[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60555-60567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21696]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 60555]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023]
RIN 1904-AF44


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

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an 
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation 
standards for metal halide lamp fixtures (``MHLF''). On October 25, 
2021, DOE published a final determination concluding that energy 
conservation standards for MHLFs do not need to be amended because they 
are not economically justified. No later than 3 years after such a 
determination, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
amended, DOE must periodically review these standards and publish 
either a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to propose new 
standards for MHLFs or a notification of determination that the 
existing standards do not need to be amended. This request for 
information (``RFI'') solicits information from the public to help DOE 
determine whether amended standards for MHLFs would result in 
significant energy savings and whether such standards would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified. As part of this 
RFI, DOE seeks comment on technological and market changes since the 
most recent standards update to consider in its evaluation of more 
stringent standards. DOE also welcomes written comments from the public 
on any subject within the scope of this document (including those 
topics not specifically raised), as well as the submission of data and 
other relevant information.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before November 7, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments may 
submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023, by 
any of the following methods:
    Email: [email protected]@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket 
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023 in the subject line of the message.
    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.
    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 telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section III of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some 
documents listed in the index, such as those containing information 
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0023. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section III for information on how to submit comments through 
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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) 586-0371. 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, or review other 
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority and Background
    B. Rulemaking Process
    C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Request for Information and Comments
    A. Equipment Covered by This Process
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Equipment Classes
    2. Technology Assessment
    C. Screening Analysis
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    2. Baseline Models
    3. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    4. Scaling Non-Representative Equipment Classes
    5. Cost Analysis
    E. Markup Analysis
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 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
    H. Shipments
    I. National Impact Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments

[[Page 60556]]

I. Introduction

A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products 
include MHLFs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) 
\3\ EPCA prescribed initial energy conservation standards for MHLFs, 
and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of rulemakings to determine 
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 
6295(hh)(2)(A), and 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(3)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), 
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), 
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with 
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6297(d))
    EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance 
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the 
energy conservation standards for each type of covered product, 
including those at issue here, and publish either a notification of 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR 
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to 
a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)). In making a 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, DOE must 
evaluate whether amended standards (1) will result in significant 
conservation of energy, (2) are technologically feasible, and (3) are 
cost effective as described under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)). Under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), DOE must determine whether the benefits of a 
standard exceed its burdens by, to the greatest extent practicable, 
considering 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 products which are likely to 
result from the imposition of the standard. If DOE determines not to 
amend a standard based on the statutory criteria, not later than 3 
years after the issuance of a final determination not to amend 
standards, DOE must publish either a notification 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)(3)(B)) DOE must make 
the analysis on which a determination is based publicly available and 
provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)).
    In proposing new standards, DOE must evaluate that proposal against 
the criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as described in the following 
section, and follow the rulemaking procedures set out in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B) If DOE decides to amend the standard 
based on the statutory criteria, DOE must publish a final rule not 
later than two years after energy conservation standards are proposed. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A)).
    DOE completed the first of these required rulemaking cycles in 2014 
by publishing a final rule amending performance standards for MHLFs 
manufactured on or after February 10, 2017. 79 FR 7746 (February 10, 
2014) (``2014 Final Rule''). Additionally, DOE completed the second 
rulemaking cycle reviewing current standard and determined not to amend 
the energy conservation standards for MHLFs by publishing a final rule 
in 2021. 86 FR 58763 (October 25, 2021) (``2021 Final Determination''). 
The current energy conservation standards are located in title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, section 31.326. The 
currently applicable DOE test procedures for MHLFs appear at 10 CFR 
431.324.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE also recently published a final rule adopting amendments 
to its test procedure for MHLFs to incorporate by reference new 
relevant industry standards as well as update to latest versions of 
existing references; clarify the selection of reference lamps used 
for testing; specify the light output level at which to test dimming 
ballasts; revise definitions and reorganize the content of the test 
procedure for better readability and clarity; and revise the standby 
mode test method for MHLFs. 87 FR 37685 (Jun. 24, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is publishing this RFI pursuant to EPCA's requirement that DOE 
must reevaluate the energy conservation standards no later than 3 years 
after making a determination not to amend standards, (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m)(3)(B), and to collect data and information to inform its 
decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

B. Rulemaking Process

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products. EPCA requires that any new or 
amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of 
Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to achieve the maximum improvement 
in energy or water efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). Furthermore, DOE may 
not prescribe an amended or new standard that will not result in 
significant conservation of energy or is not technologically feasible 
or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\5\ For 
example, the United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement on 
February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has 
committed to reducing greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions in order to 
limit the rise in mean global temperature.\6\ As

[[Page 60557]]

such, energy savings that reduce GHG emission have taken on greater 
importance. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE 
considers primary energy and full-fuel cycle (``FFC'') effects when 
determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy and 
FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production 
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture 
of the impacts of energy conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE 
evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration 
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
    \6\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021) 
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA 
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed 
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or 
maintenance expenses;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary 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)).
    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting 
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I-1 shows 
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the 
requirements within EPCA.

