Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures, 51464-51488 [X13-10820]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51464-51488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X13-10820]



[[Page 51463]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 161

August 20, 2013

Part V





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 431





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

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 161 / Tuesday, August 20, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 51464]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-STD-0018]
RIN 1904-AC00


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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer 
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
metal halide lamp fixtures. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE) to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards 
would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would 
save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE proposes 
amended energy conservation standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. 
The notice also announces a public meeting to receive comments on these 
proposed standards and associated analyses and results.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on Friday, September 27, 2013, 
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be 
broadcast as a webinar. See section VIII, ``Public Participation,'' for 
webinar registration information, participant instructions, and 
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public 
meeting, but no later than October 21, 2013. See section, ``VIII Public 
Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE 
Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. Any 
foreign national wishing to participate in the meeting should advise 
DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the 
necessary procedures. Please also note that those wishing to bring 
laptops into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a 
property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing laptops, or allow an 
extra 45 minutes. Persons can attend the public meeting via webinar. 
For more information, refer to the Public Participation section near 
the end of this notice.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Energy 
Conservation Standards for metal halide lamp fixtures, and provide 
docket number EE-2009-BT-STD-0018 and/or regulatory information number 
(RIN) 1904-AC00. Comments may be submitted using any of the following 
methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: MHLF-2009-STD-0018@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to 
Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section VIII of this 
document (``Public Participation'').
    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, 
including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting 
attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the 
index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance--standards/product.aspx/
productid/49. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this 
notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will 
contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including 
public comments, in the docket. See section VIII for further 
information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1604. Email: metal_halide_lamp_fixtures@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: ari.altman@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Customers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Metal Halide Lamp 
Fixtures
    3. Compliance Date
III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This Rulemaking
    A. Additional Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures for Which DOE Is 
Proposing Standards
    1. EISA 2007 Exempted Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
    a. Fixtures With Regulated-Lag Ballasts
    b. Fixtures With 480 V Electronic Ballasts
    c. Exempted 150 W Fixtures
    2. Additional Rated Lamp Wattages
    3. General Lighting
    4. Summary
    B. Alternative Approaches to Energy Conservation Standards: 
System Approaches
    1. Lamp-Ballast System
    2. Fixtures Systems--Lamp, Ballast, Optics, and Enclosure
    3. California Title 20 Approach
    C. Combined Rulemakings
    D. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption Standards
IV. General Discussion
    A. Test Procedures
    1. Current Test Procedures
    2. Test Input Voltage

[[Page 51465]]

    a. Average of Tested Efficiency at all Possible Voltages
    b. Posting the Highest and Lowest Efficiencies
    c. Test at Single Manufacturer-Declared Voltage
    d. Test at Highest-Rated Voltage
    e. Test on Input Voltage Based on Wattage and Available Voltages
    3. Testing Electronic Ballasts
    4. Rounding Requirements
    B. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    C. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Customers
    b. Life-Cycle Costs
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
V. Methodology and Discussion
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. General
    2. Equipment Classes
    a. Input Voltage
    b. Fixture Application
    c. Electronic Configuration and Circuit Type
    d. Lamp Wattage
    e. Number of Lamps
    f. Starting Method
    g. Conclusions
    B. Screening Analysis
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Approach
    2. Representative Equipment Classes
    3. Representative Wattages
    4. Representative Fixture Types
    5. Ballast Efficiency Testing
    6. Input Power Representations
    7. Baseline Ballast Models
    a. 70 W Baseline Ballast
    b. 150 W Baseline Ballast
    c. 1000 W Baseline Ballast
    8. Selection of More Efficient Units
    a. Higher-Efficiency Magnetic Ballasts
    b. Electronic Ballasts
    9. Efficiency Levels
    10. Design Standard
    11. Scaling to Equipment Classes Not Analyzed
    12. Manufacturer Selling Prices
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Incremental Costs for Electronically Ballasted Fixtures
    c. Manufacturer Markups
    D. Markups to Determine Equipment Price
    1. Distribution Channels
    2. Estimation of Markups
    3. Summary of Markups
    E. Energy Use Analysis
    F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Equipment Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Use
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Energy Price Projections
    6. Replacement Costs
    7. Equipment Lifetime
    8. Discount Rates
    9. Analysis Period
    10. Fixture Purchasing Events
    G. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net 
Present Value Analysis
    1. Shipments
    a. Historical Shipments
    b. Fixture Stock Projections
    c. Base Case Shipment Scenarios
    d. Standards Case Efficiency Scenarios
    2. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion
    H. Customer Subgroup Analysis
    I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. GRIM Analysis and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Base Case Shipment Projections
    c. Standards Case Shipment Projections
    d. Markup Scenarios
    e. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    3. Discussion of Comments
    a. Compliance Period
    b. Opportunity Cost of Investments
    c. Impact on Competition
    4. Manufacturer Interviews
    a. Ability To Recoup Investments
    b. Efficiency Metric Used
    c. Maintenance of 150 W Exemption
    J. Employment Impact Analysis
    K. Utility Impact Analysis
    L. Emissions Analysis
    M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
    c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
VI. Analytical Results
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Customers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Customer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results
    b. Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and Benefits
    c. Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    C. Proposed Standards
    1. Trial Standard Level 5
    2. Trial Standard Level 4
    3. Trial Standard Level 3
    D. Backsliding
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    a. Methodology for Estimating the Number of Small Entities
    b. Manufacturer Participation
    c. Metal Halide Ballast and Fixture Industry Structure
    d. Comparison Between Large and Small Entities
    2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and 
Regulations
    4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VIII. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements For 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended 
energy conservation standard that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
prescribes for certain products, such as metal halide lamp fixtures 
(MHLFs or ``fixtures''), shall be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new 
or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these and other 
statutory provisions discussed in this notice, DOE proposes amended 
energy conservation standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. The 
proposed standards, which are the

[[Page 51466]]

minimum allowable ballast efficiencies \2\ based on fixture location, 
ballast type, and rated lamp wattage, are shown in Table I.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ DOE is proposing to continue using a ballast efficiency 
metric for regulation of metal halide lamp fixtures, rather than a 
system or other approach. See section III.B for further discussion.

                Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Rated lamp       Indoor/outdoor      Test input
Equipment classes       wattage              ***         voltage [dagger]       Minimum standard equation %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  >=50 W and <=100   Indoor...........  480 V...........  99.4/(1 + 2.5 * P[caret](-0.55))
                    W.                                                      [Dagger].
2................  >=50 W and <=100   Indoor...........  All others......  100/(1 + 2.5 * P[caret](-0.55)).
                    W.
3................  >=50 W and <=100   Outdoor..........  480 V...........  99.4/(1 + 2.5 * P[caret](-0.55)).
                    W.
4................  >=50 W and <=100   Outdoor..........  All others......  100/(1 + 2.5 * P[caret](-0.55)).
                    W.
5................  >100 W and <150 W  Indoor...........  480 V...........  99.4/(1 + 0.36 * P[caret](-0.30)).
                    *.
6................  >100 W and <150 W  Indoor...........  All others......  100/(1 + 0.36 * P[caret](-0.30)).
                    *.
7................  >100 W and <150 W  Outdoor..........  480 V...........  99.4/(1 + 0.36 * P[caret](-0.30)).
                    *.
8................  >100 W and <150 W  Outdoor..........  All others......  100/(1 + 0.36 * P[caret](-0.30)).
                    *.
9................  >=150 W ** and     Indoor...........  480 V...........  For >=150 W and <=200 W: 88.0.
                    <=250 W.                                               For >200 W and <=250 W: 6.0 *
                                                                            10[caret](-2) * P + 76.0.
10...............  >=150 W ** and     Indoor...........  All others......  For >=150 W and <=200 W: 88.0.
                    <=250 W.                                               For >200 W and <=250 W: 7.0 *
                                                                            10[caret](-2) * P + 74.0.
11...............  >=150 W ** and     Outdoor..........  480 V...........  For >=150 W and <=200 W: 88.0.
                    <=250 W.                                               For >200 W and <=250 W: 6.0 *
                                                                            10[caret](-2) * P + 76.0.
12...............  >=150 W ** and     Outdoor..........  All others......  For >=150 W and <=200 W: 88.0.
                    <=250 W.                                               For >200 W and <=250 W: 7.0 *
                                                                            10[caret](-2) * P + 74.0.
13...............  >250 W and <=500   Indoor...........  480 V...........  91.0.
                    W.
14...............  >250 W and <=500   Indoor...........  All others......  91.5.
                    W.
15...............  >250 W and <=500   Outdoor..........  480 V...........  91.0.
                    W.
16...............  >250 W and <=500   Outdoor..........  All others......  91.5.
                    W.
17...............  >500 W and <=2000  Indoor...........  480 V...........  For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.994 * (3.2 *
                    W.                                                      10[caret](-3) * P + 89.9).
                                                                           For >=1000 W to <=2000 W: 92.5 and
                                                                            may not utilize a probe-start
                                                                            ballast.
18...............  >500 W and <=2000  Indoor...........  All others......  For >500 W to <1000 W: 3.2 *
                    W.                                                      10[caret](-3) * P + 89.9.
                                                                           For >=1000 W to <=2000 W: 93.1 and
                                                                            may not utilize a probe-start
                                                                            ballast.
19...............  >500 W and <=2000  Outdoor..........  480 V...........  For >500 W to <1000 W: 0.994 * (3.2 *
                    W.                                                      10[caret](-3) * P + 89.9).
                                                                           For >=1000 W to <=2000 W: 92.5 and
                                                                            may not utilize a probe-start
                                                                            ballast.
20...............  >500 W and <=2000  Outdoor..........  All others......  For >500 W to <1000 W: 3.2 *
                    W.                                                      10[caret](-3) * P + 89.9.
                                                                           For >=1000 W to <=2000 W: 93.1 and
                                                                            may not utilize a probe-start
                                                                            ballast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use
  in wet locations, as specified by the National Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a
  ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by Underwriters
  Laboratories (UL) 1029-2001.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for
  use in wet locations, as specified by the National Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a
  ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2001.
*** DOE's proposed definitions for ``indoor'' and ``outdoor'' metal halide lamp fixtures are described in
  section V.A.2.
[dagger] Input voltage for testing would be specified by the test procedures. Ballasts rated to operate lamps
  less than 150 W would be tested at 120 V, and ballasts rated to operate lamps >=150 W would be tested at 277
  V. Ballasts not designed to operate at either of these voltages would be tested at the highest voltage for
  which the ballast is designed to operate.
[Dagger] P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp that the fixture is designed to operate.


[[Page 51467]]

A. Benefits and Costs to Customers

    Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic effects of the 
proposed standards on customers of metal halide lamp fixtures, as 
measured by the average life-cycle cost (LCC) savings and the median 
payback period (PBP). The average LCC savings are positive for a 
majority of users for all equipment classes. For example, the estimated 
average LCC savings are approximately $30 for fixtures operating a 400 
W metal halide (MH) lamp in indoor and outdoor applications.

