.33
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....          -0.077          -0.077          -0.077
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....         0.00026         0.00026         0.00026
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............           -0.68          -10.54          -11.29
7 percent (millions 2018$)............  >=50 W and <=100 W......           -0.10           -1.14           -1.20
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......         -0.0022           -0.28           -0.76
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....           -0.15           -2.83           -2.83
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......           -0.22           -2.83           -2.83
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....          -0.071          -0.071          -0.071
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....         -0.0010         -0.0010         -0.0010
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............           -0.54           -7.16           -7.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total may not equal sum due to rounding.

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in Table V.17 of this document. The impacts are 
counted over the lifetime of equipment purchased in 2025-2033. As 
mentioned previously, such results are presented for informational 
purposes only and are not indicative of any change in DOE's analytical 
methodology or decision criteria.

          Table V.17--Cumulative Net Present Value of Customer Benefits for MHLFs; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2025-2033]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Trial standard level
                                             Equipment class     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                         1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent (millions 2018$)............  >=50 W and <=100 W......           -0.13           -2.07           -2.11
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......           0.012           -0.48           -1.19
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....           -0.19           -4.56           -4.56
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......           -0.29           -3.32           -3.32
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....          -0.077          -0.077          -0.077
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....         0.00026         0.00026         0.00026
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............           -0.68          -10.52          -11.26
7 percent (millions 2018$)............  >=50 W and <=100 W......           -0.10           -1.14           -1.20
                                        >100 W and <150 W.......            0.00           -0.28           -0.76
                                        >=150 W and <=250 W.....           -0.15           -2.83           -2.83
                                        >250 W and <=500 W......           -0.22           -2.83           -2.83
                                        >500 W and <=1000 W.....          -0.071          -0.071          -0.071
                                        >1000 W and <=2000 W....        -0.00095        -0.00095        -0.00095
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                           Total *..............           -0.54           -7.15           -7.68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Total may not equal sum due to rounding.

    The NPV results for the 30-years and 9-years of shipments presented 
in Table V.16 and Table V.17, respectively, are nearly identical due to 
the significant shift to out-of-scope LED equipment that occurs over 
the course of the analysis period. The previous results reflect DOE's 
assumption of no price trend over the analysis period (see section 
IV.G).

D. Proposed Determination

    When considering amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered equipment 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.

[[Page 47503]]

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a standard is economically 
justified, the Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, 
considering the seven statutory factors discussed previously. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard must also result 
in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    For this NOPD, DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for 
MHLFs at analyzed TSLs, beginning with the maximum technologically 
feasible level, to determine whether that level would result in a 
significant conservation of energy. DOE also considered whether that 
level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not 
economically justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient 
level and undertook the same evaluation.
    Because an analysis of potential energy savings and economic 
justification first requires an evaluation of the relevant technology, 
in the following sections DOE first discusses the technological 
feasibility of amended standards. DOE then addresses the energy savings 
and economic justification associated with potential amended standards.
1. Technological Feasibility
    EPCA mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy conservation 
standards for MHLFs would be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) DOE has tentatively determined that there are 
technology options that would improve the efficiency of ballasts 
contained within MHLFs. These technology options are being used in 
commercially available MHLFs and therefore are technologically 
feasible. (See section IV.B.4 for further information.) Hence, DOE has 
tentatively determined that amended energy conservation standards for 
MHLFs are technologically feasible.
2. Significant Conservation of Energy
    EPCA also mandates that DOE consider whether amended energy 
conservation standards for MHLF would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) On February 14, 2020 DOE issued a 
final rule that defined a significant energy savings threshold 
(``Process Rule''). 85 FR 8626. The Process Rule establishes a two-step 
process for determining the significance of energy savings using an 
absolute and percentage threshold. Section 6 of the Process Rule. DOE 
first evaluates whether standards at the max-tech level would result in 
a minimum site-energy savings of 0.3 quads over a 30-year period. 
Section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule. If the 0.3 quad threshold is not 
met, DOE then evaluates whether energy savings at the max-tech level 
represent at least 10 percent of the total energy usage of the covered 
equipment over a 30-year period. Section 6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. 
If the percentage threshold is not met, DOE proposes to determine that 
no significant energy savings would likely result from setting amended 
standards. Section 6(b)(4) of the Process Rule.
    In this analysis, DOE estimates that amended standards for MHLFs 
would result in site energy savings of 0.0003 quads at max-tech levels 
over a 30-year analysis period (2025-2054). (See results in Table 
V.14.) Because the site energy savings do not meet the 0.3 quads 
threshold set forth in Section 6(b)(2) of the Process Rule, DOE 
compared the max-tech savings to the total energy usage to calculate a 
percentage reduction in energy usage. This comparison yielded a 
reduction in site energy use of 3.6 percent over a 30-year period. 
Because the reduction in site energy use is less than 10 percent as set 
forth in Section 6(b)(3) and (4) of the Process Rule, DOE determined 
that amended standards for metal halide lamp fixtures would not result 
in significant energy savings.
3. Economic Justification
    In determining whether a standard is economically justified, the 
Secretary must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed 
its burdens, considering to the greatest extent practicable the seven 
statutory factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 
One of those seven factors is the savings in operating costs throughout 
the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or 
class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or 
maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to 
result from the standard. This factor is assessed using the life cycle 
cost and payback period analysis, discussed in section IV.F, and the 
national net present value, discussed in section IV.H.2 of this 
document.
    At TSL 3, TSL 2, and TSL 1 the average LCC savings are negative for 
all equipment classes (see section V.B.1 of this document). The NPV 
benefits at these TSLs are also negative for all equipment classes at 
the 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates except for the >1000 W and 
<=2000 W equipment class which has positive NPV of $0.00026 million at 
the 3-percent discount rate (see section V.C.2 of this document). 
Additionally, the simple payback periods are much higher than the 
average fixture lifetime with the exception of the >100 W and <150 W 
equipment class at EL 1 and EL 2 and for the >1000 W and <=2000 W 
equipment class at EL 1.
    Based on these negative LCC and predominantly negative NPV (i.e., 
the second EPCA factor of savings in operating costs), DOE has 
tentatively determined that any potential positive impact of the other 
statutory factors would not outweigh the increased costs to consumers. 
Hence DOE has tentatively determined that amended standards at the TSLs 
under consideration are not economically justified.
4. Summary
    In this proposed determination, DOE has tentatively determined that 
amended standards for MHLF would not result in significant conservation 
of energy or be economically justified. Hence, DOE's initial 
determination is to not amend standards for MHLFs. DOE requests 
comments on its initial determination that energy conservation 
standards should not be amended for MHLFs.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    This proposed determination has been determined to be not 
significant for purposes of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result, OMB did 
not review this proposed determination.