       Table I-1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             EPCA requirement                Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings................   Shipments Analysis.
                                             National Impact
                                             Analysis.
                                             Energy and Water
                                             Use Determination.
Technological Feasibility.................   Market and
                                             Technology Assessment.
                                             Screening Analysis.
                                             Engineering
                                             Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and      Manufacturer Impact
 Consumers.                                  Analysis.
                                             Life-Cycle Cost and
                                             Payback Period Analysis.
                                             Life-Cycle Cost
                                             Subgroup Analysis.
                                             Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings           Markups for
 Compared to Increased Cost for the          Equipment Price
 Product.                                    Determination.
                                             Energy and Water
                                             Use Determination.
                                             Life-Cycle Cost and
                                             Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total Projected Energy Savings.........   Shipments Analysis.
                                             National Impact
                                             Analysis.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance.......   Screening Analysis.
                                             Engineering
                                             Analysis.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition.   Manufacturer Impact
                                             Analysis.
6. Need for National Energy and Water        Shipments Analysis.
 Conservation.                               National Impact
                                             Analysis.
7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers     Employment Impact
 Relevant.                                   Analysis.
                                             Utility Impact
                                             Analysis.
                                             Emissions Analysis.
                                             Monetization of
                                             Emission Reductions
                                             Benefits.\7\
                                             Regulatory Impact
                                             Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \7\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction 
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a 
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is 
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's 
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other 
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that 
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying 
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize 
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of 
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach 
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where 
appropriate and permissible by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Deviation From Appendix A

    In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the 
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A states 
that the public comment period for pre-NOPR rulemaking documents will 
vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking but 
will not be less than 75 calendar days. DOE is

[[Page 60558]]

opting to deviate from this provision by specifying a public comment 
period of 30 days for this RFI. As noted, the 2021 Final Determination 
was published on October 25, 2021. The methodologies and information 
upon which DOE seeks comment in this RFI are based on the analysis 
conducted for the 2021 Final Determination. Because stakeholders have 
been made recently familiar with the subjects covered in this RFI 
through the 2021 Final Determination and are not reviewing new 
information, DOE has determined that 30 days is sufficient a period for 
providing comments.

II. Request for Information and Comments

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues 
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and 
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for MHLFs may be 
warranted.

A. Equipment Covered by This Process

    This RFI covers equipment that meets the definition of MHLF, as 
codified at 10 CFR 430.2. An MHLF is defined as a light fixture for 
general lighting application designed to be operated with a metal 
halide lamp and a ballast for a metal halide lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6291(64); 
10 CFR 431.322. DOE has also defined several terms related to MHLF in 
10 CFR 431.322.
    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-
140 (December 19, 2007) (``EISA 2007''), established energy 
conservation standards for MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate 
lamps with rated wattages between 150 watts (``W'') and 500 W and 
excluded three types of fixtures within the covered wattage range from 
energy conservation standards: (1) fixtures with regulated-lag 
ballasts; (2) fixtures that use electronic ballasts and operate at 480 
volts (``V''); and (3) fixtures 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,'' and contain a ballast that is rated to operate at 
ambient air temperatures above 50 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)(A)-
(B)). In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE also promulgated standards for the 
group of MHLFs with ballasts designed to operate lamps rated 50 W-150 W 
and 501 W-1,000 W. DOE also promulgated standards for one type of 
previously excluded fixture: A 150 W MHLF rated for use in wet 
locations and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient 
air temperatures greater than 50 [deg]C--i.e., those fixtures that fall 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(B)(iii). DOE continued to exclude from 
standards MHLFs with regulated-lag ballasts and 480 V electronic 
ballasts. In addition, due to a lack of applicable test method for 
high-frequency electronic (``HFE'') ballasts, in the 2014 Final Rule, 
DOE did not establish standards for MHLFs with HFE ballasts. 79 FR 
7746, 7754-7756.
    Although current standards for MHLFs require them to contain a 
ballast that meets or exceeds a minimum ballast efficiency, the entity 
responsible for certifying compliance with the applicable standard is 
the MHLF manufacturer or importer. The MHLF manufacturer may opt to use 
a third-party to certify on its behalf, such as the ballast 
manufacturer. However, the MHLF manufacturer or importer is ultimately 
responsible for certifying compliance to DOE. See generally 42 U.S.C. 
6291(10)-(12) and 10 CFR 429.12.
    DOE seeks feedback on whether definitions related to MHLFs in 10 
CFR 431.322 require any revisions--and if so, how those definitions 
should be revised. DOE also seeks input on whether additional 
definitions are necessary for DOE to clarify or otherwise implement its 
regulatory requirements related to MHLFs.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts 
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy 
conservation standard provides information about the MHLF industry that 
will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE 
uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the 
structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers, 
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce 
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency 
improvements in the design and manufacturing of MHLF. DOE also reviews 
equipment literature, industry publications, and company websites. 
Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to 
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for 
MHLFs.
1. Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may divide covered products into classes based on the type of energy 
used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify 
a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)). In making a determination 
whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a 
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of 
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate. 
(Id.)
    For MHLF, the current energy conservation standards specified in 10 
CFR 431.326 are based on 24 equipment classes determined according to 
performance-related features that provide utility to the consumer, in 
terms of input voltage, rated lamp wattage, and designation for indoor 
versus outdoor applications. Table II-1 lists the current 24 equipment 
classes for MHLFs.