  Table I.2--Impacts of Proposed Standards on Metal Halide Lamp Fixture
                                Customers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Average LCC     Median payback
           Equipment class              savings 2012$     period years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 W (indoor, magnetic baseline)....             38.41               4.2
70 W (outdoor, magnetic baseline)...             46.44               4.4
150 W (indoor)......................             10.14               4.7
150 W (outdoor).....................            112.51              10.5
250 W (indoor)......................             13.12              11.8
250 W (outdoor).....................             13.75              14.0
400 W (indoor)......................             28.23              10.5
400 W (outdoor).....................             30.47              12.3
1000 W (indoor).....................            502.21               2.0
1000 W (outdoor)....................            409.02               3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted 
cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the 
analysis period (2013 to 2045). Using a real discount rate of 8.9 
percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of metal halide 
ballasts ranges from $77 million in the low shipment-preservation of 
operating profit markup scenario to $127 million in the high shipment-
flat markup scenario in 2012$. Under the proposed standards, DOE 
expects ballast manufacturers to lose up to 25.0 percent of their INPV, 
which is approximately $25.9 million, in the low shipment,-preservation 
of operating profit markup scenario. In the high shipment-flat markup 
scenario, DOE expects manufacturers to increase their INPV up to 3.7 
percent, which is approximately $4.5 million. Using a real discount 
rate of 9.5 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of 
metal halide lamp fixtures ranges from $523 million in the low 
shipment-preservation of operating profit markup scenario to $695 
million in the high shipment-flat markup scenario in 2012$. Under the 
proposed standards, DOE expects fixture manufacturers to lose up to 3.2 
percent of their INPV, which is approximately $17.3 million, in the low 
shipment-preservation of operating profit markup scenario. In the high 
shipment-flat markup scenario, DOE expects manufacturers to increase 
their INPV up to 10.3 percent, which is approximately $64.8 million. 
Additionally, based on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of metal 
halide lamp fixtures, DOE does not expect any plant closings or 
significant loss of employment.

C. National Benefits

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed standards would save a 
significant amount of energy. The lifetime savings for metal halide 
lamp fixtures purchased in a 30-year period (2016-2045) amount to 0.80-
1.1 quads.
    The cumulative national net present value (NPV) of total customer 
costs and savings of the proposed standards in 2012$ ranges from $0.95 
billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $3.2 billion (at a 3-percent 
discount rate) for metal halide lamp fixtures. This NPV expresses the 
estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the 
estimated increased equipment costs for equipment purchased in 2016-
2045, discounted to 2013.
    In addition, the proposed standards would have significant 
environmental benefits. The energy savings would result in cumulative 
emission reductions of 49-65 million metric tons (Mt) \3\ of carbon 
dioxide (CO2), 214-289 thousand tons of methane 
(CH4), 0.89-3.0 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 
(N2O), 65-87 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), 66-90 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and 0.11-0.15 tons of mercury (Hg).4 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
CH4, SO2, NOX and Hg are presented 
in short tons.
    \4\ DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to the Annual 
Energy Outlook (AEO) 2013 Reference case, which generally represents 
current legislation and environmental regulations for which 
implementing regulations were available as of December 31, 2012.
    \5\ DOE also estimated CO2 and CO2 
equivalent (CO2eq) emissions that occur by 2030 
(CO2eq includes greenhouse gases such as CH4 
and N2O). The estimated emissions reductions by 2030 are 
15-17 million metric tons CO2, 1,471-1,627 thousand tons 
CO2eq for CH4, and 63-70 thousand tons 
CO2eq for N2O.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The value of the CO2 emissions reductions is calculated 
using a range of values per metric ton of CO2 (otherwise 
known as the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) developed by a recent 
interagency process. The derivation of the SCC values is discussed in 
section V.M.1. DOE estimates the net present monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reduction is between $0.33 and $4.7 billion, 
expressed in 2012$ and discounted to 2013. DOE also estimates the net 
present monetary value of the NOX emissions reduction, 
expressed in 2012$ and discounted to 2013, is $45 million at a 7-
percent discount rate, and $91 million at a 3-percent discount rate.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOE has decided to await further guidance regarding 
consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions before it 
monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.3 summarizes the national economic costs and benefits 
expected to result from today's proposed standards for metal halide 
lamp fixtures.

[[Page 51468]]



   Table I.3--Summary of National Economic Benefits and Costs of Metal
     Halide Lamp Fixture Energy Conservation Standards (Primary (Low
                          Shipments) Estimate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Present value     Discount rate
              Category                  million 2012$       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings..............             1,848                 7
                                                 3,748                 3
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.9/              333                 5
 t case) *..........................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.8/            1,532                 3
 t case) *..........................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.2/            2,436               2.5
 t case) *..........................
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at                4,689                 3
 $117/t case) *.....................
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at                   45                 7
 $2,639/ton) **.....................
                                                    91                 3
    Total Benefits[dagger]..........             3,424                 7
                                                 5,371                 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Installed Costs.........               897                 7
                                                 1,294                 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Net Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Including CO2 and NOX Reduction                  2,528                 7
 Monetized Value....................
                                                 4,076                 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in
  regulatory analyses. Three sets of values are based on the average SCC
  from the integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3,
  and 5 percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile
  SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount rate, is
  included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature
  change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values in
  parentheses represent the SCC in 2015. The SCC time series used by DOE
  incorporate an escalation factor.
** The value represents the average of the low and high NOX values used
  in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using
  the series corresponding to average SCC value with 3-percent discount
  rate.