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued E.O. 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 
2017). E.O. 13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be 
prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from 
both public and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to 
manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private 
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
    Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' 82 FR 12285 (March 
1, 2017). E.O. 13777 required the head of each agency to designate an 
agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (``RRO''). Each RRO 
oversees the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and 
policies to ensure that agencies

[[Page 47504]]

effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable 
law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory 
task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is required to 
make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, 
replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with 
applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force must 
attempt to identify regulations that:
    (i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
    (ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
    (iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
    (iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
    (v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality 
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those 
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or 
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently 
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
    (vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other 
Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or 
substantially modified.
    DOE initially concludes that this proposed determination is 
consistent with the directives set forth in these executive orders.
    As discussed in this document, DOE is proposing to not amend energy 
conservation standards for MHLFs. Therefore, if finalized as proposed, 
this determination is expected to be an E.O. 13771 other action.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless 
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures 
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is not proposing to amend 
standards for MHLFs, if finalized, the determination would not amend 
any energy conservation standards. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE 
certifies that the proposed determination, if finalized, would have no 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this proposed 
determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting 
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for actions which are interpretations or 
rulings with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart 
D, appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for 
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in 
regards to an existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements 
for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE 
will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed determination 
and has tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 
Therefore, no further action is required by E.O. 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to 
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 
(1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets 
the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to

[[Page 47505]]

result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and 
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 
million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), 
section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written 
statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other 
effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also 
requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit 
timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' 
and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for 
timely input to potentially affected small governments before 
establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on 
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. 
DOE's policy statement is also available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    This proposed determination does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures 
of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. As a 
result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy 
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed determination would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE 
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable 
policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor Executive Order; and (2) is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the 
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the 
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Because this proposed determination does not propose amended energy 
conservation standards for MHLFs, it is not a significant energy 
action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\42\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and 
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and 
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the 
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. 
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues 
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process 
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 
Report.'' 2007. Available at http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at 
the beginning of this document. If no participants register for the 
webinar then it will be cancelled. Webinar registration information, 
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities 
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website: 
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=14. Participants are responsible for ensuring 
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
    Additionally, you may request an in-person meeting to be held prior 
to the close of the request period provided in the DATES section of 
this document. Requests for an in-person meeting may be made by 
contacting Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

B. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed determination no later than the date provided in the DATES 
section at the

[[Page 47506]]

beginning of this proposed determination. Interested parties may submit 
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies 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 itself 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. Otherwise, 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/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal 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 in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. With this 
instruction followed, 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 postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No 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, that are written in English, and that are 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. Pursuant 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/courier 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.
    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).

C. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposed 
determination, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and 
views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
    (1) DOE requests comment on the ELs under consideration for the 
equipment classes, including the max-tech levels. See section IV.C.4 
and IV.C.6 of this document.
    (2) DOE requests comment on the methodology and resulting MSPs 
developed for all equipment classes. See section IV.C.7 of this 
document.
    (3) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comments on the markups 
analysis methodology. See section IV.D.3 of this document.
    (4) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comments on the life-cycle 
cost and payback period analysis methodology. See section IV.F of this 
document.
    (5) DOE welcomes any relevant data and comments on the shipments 
analysis methodology. See section IV.G of this document.
    (6) DOE requests comments on its initial determination that energy 
conservation standards should not be adopted for MHLFs. See section 
V.D.4 of this document.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this document 
of proposed determination.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on June 30, 
2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary, Office Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from 
the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and 
date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 1, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-14540 Filed 8-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P