               Table II-1--Current MHLF Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Designed to be operated with
  lamps of the following rated      Indoor/outdoor    Input voltage type
          lamp  wattage                                       ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=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.

[[Page 60559]]

 
>=150 W ** and <=250 W..........  Outdoor...........  Tested at 480 V.
>=150 W ** and <=250 W..........  Outdoor...........  All others.
>250 W and <=500 W..............  Indoor............  Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W..............  Indoor............  All others.
>250 W and <=500 W..............  Outdoor...........  Tested at 480 V.
>250 W and <=500 W..............  Outdoor...........  All others.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............  Indoor............  Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............  Indoor............  All others.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............  Outdoor...........  Tested at 480 V.
>500 W and <=1,000 W............  Outdoor...........  All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W..........  Indoor............  Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W..........  Indoor............  All others.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W..........  Outdoor...........  Tested at 480 V.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W..........  Outdoor...........  All others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps;
  rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70
  (incorporated by reference, see 10 CFR 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 UL 1029 (incorporated by
  reference, see 10 CFR 431.323).
** Excludes 150 W fixtures that are fixtures rated only for 150 W lamps;
  rated for use in wet locations, as specified by the NFPA 70, section
  410.4(A); and containing a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient
  air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029.
*** Input voltage for testing is specified by the test procedures.
  Ballasts rated to operate lamps less than 150 W must be tested at 120
  V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps >=150 W must be tested at 277
  V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages must
  be tested at the highest voltage the ballast is designed to operate.

    In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE adopted standards that would result in 
the benefits of energy savings, emissions reductions, and net present 
value (``NPV'') at each representative equipment class that outweighed 
the potential reduction in industry net present value (``INPV'') for 
manufacturers. In doing so, DOE did not adopt standards for MHLFs 
designed to be operated with lamps rated greater than 1,000 W and less 
than or equal to 2,000 W. 79 FR 7746, 7834-7836. Furthermore, because 
DOE adopted the same standards for indoor and outdoor equipment classes 
that are tested at the same input voltage and operate lamps of the same 
wattage, DOE omitted the indoor/outdoor distinction when codifying the 
table of standards into 10 CFR 431.326(c). In the 2014 Final Rule, DOE 
analyzed indoor and outdoor fixtures separately because these two types 
of fixtures offer different performance-related features. When 
electronic ballasts are used in outdoor applications, they require 
additional transient protection because of the potential for voltage 
surges in outdoor locations. Indoor fixtures with electronic ballasts 
also have an added feature to provide 120 V auxiliary power 
functionality for use in the event of a power outage. Based on these 
different features, DOE established separate equipment classes for 
indoor and outdoor fixtures, but adopted the same minimum energy 
conservation standards for these classes. 79 FR 7746, 7763-7764. In the 
2021 Final Determination, for the same reasons noted above, DOE 
continued to analyze MHLFs under separate equipment classes for indoor 
and outdoor fixtures. 86 FR 58763, 58769. As noted previously, DOE did 
not amend standards in the 2021 Final Determination.
    DOE seeks feedback on the current MHLF equipment classes and 
whether changes to these individual equipment classes and their 
descriptions should be made or whether certain classes should be merged 
or separated (e.g., indoor and outdoor, wattage ranges). Specifically, 
DOE requests comment on whether the features associated with indoor 
and/or outdoor fixtures (e.g., thermal management, transient 
protection, auxiliary power functionality) remain in the market today.
    DOE is also aware that new configurations and features are 
available for MHLFs that may not have been available at the time of the 
last energy conservation standards analysis. Based on DOE's review of 
the market, DOE found metal halide dimming ballasts available from 
multiple manufacturers that could be used in MHLFs. DOE has identified 
both step-level dimming and continuous dimming metal halide systems 
that are dimmable down to 50 percent of rated power.
    DOE seeks information regarding any new equipment classes it should 
consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, DOE requests 
information on any performance-related features (e.g., dimmability, 
etc.) that may provide unique consumer utility and data detailing the 
corresponding impacts on energy use that would justify separate 
equipment classes (i.e., explanation for why the presence of these 
performance-related features would increase energy consumption).
    In describing which MHLFs are included in each equipment class, DOE 
incorporates by reference the 2002 version of NFPA 70, ``National 
Electrical Code'' \8\ and the 2007 version of UL 1029, ``High-
Intensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts'' \9\ in DOE's regulations through 10 
CFR 431.323. NFPA 70 is a national safety standard for electrical 
design, installation, and inspection, and is also known as the National 
Electrical Code. UL 1029 is a safety standard specific to high 
intensity discharge (``HID'') lamp ballasts; a metal halide lamp 
ballast is a type of HID lamp ballast. Both NFPA 70 and UL 1029 are 
used to describe the applicable equipment class for MHLFs (see section 
II.B.1 of this document). DOE has found that a 2020 version of NFPA 70 
\10\ (``NFPA 70-2020'') and a 2022 version of UL 1029 \11\ (``UL 1029-
2022'') are now available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 70-2002 (``NFPA 
70''), National Electrical Code 2002 Edition.
    \9\ Underwriters Laboratories, UL 1029 (ANSI/UL 1029-2007) (``UL 
1029''), Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp Ballasts, 
5th edition, Approved May 25, 1994.
    \10\ National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 70-2020 (``NFPA 
70''), National Electrical Code 2020 Edition.
    \11\ Underwriters Laboratories, UL 1029 (ANSI/UL 1029-2007) 
(``UL 1029''), Standard for Safety High-Intensity-Discharge Lamp 
Ballasts, 5th edition, Revised July 15, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks comment on whether incorporating by reference the updated 
industry standards, NFPA 70-2020 and UL 1029-2022, will impact the 
MHLFs