    The benefits and costs of today's proposed standards, for equipment 
sold between 2016 and 2045, can also be expressed in terms of 
annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum of (1) 
the annualized national economic value of the benefits from customer 
operation of equipment that meets the proposed standards (consisting 
primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus 
increases in equipment purchase and installation costs, which is 
another way of representing customer NPV), and (2) the annualized 
monetary value of the benefits of emissions reductions, including 
CO2 emissions reductions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-
series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE 
calculated a present value in 2013, the year used for discounting 
the NPV of total customer costs and savings, for the time-series of 
costs and benefits using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for all 
costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 emissions 
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 
shown in Table I.4. From the present value, DOE then calculated the 
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period (2016 through 2045) that 
yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the 
annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this 
does not imply that the time-series of costs and benefits from which 
the annualized values were determined is a steady stream of 
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 emissions reductions provides a useful perspective, two 
issues should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. customer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions, while the value of CO2 emissions 
reductions is a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 emissions savings are performed with 
different methods that use different time frames for analysis. The 
national operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of metal 
halide lamp fixtures shipped between 2016 and 2045. The SCC values, on 
the other hand, reflect the present value of some future climate-
related impacts resulting from the emission of 1 ton of CO2 
in each year. These impacts will continue well beyond 2045.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary 
estimate are as follows. (All monetary values below are expressed in 
2012$.) Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other 
than CO2 emissions reductions, for which DOE used a 3-
percent discount rate along with the SCC series corresponding to a 
value of $40.8/ton in 2012$, the cost of the standards proposed in 
today's rule is $68.0 million per year in increased equipment costs, 
while the annualized benefits are $139 million per year in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $76 million in CO2 emissions 
reductions, and $3.4 million in reduced NOX emissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $151 million per year. Using a 3-
percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series 
corresponding to a value of $40.8/ton in 2012$, the cost of the 
standards proposed in today's rule is $64 million per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the benefits are $186 million per year in 
reduced operating costs, $76 million in CO2 emissions 
reductions, and $4.5 million in reduced NOX emissions. In 
this case, the net benefit amounts to $202 million per year.

[[Page 51469]]



          Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Monetized Values  [million 2012$/year]
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                              Discount rate            Primary (low
                                                                   shipments) estimate *     High  estimate *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings................  7%......................  139...................  169
                                        3%......................  186...................  240
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.9/t  5%......................  21....................  26
 case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.8/t  3%......................  76....................  99
 case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.2/t  2.5%....................  114...................  149
 case) **.
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value $117/t    3%......................  232...................  303
 case) **.
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at       7%......................  3.36..................  4.06
 $2,639/ton) **.
                                        3%......................  4.49..................  5.76
    Total Benefits[dagger]............  7% plus CO2 range.......  163 to 375............  200 to 476
                                        7%......................  218...................  272
                                        3%......................  266...................  344
                                        3% plus CO2 range.......  211 to 422............  272 to 548
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Equipment Costs...........  7%......................  68....................  81
                                        3%......................  64....................  80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits/Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total [dagger]........................  7% plus CO2 range.......  96 to 307.............  119 to 396
                                        7%......................  151...................  192
                                        3%......................  202...................  264
                                        3% plus CO2 range.......  147 to 358............  192 to 468
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with fixtures shipped in 2016 and 2045. These
  results include benefits to customers which accrue after 2045 from the fixtures purchased in 2016 to 2045.
  Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2016 in preparation for the rule, are
  not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Low (Primary)
  and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices from the Energy Information Administration's 2012 Annual
  Energy Outlook (AEO2013) from the AEO2013 Reference case, with the Low and High Estimates based on projected
  fixture shipments in the Low Shipments, Roll-up and High Shipments, Roll-up scenarios, respectively. In
  addition, all estimates use incremental equipment costs that reflect a declining trend for equipment prices,
  using AEO price trends (deflators). The derivation and application of price trends for equipment prices is
  explained in section V.F.
** The interagency group selected four sets of SCC values for use in regulatory analyses. Three sets of values
  are based on the average SCC from the three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5
  percent. The fourth set, which represents the 95th percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-
  percent discount rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from temperature change further
  out in the tails of the SCC distribution. The values in parentheses represent the SCC in 2015. The SCC time
  series incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of the low and high values used in
  DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the series corresponding to
  average SCC with 3-percent discount rate. In the rows labeled as ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2
  range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values
  are added to the full range of CO2 values.