[[Page 60560]]

included in each equipment class in DOE's regulations.
2. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy 
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past 
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies 
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of 
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with 
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to 
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of 
the technology options DOE previously considered during the 2021 Final 
Determination for MHLFs. A complete list of those prior options appears 
in Table II-2.

     Table II-2--Technology Options for MHLFs Considered in the Development of the 2021 Final Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Ballast type                   Design option                          Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic.............................                             Improved Core Steel
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Grain-Oriented Silicon   Use a higher grade of electrical steel,
                                        Steel.                   including grain-oriented silicon steel, to
                                                                 lower core losses.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Amorphous Steel........  Create the core of the inductor from laminated
                                                                 sheets of amorphous steel insulated from each
                                                                 other.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Improved Steel           Add steel laminations to lower core losses by
                                        Laminations.             using thinner laminations.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Copper Wiring..........  Use copper wiring in place of aluminum wiring to
                                                                 lower resistive losses.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Improved Windings......  Use of optimized-gauge copper wire; multiple,
                                                                 smaller coils; shape-optimized coils to reduce
                                                                 winding losses.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Electronic Ballast.....  Replace magnetic ballasts with electronic
                                                                 ballasts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic...........................                             Improved Components
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Magnetics..............  Improved Windings: Use of optimized-gauge copper
                                                                 wire; multiple, smaller coils; shape-optimized
                                                                 coils; litz wire to reduce winding losses.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Diodes.................  Use diodes with lower losses.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Capacitors.............  Use capacitors with a lower effective series
                                                                 resistance and output capacitance.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Transistors............  Use transistors with lower drain-to-source
                                                                 resistance.
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Improved Circuit Design
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Integrated Circuits....  Substitute discrete components with an
                                                                 integrated circuit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table II-2 
regarding their applicability to the current market and how these 
technologies may impact the efficiency of MHLFs as measured according 
to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how these 
technologies may have changed since they were considered in the 2021 
Final Determination analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks information on 
the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are 
currently available for each technology option.
    DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it should 
consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies may 
impact equipment features or consumer utility of MHLFs.

C. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial equipment 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a 
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or 
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.

[[Page 60561]]

    (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option 
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to 
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be 
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    In the 2021 Final Determination, for magnetic ballasts, DOE 
screened out the technology option of using laminated sheets of 
amorphous steel. DOE determined that using amorphous steel could have 
adverse impacts on consumer utility because increasing the size and 
weight of the ballast may limit the places a consumer could use the 
ballast. DOE did not screen out any other technology options in that 
rulemaking. 86 FR 58763, 58771.
    DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five screening 
criteria described in this section would have on each of the technology 
options listed in Table II-2 with respect to MHLFs. Similarly, DOE 
seeks information regarding how these same criteria would affect any 
other technology options not already identified in this document with 
respect to their potential use in MHLFs.
    With respect to the screened-out technology option of laminated 
sheets of amorphous steel, DOE seeks information on whether this option 
would, based on current and projected assessments, remain screened out 
under the five screening criteria described in this section. 
Additionally, DOE seeks information on what steps, if any, could be (or 
have already been) taken to facilitate the introduction of this 
technology option as a means to improve the energy performance of MHLFs 
and the potential to impact consumer utility of MHLFs.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and cost of MHLFs. There are two 
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of 
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and 
the determination of equipment cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the 
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency 
equipment, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations 
not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each equipment class, DOE 
estimates the baseline cost, as well as the incremental cost for the 
equipment at efficiency levels above the baseline. The output of the 
engineering analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are 
used in downstream analyses (i.e., the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') and 
payback period (``PBP'') analyses and the national impact analysis 
(``NIA'')). The following sections provide further detail on DOE's 
engineering analysis and seek public input on specific issues pertinent 
to MHLFs, the subject of this rulemaking.
1. Efficiency Analysis
    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy 
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed 
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), 
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated 
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., 
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on 
the market distribution of existing equipment (in other words, based on 
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that 
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through 
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the 
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that 
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on 
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual equipment on the market) may be 
extended using the design option approach to interpolate to define 
``gap fill'' levels (to bridge large gaps between other identified 
efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate to the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level (particularly in cases where 
the max-tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently 
available on the market).
2. Baseline Models
    For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model 
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or 
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline 
model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of common 
or typical equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one 
that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and 
provides basic consumer utility. Consistent with this analytical 
approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current minimum energy 
conservations standards (which went into effect February 10, 2017) to 
establish the baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class. 79 
FR 7749. The current standards for each equipment class are based on 
ballast efficiency. The current standards for MHLFs are found at 10 CFR 
431.326.
    DOE requests feedback on whether the current energy conservation 
standards for MHLFs are the appropriate baseline efficiency levels for 
DOE to apply to each equipment class in evaluating whether to amend the 
current energy conservation standards for these equipment classes.
    DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline efficiency levels 
for any newly analyzed equipment classes that are not currently in 
place or for the contemplated combined equipment classes, as discussed 
in section II.B.1 of this document.
3. Efficiency Levels and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. 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. In 
the 2021 Final Determination analysis, DOE did not directly analyze the 
equipment classes containing fixtures with ballasts tested at 480 V due 
to low shipment volumes. DOE selected all other equipment classes as 
representative, resulting in a total of 12 representative classes 
covering the full range of lamp wattages, as well as indoor and outdoor 
designations. DOE then scaled the efficiency levels (``ELs'') from 
representative equipment classes to those equipment classes it did not 
analyze directly (see section II.D.4 for further details on scaling). 
86 FR 58763, 58771-58772, 58776.
    In the 2021 Final Determination, based on the more-efficient 
ballasts selected for the analysis, DOE developed ELs for the 
representative equipment classes. DOE found the more-efficient magnetic 
EL represented

[[Page 60562]]

a magnetic ballast with a higher grade of steel compared to the 
baseline. DOE identified a second EL (an electronic EL) for the >=150 W 
and <=250 W and >250 W and <=500 W equipment classes. The standard 
electronic level represented a ballast with standard electronic 
circuitry. DOE identified a third EL (a more efficient electronic EL) 
in the >=50 W and <=100 W and >100 W and <150 W equipment classes. The 
more-efficient electronic EL represented an electronic ballast with an 
improved circuit design and/or more efficient components compared to 
the standard electronic level. The maximum available ELs identified for 
the 12 analyzed equipment classes in the 2021 Final Determination are 
specified in Table II-3. 86 FR 58763, 58774, 58776.

                       Table II-3--Maximum Efficiency Levels From 2021 Final Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designed to be operated with lamps of                                                       Maximum efficiency
  the  following rated lamp wattage         Indoor/outdoor         Input voltage type             level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 W and <=100 W...................  Indoor/Outdoor.........  All others except 480 V  1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
                                                                                          0.3)).
>100 W and <150 W....................  Indoor/Outdoor.........  All others except 480 V  1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
                                                                                          0.3)).
>=150 W and <=250 W..................  Indoor/Outdoor.........  All others except 480 V  1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
                                                                                          0.3)).
>250 W and <=500 W...................  Indoor/Outdoor.........  All others except 480 V  1/(1+0.4*P[supcaret](-
                                                                                          0.3)).
>500 W and <=1,000 W.................  Indoor/Outdoor.........  All others except 480 V  0.000057*P+0.881.
>1,000 W and <=2,000 W...............  Indoor/Outdoor.........  All others except 480 V  -0.000008*P+0.946.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp the fixture is designed to operate.

    DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the 
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options 
are incorporated in a model. In applying these design options, DOE 
would only include those that are compatible with each other that when 
combined, would represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency. 
In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially 
available because it is not economically feasible to implement. In the 
2021 Final Determination, DOE determined max-tech efficiency levels 
based on commercially available ballasts.
    DOE seeks input on whether the max-tech efficiency levels presented 
in Table II-3 are appropriate and technologically feasible for 
potential consideration as possible energy conservation standards for 
the equipment at issue--and if not, why not.
    DOE also requests feedback on whether the max-tech efficiency 
levels presented in Table II-3 are representative of those for the 
equipment classes not directly analyzed in the 2021 Final Determination 
(i.e., ballasts tested at 480 V). If the range of possible efficiencies 
is different for the other equipment classes not directly analyzed, 
what alternative approaches should DOE consider using for those 
equipment classes and why?
    DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be incorporated at 
a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies associated with those 
levels. As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to 
whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations of 
design options.
4. Scaling Non-Representative Equipment Classes
    After developing ELs, DOE then scales the ELs from representative 
equipment classes to those equipment classes it does not analyze 
directly. As discussed in section II.D.3 of this document, DOE did not 
directly analyze the equipment classes containing fixtures with 
ballasts tested at 480 V and instead scaled them from the ELs of 
equipment classes analyzed in the 2021 Final Determination. 
Specifically, DOE developed a scaling factor by comparing quad-voltage 
ballasts \12\ over all representative wattages to their 480 V ballast 
counterparts. DOE found that the difference in efficiency between 
ballasts tested at 480 V and ballasts tested at other input voltages 
varied based on the wattage of the ballast. Based on this analysis and 
comments from manufacturers DOE concluded a scaling factor of 12.0 
percent (in the form of a subtraction of 12 percent from the 
representative equipment class ELs) to be appropriate from 50 W-150 W, 
a scaling factor of 4.0 percent to be appropriate from 150 W to 1,000 
W, and a scaling factor of 0.0 percent (i.e., no reduction) to be 
appropriate from 1,001 W to 2,000 W. 86 FR 58763, 58776-58777.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Quad-voltage ballasts are capable of operating at 120 V or 
277 V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on whether it is necessary to individually 
analyze all 24 equipment classes used in the 2021 Final Determination. 
Additionally, DOE welcomes comment on whether the approach used to 
apply the analyzed equipment class results to the other equipment 
classes is appropriate--and if not, why not? For example, if it is 
necessary to individually analyze more than 12 equipment classes used 
in the 2021 Final Determination, please provide information on why 
aggregating certain equipment is not appropriate. If this approach is 
not appropriate, what alternative approaches should DOE consider using 
and why?
    DOE requests feedback on how the performance of ballasts that are 
tested at 480 V compares to ballasts of the same wattage and indoor/
outdoor classification that are in other equipment classes. DOE also 
requests comment on the scaling factors used to develop ELs for the 
equipment classes containing fixtures with ballasts tested at 480 V.
5. Cost Analysis
    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
equipment, and the availability and timeliness of purchasing the 
equipment on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
    [ballot] Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available equipment, component-by-component, 
to develop a detailed bill of materials for the equipment.
    [ballot] Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing an 
equipment, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams 
(available from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for 
example) to develop the bill of materials for the equipment.
    [ballot] Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated