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. DOE further notes that equipment 
achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for 
at least some, if not most, equipment classes covered by today's 
proposal. Based on the analyses described above, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that the benefits of the proposed standards to the nation 
(energy savings, positive NPV of customer benefits, customer LCC 
savings, and emissions reductions) would outweigh the burdens (loss of 
INPV for manufacturers and LCC increases for some customers).
    DOE also considered more-stringent fixture energy-use levels as 
trial standard levels (TSLs), and is still considering them in this 
rulemaking. DOE has tentatively concluded, however, that the potential 
burdens of the more-stringent energy-use levels would outweigh the 
projected benefits. Based on its consideration of the public comments 
DOE receives in response to this notice and related information 
collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE 
may adopt energy-use levels that are either higher or lower than the 
proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate 
the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

    The following section discusses the statutory authority underlying 
today's proposal, as well as some of the historical background related 
to the establishment of standards for metal halide lamp fixtures.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,\8\ a program 
covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as 
``covered products''). Amendments to EPCA have given DOE the authority 
to regulate the energy efficiency of several additional kinds of 
equipment, including certain metal halide lamp fixtures, which are the 
subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(19)) EPCA, as amended by 
the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) prescribes 
energy conservation

[[Page 51470]]

standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)), and directs DOE 
to conduct a rulemaking to determine whether to amend these standards. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(A)) (DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(hh)(3)(A), the agency must review its already established energy 
conservation standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. Under this 
requirement, the next review that DOE would need to conduct must occur 
no later than January 1, 2019.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
products consists of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the 
establishment of Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) 
certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling, and DOE implements the 
remainder of the program. Subject to certain criteria and conditions, 
DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each 
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedures as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 
these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with 
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. The DOE test procedures for metal 
halide lamp fixtures currently appear at title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) Sec. Sec.  431.323 and 431.324.
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended 
standards for covered products. As indicated above, any amended 
standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may 
not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not 
prescribe a standard: (1) For certain products, including metal halide 
lamp fixtures, if no test procedures have been established for the 
product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the proposed standard is 
not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven factors:

    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared 
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance 
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the 
imposition of the standard;
    3. The total projected amount of energy, or as applicable, 
water, savings likely to result directly from the imposition of the 
standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 
covered products likely to result from the imposition of 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 
imposition of the standard;
    6. The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of evidence that the standard is likely to result in the 
unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, 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 procedures. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).
    Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) specifies requirements when 
promulgating a standard for a type or class of covered product that has 
two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level 
than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for 
any group of covered products that have the same function or intended 
use if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a 
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products 
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. In determining whether a performance-related feature 
justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must 
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and 
other factors DOE deems appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6294(q)(1)) Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 
which such a higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede state 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
standards, and enforcement. (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 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)).
    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in section 310(3) of 
EISA 2007, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation 
standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address 
standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) When DOE 
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if 
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into 
the standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard 
for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) 
DOE's current test procedures and standards for metal halide lamp 
fixtures address standby mode and off mode energy use. However, in this 
rulemaking, DOE only addresses active mode energy consumption as 
standby and off mode energy use are not applicable to the proposed 
scope of coverage.
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
(E.O.) 13563, issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281, (Jan. 21, 2011). 
E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review

[[Page 51471]]

established in E.O. 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are 
required by E.O. 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs 
(recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); 
(2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, 
among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of 
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies ``to use 
the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and 
future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' In its guidance, 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that 
such techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance 
costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.'' For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE 
believes that today's NOPR is consistent with these principles, 
including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, 
benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized. Consistent 
with EO 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, 
the energy efficiency standard proposed herein by DOE achieves maximum 
net benefits.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    EISA 2007 prescribed the current energy conservation standards for 
metal halide lamp fixtures manufactured on or after January 1, 2009. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)) The current standards are set forth in Table 
II.1. EISA 2007 excludes from the standards: fixtures with regulated-
lag ballasts, fixtures with electronic ballasts that operate at 480 
volts (V); and fixtures that (1) are rated only for 150 W lamps; (2) 
are rated for use in wet locations; and (3) contain a ballast that is 
rated to operate at ambient air temperatures higher than 50 [deg]C.

  Table II.1--Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Metal Halide Lamp
                               Fixtures *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Minimum
                                     Operated lamp rated      ballast
           Ballast type                 wattage range       efficiency
                                                             (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulse-start.......................  >=150 and <=500 W...              88
Magnetic Probe-start..............  >=150 and <=500 W...              94
Nonpulse-start Electronic.........  >=150 and <=250 W...              90
Nonpulse-start Electronic.........  >=250 and <=500 W...              92
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)).

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
    DOE is conducting this rulemaking to review and consider amendments 
to the energy conservation standards in effect for metal halide lamp 
fixtures, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2) and (4). On December 
30, 2009, DOE published a notice announcing the availability of the 
framework document, ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 
Framework Document for Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures,'' and a public 
meeting to discuss the proposed analytical framework for the 
rulemaking. 74 FR 69036. DOE also posted the framework document on its 
Web site; this document is available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance--standards/product.aspx/productid/49. The framework document 
described the procedural and analytical approaches that DOE anticipated 
using to evaluate energy conservation standards for metal halide lamp 
fixtures, and identified various issues to be resolved in conducting 
this rulemaking.
    DOE held a public meeting on January 26, 2010, during which it 
presented the contents of the framework document, described the 
analyses it planned to conduct during the rulemaking, sought comments 
from interested parties on these subjects, and in general, sought to 
inform interested parties about, and facilitate their involvement in, 
the rulemaking. At the meeting and during the period for commenting on 
the framework document, DOE received comments that helped identify and 
resolve issues involved in this rulemaking.
    DOE then gathered additional information and performed preliminary 
analyses to help develop potential energy conservation standards for 
metal halide lamp fixtures. On April 1, 2011, DOE published in the 
Federal Register an announcement (the April 2011 notice) of the 
availability of the preliminary technical support document (the 
preliminary TSD) and of another public meeting to discuss and receive 
comments on the following matters: (1) The equipment classes DOE 
planned to analyze; (2) the analytical framework, models, and tools 
that DOE was using to evaluate standards; (3) the results of the 
preliminary analyses performed by DOE; and (4) potential standard 
levels that DOE could consider. 76 FR 1812 (April 1, 2011). In the 
April 2011 notice, DOE requested comment on issues that would affect 
energy conservation standards for metal halide lamp fixtures or that 
DOE should address in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). The 
preliminary TSD is available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance--standards/product.aspx/productid/49.
    The preliminary TSD summarized the activities DOE undertook in 
developing standards for metal halide lamp fixtures, and discussed the 
comments DOE received in response to the framework document. It also 
described the analytical framework that DOE uses in this rulemaking, 
including a description of the methodology, the analytical tools, and 
the relationships among the various analyses that are part of the 
rulemaking. The preliminary TSD presented and described in detail each 
analysis DOE performed up to that point, including descriptions of 
inputs, sources, methodologies, and results. These analyses were as 
follows:
     A market and technology assessment set the scope of this 
rulemaking, identified the potential equipment classes for metal halide 
lamp

[[Page 51472]]

fixtures, characterized the markets for this equipment, and reviewed 
techniques and approaches for improving their efficiency;
     A screening analysis reviewed technology options to 
improve the efficiency of metal halide lamp fixtures, and weighed these 
options against DOE's four prescribed screening criteria;
     An engineering analysis estimated the manufacturer selling 
prices (MSPs) associated with more energy-efficient metal halide lamp 
fixtures;
     An energy-use analysis estimated the annual energy use of 
metal halide lamp fixtures;
     A markups analysis converted estimated MSPs derived from 
the engineering analysis to customer prices;
     A life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis calculated, for 
individual customers, the discounted savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the equipment compared to any 
increase in installed costs likely to result directly from the 
imposition of a given standard;
     A payback period (PBP) analysis estimated the amount of 
time it would take individual customers to recover the higher purchase 
expense of more energy-efficient products through lower operating 
costs;
     A shipments analysis estimated shipments of metal halide 
lamp fixtures over the time period examined in the analysis. This was 
then used in the national impact analysis (NIA);
     A national impact analysis assessed the national energy 
savings, and the national net present value of total customer costs and 
savings, expected to result from specific, potential energy 
conservation standards for metal halide lamp fixtures; and
     A preliminary manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) began 
evaluating the effects on manufacturers of amended efficiency 
standards.
    The public meeting announced in the April 2011 notice took place on 
April 18, 2011 (April 2011 public meeting). At this meeting, DOE 
presented the methodologies and results of the analyses set forth in 
the preliminary TSD. Interested parties discussed the following major 
issues at the public meeting: (1) Alternative approaches to performance 
requirements and the various related efficiency metrics; (2) the 
possibility of including design standards; (3) amendments to the test 
procedures for metal halide ballasts to account for multiple input 
voltages; (4) the cost and feasibility of utilizing electronic ballasts 
in metal halide lamp fixtures; (5) equipment class divisions; (6) 
overall pricing methodology; (7) lamp lifetimes; (8) cumulative 
regulatory burden; (9) shipments; and (10) the possibility of merging 
the metal halide lamp fixture and the high-intensity discharge (HID) 
lamp rulemakings. This NOPR responds to the issues raised in the 
comments received since publication of the April 2011 notice, including 
those received at the April 2011 public meeting.
3. Compliance Date
    EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, contains guidelines for the 
compliance date of the standards amended by this rulemaking. EPCA 
requires DOE to determine whether to amend the standards in effect for 
metal halide lamp fixtures and whether any amended standards should 
apply to additional metal halide lamp fixtures. The Secretary was 
directed to publish a final rule no later than January 1, 2012 to 
determine whether the energy conservation standards established by EISA 
2007 for metal halide lamp fixtures should be amended, with any 
amendment applicable to products manufactured after January 1, 2015. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)(B))