[[Page 60563]]

equipment such as fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to 
disassemble and for which parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-
prohibitive and otherwise impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), 
DOE conducts price surveys using publicly available pricing data 
published on major online retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices 
from distributors and other commercial channels.
    The bill of materials provides the basis for the manufacturer 
production cost (``MPC'') estimates. DOE then applies a manufacturer 
markup to convert the MPC to manufacturer selling price (``MSP''). The 
manufacturer markup accounts for costs such as overhead and profit. The 
resulting bill of materials provides the basis for the MPC estimates.
    For the 2021 Final Determination, DOE conducted teardown analyses 
on 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 (``MH'') ballast, to calculate the MPC. DOE then 
determined the MSPs of fixture components and more-efficient MH 
ballasts identified for each EL. 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. 86 FR 58763, 58777.
    DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would incorporate the 
technology options listed in Table II-2 to increase energy efficiency 
in MHLFs beyond the baseline. This includes information on the 
sequencing manufacturers would follow when incorporating the different 
technologies to incrementally improve MHLF efficiency. DOE also 
requests feedback on whether increased energy efficiency would lead to 
other design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is interested 
in information regarding any potential impact of design options on a 
manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or 
attributes in response to consumer demand. DOE is also interested in 
the extent to which (if at all) any design changes may adversely impact 
the ability of a given MHLF to operate with currently compatible 
applications.
    DOE seeks input on the increase in MPC associated with 
incorporating each particular design option (e.g., improved core 
steel). Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how the costs 
estimated for design options in the 2021 Final Determination have 
changed since the time of that analysis. DOE also requests information 
on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design options, 
including, but not limited to, costs related to new or modified tooling 
(if any), materials, engineering and development efforts to implement 
each design option, and manufacturing/production impacts.
    DOE requests comment on whether certain design options may not be 
applicable to (or incompatible with) certain equipment classes.
    DOE seeks input on any relevant cost adders necessary based on 
ballast and fixture type (e.g., electronic or magnetic ballast, indoor 
or outdoor fixture). Specifically, DOE is interested in whether and how 
the incremental costs for electronically ballasted fixtures in the 2021 
Final Determination have changed since the time of that analysis.
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
markup) to the MPC. The resulting MSP is the price at which the 
manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. For the 2021 Final 
Determination DOE used separate markups for ballast manufacturers 
(1.47) and fixture manufacturers (1.58). 86 FR 58763, 58778.
    DOE requests feedback on whether its assumptions regarding 
manufacturer markups and the values of the markups (1.47 and 1.58) are 
appropriate for ballast manufacturers and fixture manufacturers, 
respectively--with the 1.58 markup applying to fixtures with and 
without ballasts). If they are appropriate, why--and if not, why not? 
If they are not appropriate, what should they be and why?

E. Markup Analysis

    DOE derives consumer prices based on manufacturer markups, retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups (where appropriate), 
and sales taxes. In deriving these markups, DOE determines the major 
distribution channels for equipment sales, the markup associated with 
each party in each distribution channel, and the existence and 
magnitude of differences between markups for baseline equipment 
(``baseline markups'') and higher-efficiency equipment (``incremental 
markups''). The identified distribution channels (i.e., how the 
equipment is distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), and 
estimated relative sales volumes through each channel are used in 
generating consumer price inputs for the LCC analysis and NIA.
    DOE tentatively plans to use the same distribution channels and 
wholesaler and contractor markups as in the 2021 Final Determination. 
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 consumer. In a contractor distribution channel, DOE assumed the 
fixture manufacturer sells the fixture directly to a contractor, who 
sells it to the consumer. In a utility distribution channel, DOE 
assumed the fixture manufacturer sells the fixture directly to the 
consumer (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. 86 FR 58763, 58778-58779.
    In the 2021 Final Determination, DOE used the same wholesaler and 
contractor markups as the 2014 Final Rule and assumed a wholesaler 
baseline markup of 1.23 and a contractor markup of 1.13, yielding a 
total wholesaler distribution channel baseline markup of 1.49. The 
lower wholesaler incremental markup of 1.05 yields a lower total 
incremental markup through this distribution channel of 1.27. DOE also 
assumed a utility markup of 1.00 for the utility distribution channel 
in which the manufacturer sells a fixture directly to the consumer. 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 consumer yielding an overall markup of 1.21 for 
this channel. 86 FR 58763, 58779.
    DOE requests information and data on any changes to the 
distribution channels or wholesaler or contractor markups.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use 
analysis to identify how the equipment is used by consumers, and 
thereby determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency 
improvements. DOE bases the energy consumption of metal halide lamp 
fixtures on the rated annual energy consumption as determined by the 
DOE test procedure. Along similar lines, the energy use analysis is 
meant to