III. Issues Affecting the Scope of This Rulemaking

A. Additional Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures for Which DOE Is Proposing 
Standards

    As noted in section II.B.1, the existing energy conservation 
standards for metal halide lamp fixtures are established in EPCA 
through amendments made by EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(A)) EISA 
2007 prescribed energy conservation standards for metal halide lamp 
fixtures by setting minimum ballast efficiency requirements for 
fixtures manufactured after January 1, 2009. Currently, coverage is 
limited to certain rated wattages of lamps used in metal halide lamp 
fixtures (150 W to 500 W). Such fixtures must be equipped with a 
ballast that has a designated starting method (pulse-start or probe-
start) and electronic configuration (magnetic or electronic). However, 
the statute excludes from coverage metal halide lamp fixtures with 
regulated-lag ballasts,\9\ electronic ballasts that operate at 480 V, 
and fixtures that: (1) Are rated only for 150 W lamps, (2) are rated 
for use in wet locations,\10\ and (3) contain a ballast that is rated 
to operate at ambient air temperatures greater than 50 [deg]C.\11\ (42 
U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(A)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ `Regulated lag ballast' means ballasts designed to withstand 
significant line voltage variation with minimum wattage variation to 
the lamp.
    \10\ Specifications for ``wet locations'' are from the National 
Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A).
    \11\ Specifications for ballasts that operate at ambient air 
temperatures above 50 [deg]C are found in UL 1029-2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the preliminary TSD, DOE requested comment from interested 
parties on the scope of energy conservation standards rulemaking for 
metal halide lamp fixtures. DOE received several comments related to 
expanding the scope to include fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, fixtures 
designed to be operated with additional rated lamp wattages, and the 
definition of a general lighting application.
1. EISA 2007 Exempted Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
    DOE considered expanding its energy conservation standards to cover 
metal halide lamp fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, including fixtures 
with regulated-lag ballasts; electronic ballasts that operate at 480 V; 
and ballasts that are rated only for (1) use with 150 W lamps, (2) use 
in wet locations, and (3) operation in ambient air temperatures higher 
than 50 [deg]C. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1)(B))
Fixtures With Regulated-Lag Ballasts
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE tentatively decided to continue 
the exemption for regulated-lag ballasts. Through information gathered 
in manufacturer interviews and market research, DOE determined that 
regulated-lag ballasts are mainly used for specialty applications where 
line voltage variation is large. Regulated-lag ballasts are designed to 
withstand significant line voltage variation with minimum wattage 
variation to the lamp, which results in an efficiency penalty compared 
to ballasts whose output changes more significantly with line voltage 
variation. To be able to withstand large variations, regulated-lag 
ballasts are currently designed to be significantly larger than 
standard ballasts, and as a result exhibit poor efficiency. According 
to manufacturers and market research, EISA 2007's exemption did not 
lead to a significant market shift to regulated-lag ballasts.
    The Appliance Standard Awareness Project (ASAP) encouraged DOE to 
consider coverage for regulated-lag ballasts. While ASAP stated that 
they understood that regulated-lag ballasts may be inherently less 
efficient, they suggested a separate equipment class with a lower 
standard might be more appropriate than no standard. They also stated 
that little information about the market for regulated-lag ballasts is 
available. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at p. 24) \12\ DOE

[[Page 51473]]

conducted additional research on regulated-lag ballasts and found none 
of these products available in major manufacturers' catalogs. DOE 
assumed that absence from catalogs indicates a very small market share, 
and concluded that there was no potential for significant energy 
savings through inclusion of these products in the scope of coverage. 
In addition, DOE continues to agree with the preliminary analysis that 
the size and weight of regulated-lag ballasts prohibit their use as 
substitutes in traditional applications. For the NOPR, DOE proposes to 
continue exempting from energy conservation standards fixtures that 
include regulated-lag ballasts and requests comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A notation in the form ``ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 33 at p. 24'' identifies a comment that DOE has received and 
included in the docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation 
refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by ASAP during the public meeting 
on April 18, 2011; (2) in the transcript of that public meeting, 
document number 33 in the docket of this rulemaking; and (3) 
appearing on page 24 of the transcript.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fixtures With 480 V Electronic Ballasts
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE also considered continuing the 
exemption of 480 V electronic ballasts based on their unavailability in 
the market. In its comments, Empower Electronics disagreed with the 
exemption, stating that 347 V and 480 V electronic ballasts for metal 
halide lamps are now feasible, and suggested that regulations could 
help the maturation of these technologies. (Empower Electronics, No. 36 
at pp. 3-4) \13\ Following additional research for the NOPR, DOE did 
identify one manufacturer of 480 V electronic ballasts, but determined 
that these ballasts have a very small market share based on their 
limited availability from distributors and only being manufactured by 
one company. Therefore, DOE concluded that there is no potential for 
significant energy savings and proposes to continue exempting fixtures 
that use 480 V electronic ballasts until DOE has an opportunity to 
analyze commercially available products. DOE requests comment on this 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A notation in the form ``Empower Electronics, No. 36 at pp. 
3-4'' identifies a written comment that DOE has received and 
included in the docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation 
refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Empower Electronics; (2) in 
document number 36 of the docket; and (3) on pages 3 to 4 of that 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exempted 150 W Fixtures
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered eliminating the current 
exemption for 150 W outdoor fixtures rated for wet and hot locations 
because these products could be made more efficient and have the 
potential for significant energy savings. Shipments for these exempted 
150 W fixtures increased in response to the EISA 2007 regulations (a 
shift from 175 W fixtures), further increasing the potential energy 
savings for regulations targeted at this product type. In addition, DOE 
found that many fixtures commonly used indoors (high- and low-bay 
fixtures for high-ceiling buildings) meet the high-temperature 
requirements and have the option of being rated for wet locations. DOE 
preliminarily concluded that some fixtures used indoors were using the 
exemption designed for outdoor fixtures, negating possible energy 
savings for indoor 150 W fixtures. DOE requested comment on the impact 
of eliminating the exemption for 150 W outdoor fixtures rated for wet 
and high-temperature locations.
    The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Philips 
Lighting Electronics (Philips), and Georgia Power commented that the 
wet-location and high-temperature outdoor 150 W fixture exemption was 
created in part to move the market from the popular 175 W ballast to 
the 150 W ballast, and lead to energy savings through a wattage 
reduction, and therefore does not constitute a loophole. (NEMA, No. 34 
at p. 4; Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at pp. 24-25; 
Georgia Power, No. 28 at p. 1) NEMA stated that this exemption is 
critical for outdoor lighting ballasts because 150 W magnetic ballasts 
cannot meet the 88 percent EISA 2007 requirement. NEMA contended that 
the power savings realized by shifting from 175 W lamps to 150 W lamps, 
and the risk that the market would migrate back to 175 W without the 
exemption, far outweigh any additional savings generated by requiring 
that 150 W ballasts meet a ballast efficiency requirement. (NEMA, No. 
34 at p. 4) DOE disagrees with NEMA that the removal of the exemption 
will result in a shift to 175 W fixtures. DOE is not required to set 
the standard for 150 W fixtures at or above the 88 percent minimum set 
by EISA 2007. Because these fixtures were not previously covered, 
setting a less stringent standard than 88 percent would not constitute 
backsliding and has the potential to save significant energy. DOE would 
analyze efficiency levels for 150 W fixtures according to the same 
criteria it uses for all other wattages. Section V.C.9 describes the 
efficiency levels under consideration in the NOPR for 150 W fixtures.
    Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) commented that there is 
no reason to continue the exclusion for fixtures rated for wet 
locations and ambient temperatures higher than 50 [deg]C. If electronic 
ballasts with their higher efficiencies cannot be utilized in these 
fixtures, NEEA suggested placing them in a separate class for standards 
purposes rather than excluding them from coverage. (NEEA, No. 31 at pp. 
1, 3) ASAP and, in a joint comment, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 
San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Gas Company, and Southern 
California Edison (hereafter the ``California Investor-Owned 
Utilities'' [CA IOUs]) also supported the coverage of 150 W fixtures 
because the exemption may have become a loophole. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 33 at p. 23; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 1)
    DOE agrees that these 150 W ballasts should be covered by this 
rulemaking and notes that the criteria for the scope of coverage for 
this rulemaking is defined as technology which is technologically 
feasible, economically justified, and has the potential for significant 
energy savings. Because a range of ballast efficiencies exist or are 
achievable in commercially available ballasts, DOE believes that 
improving the efficiencies of ballasts in 150 W fixtures in wet 
locations and high ambient temperatures is technologically feasible. 
DOE's analysis indicates that removing the wet-location and high-
ambient-temperature 150 W fixture exemption has the potential for 
energy savings and is economically justified. Therefore, in this NOPR, 
DOE proposes to remove the exemption for fixtures that are rated only 
for use with 150 W lamps, wet environments, and in ambient temperatures 
greater than 50 [deg]C and include these fixtures in the scope of 
coverage. DOE requests comment on this proposal.
2. Additional Rated Lamp Wattages
    During the preliminary analysis, DOE considered expanding its 
coverage of energy conservation standards to include metal halide lamp 
fixtures that operate lamps rated from 50 W to 150 W and fixtures that 
operate lamps rated greater than 500 W. DOE's review of ballast 
manufacturer catalogs (an indication of product availability) showed 
many types of metal halide ballasts for fixtures operating lamps rated 
outside the currently regulated wattage range. The catalogs showed that 
approximately 30 percent (by number of products, not by market share) 
of available metal halide ballasts are designed for lamps rated less 
than 150 W and approximately 13 percent of available metal halide 
ballasts are designed for lamps rated greater than 500 W. Due to the 
number of ballasts outside of the existing scope of coverage, DOE 
believed that there was potential for significant energy savings and 
considered including fixtures designed to operate lamps with rated