[[Page 60564]]

represent typical energy consumption in the field.
    DOE tentatively plans to use the same energy use methodology as in 
the 2021 Final Determination. 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'').\13\ 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. 86 FR 58763, 58779.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market 
Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC. 
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. (Last accessed February 3, 2020.) https://energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests information and data on any changes to the operating 
hours for metal halide lamp fixtures.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis

    DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic 
effects of potential energy conservation standards for metal halide 
lamp fixtures on individual consumers. For any given efficiency level, 
DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated 
baseline level. The LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of 
the equipment, consisting of purchase, installation, and operating 
costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the 
calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--
which includes MSPs, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--and 
installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses 
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, 
repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and 
the year that compliance with new and amended standards is required. 
DOE tentatively plans to develop inputs for the LCC analysis similarly 
to the 2021 Final Determination, as discussed in the following 
subsections.
1. Equipment Cost
    In the 2021 Final Determination, to calculate consumer 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. 86 FR 58763, 58779, 
58780-58781.
2. Installation Cost
    Installation cost is the cost to install the fixture such as the 
labor, overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts needed. In 
the 2021 Final Determination, DOE used the installation costs from the 
2014 Final Rule but inflated to 2020$ using the GDP price deflator. 86 
FR 58763, 58780-58781.
    DOE requests information and data on any changes to the 
installation cost for metal halide lamp fixtures.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    In the 2021 Final Determination, for each sampled consumer, DOE 
determined the energy consumption for an MHLF at different efficiency 
levels using the approach described previously in section II.F of this 
document. DOE used operating hour (and, by extension, energy use) 
distributions to better characterize the potential range of operating 
conditions faced by MHLF consumers. 86 FR 58763, 58779-58781.
4. Energy Prices
    DOE applied average electricity prices for the energy use of the 
equipment purchased in the no-new-standards case, and marginal 
electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use associated 
with the other efficiency levels considered in the 2021 Final 
Determination. DOE derived annual electricity prices for each census 
division using data from the Edison Electric Institute (``EEI'') 
Typical Bills and Average Rates reports.\14\ To estimate energy prices 
in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy prices by a 
projection of annual change in national-average commercial and 
industrial energy prices in the Reference case of Annual Energy Outlook 
2021 (``AEO 2021'').\15\ AEO 2021 has an end year of 2050. DOE assumed 
regional electricity prices after 2050 are constant at their 2050 
price. 86 FR 58763, 58780-58781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Edison Electric Institute. Typical Bills and Average Rates 
Report. 2019. Winter 2019, Summer 2019: Washington, DC.
    \15\ U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy 
Outlook 2021 with Projections to 2050. 2021. Washington, DC. (Last 
accessed March 18, 2021.) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Replacement Costs
    Replacement costs include the labor and materials costs associated 
with replacing a ballast or lamp at the end of their lifetimes and are 
annualized across the years preceding and including the actual year in 
which equipment is replaced. In the 2021 Final Determination, the costs 
were taken from the 2014 Final Rule but inflated to 2020$ using the GDP 
price deflator. For the LCC and PBP analysis, the analysis period 
corresponds with the fixture lifetime that is assumed to be longer than 
that of either the lamp or the ballast. For this reason, ballast and 
lamp prices and labor costs associated with lamp or ballast 
replacements are included in the calculation of operating costs. Id.
    DOE requests information and data on any changes to the replacement 
costs for metal halide lamp fixtures.
6. Equipment Lifetime
    DOE defines equipment lifetime as the age when a fixture, ballast, 
or lamp is retired from service. In the 2021 Final Determination, 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. Id.
    DOE requests information and data on any changes to the equipment 
lifetime for metal halide lamp fixtures.
7. Discount Rates
    The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are 
discounted to estimate their present value. In the 2021 Final 
Determination, DOE estimated separate discount rates for commercial, 
industrial, and outdoor stationary applications. DOE used discount rate

[[Page 60565]]

data from a 2019 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report.\16\ The 
average discount rates, weighted by the shares of each rate value in 
the sectoral distributions, are 8.3 percent for commercial consumers, 
8.8 percent for industrial consumers, and 3.2 percent for outdoor 
stationary consumers. 86 FR 58763, 58781-58782.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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
    For the 2021 Final Determination, DOE developed a no-new-standards 
case efficiency distribution using model count data from DOE's 
compliance certification database collected on May 5, 2021. 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 that DOE used in the 2021 Final Determination is shown in Table 
II-4. 86 FR 58763, 58782.

                         Table II-4--MHLF Efficiency Distribution by Equipment Class for 2025 From the 2021 Final Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 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.......................................................            82.0            16.4            53.6            95.6            97.1            56.0
1.......................................................             1.2            32.9            40.1             1.1             2.9            44.0
2.......................................................             9.5             0.0             6.3             3.3  ..............  ..............
3.......................................................             7.4            50.7  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Columns may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

    DOE requests information and data on any changes to the no-new-
standards efficiency distribution for metal halide lamp fixtures.
9. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to 
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient 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 consumer 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 
determines 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.

H. Shipments

    DOE develops shipments forecasts of MHLFs to calculate the national 
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy 
consumption, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows. Using a three-
step process, in the 2021 Final Determination, DOE developed 
projections of future fixture shipments using historical data as the 
basis. First, DOE used U.S. Census Bureau fixture shipment data, 
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') lamp shipment 
data, and NEMA ballast sales trends to estimate historical shipments of 
each fixture type analyzed. Second, DOE estimated the installed stock 
for each fixture in 2021 based on the average service lifetime of each 
fixture type. Third, DOE developed annual shipment projections for 
2021-2052 by modeling fixture purchasing events, such as replacement 
and new construction, and applying estimates of the building stock 
growth rate, MHLF replacement rate, and penetration rate of light 
emitting diode (``LED'') alternatives. 86 FR 58763, 58782-58783. DOE 
used model counts from data downloaded from DOE's compliance 
certification database for MHLFs to estimate market shares by equipment 
class as shown in Table II-5. Id.

                           Table II--5 Market Share by Equipment Class for Shipments in 2021 From the 2021 Final Determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       >=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 (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Share......................................            25.5              8.2             24.9             31.2              9.7              0.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks any information or data on updates to the market share by 
equipment class relative to the market shares estimated in the 2021 
Final Determination.
    Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model that 
captures recent trends in the market. In the 2021 Final Determination, 
DOE projected a faster decline in MHLF shipments compared to what it 
had projected in

[[Page 60566]]

the notice of proposed determination for the rule (see 85 FR 47472 
(August 5, 2020)), based on updated NEMA sales indices, that resulted 
in a decline of 2030 shipments of metal halide lamps by more than 99 
percent relative to shipments in 2021, due to the incursion of out-of-
scope LED equipment.\17\ 86 FR 58763, 58782-58783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See chapter 9 of the 2021 Final Determination Technical 
Support Document: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0016-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE seeks data on MHLF and metal halide lamp ballast shipments, as 
well as the projected shipment values from the 2021 Final Determination 
as compared to actual recent shipments of MHLFs.

I. National Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the NIA is to estimate the aggregate economic 
impacts of potential efficiency standards at the national level. The 
NIA assesses the national energy savings and the national NPV of total 
consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result over 30 
years of shipments from new or amended standards at specific efficiency 
levels.
    DOE evaluates the impacts of new and amended standards by comparing 
no-new-standards-case projections with standards-case projections. The 
no-new-standards-case projections characterize energy use and consumer 
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 
adopts new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels 
(i.e., the trial standard levels (``TSLs'') or standards cases) for 
that class. In characterizing the no-new-standards and standards cases, 
DOE considers historical shipments, the mix of efficiencies sold in the 
absence of amended standards, penetration into the market from out-of-
scope LED alternatives, and how the market may evolve over time.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of MHLFs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such 
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA 
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative 
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact 
Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted for every 
equipment in this analysis, with the key output of INPV. The 
qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy 
conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and industry 
competition, as well as factors such as equipment characteristics, 
impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and important market and 
equipment trends.
    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered 
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small 
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to 
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are 
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'') code.\18\ Manufacturing of consumer MHLF is classified 
under NAICS 335122, ``Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional 
Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold 
of 500 employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a 
small business. Manufacturing of metal halide ballasts is classified 
under NAICS 335311, ``Power, Distribution and Specialty Transformer 
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less 
for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. The 
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company 
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Available online at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (last accessed August 9, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product/equipment-
specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product or equipment lines or markets with lower expected future 
returns than competing products or equipment. For these reasons, DOE 
conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its 
rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.
    To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact information 
of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that distribute MHLFs in 
the United States.
    DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of manufacturers that 
could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE requests the names and contact information of small 
business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, of 
MHLFs that manufacture equipment in the United States. In addition, DOE 
requests comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that could be 
disproportionally impacted by amended energy conservation standards. 
DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that could be 
considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small 
businesses.
    DOE requests information regarding the cumulative regulatory burden 
impacts on manufacturers of MHLFs associated with: (1) other DOE 
standards applying to different products or equipment that these 
manufacturers may also make and (2) product/equipment-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment 
on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and 
whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that would reduce 
this burden while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
specified in the DATES section of this document, comments and 
information on matters addressed in this document and on other matters 
relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations 
standards for MHLF. After the close of the comment period, DOE will 
review the public comments received and may begin collecting data and 
conducting the analyses discussed in this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will 
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last

[[Page 60567]]

names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name 
(if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of 
technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. 
If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 
cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider 
your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. If this instruction is followed, 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 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 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 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 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 www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via 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, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. 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 to [email protected]@ee.doe.gov, 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. 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).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively 
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the 
comment period in this process. Interactions with and between members 
of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist 
DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive 
future notices and information about this process or would like to 
request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September 
28, 2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-21696 Filed 10-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P