[[Page 51474]]

wattage >=50 W in the analysis. DOE received comment on expanding the 
scope to fixtures that operate lamps rated from 50 W to 150 W and 
fixtures that operate lamps rated greater than 500 W.
    In response to request for comment in the preliminary TSD, NEMA 
suggested that there is little energy savings to be realized by 
regulating fixtures for the 50 W to 150 W range due to their low energy 
usage and the movement of the market to the greater than 150 W power 
range. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 34 at p. 13) ASAP, NEEA, 
the CA IOUs, Empower Electronics, and Progress Energy Carolinas 
supported the expansion of scope to the greater than 50 W and less than 
150 W range discussed in the preliminary TSD. (ASAP, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 33 at p. 23; NEEA, No. 31 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 32 at 
p. 1; Empower Electronics, No. 36 at p. 3; Progress Energy Carolinas, 
No. 24 at p. 2) DOE conducted testing within the 50 W to 150 W range 
and identified varying efficiencies within a single wattage, which 
suggests that standards to improve the least-efficient ballasts are 
technologically feasible. Furthermore, as discussed in section VI.B.3, 
DOE determined that standards for this wattage range have the potential 
for significant energy savings. Therefore, DOE proposes to include 
fixtures designed to operate lamps rated >=50 W and <150 W.
    DOE also received comment on the greater than 500 W equipment 
class. Georgia Power stated that regulating high wattages (such as 1000 
W and 1500 W) would save little energy at significant cost. (Georgia 
Power, No. 28 at p. 2) ASAP, NEEA, the CA IOUs, Empower Electronics, 
and Progress Energy Carolinas, however, agreed with DOE's preliminary 
findings and supported the expansion of scope to the >500 W range 
discussed in the preliminary TSD. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
33 at p. 23; NEEA, No. 31 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 1; Empower 
Electronics, No. 36 at p. 3; Progress Energy Carolinas, No. 24 at p. 2) 
In terms of technological feasibility, NEMA stated that the ballasts 
included in high-wattage fixtures are already up to 92 percent 
efficient. NEMA took the position that because this efficiency is 
comparable to the efficiencies of lower-wattage equipment with the 
highest-grade components, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 
define energy efficiency requirements that would result in appreciable 
savings. Still, NEMA supported DOE's determination that ballasts 
greater than 500 W were within the scope of DOE's authority for 
preclusion of ``state-by-state'' rulemaking through preemption (NEMA, 
No. 34 at p. 3) In terms of potential for significant energy savings, 
NEMA noted that market estimates for greater-than-500-W ballasts are on 
the order of 15 percent, while the total energy use for equipment in 
this power range is estimated to be as high as 40 percent of the total 
of installed metal halide lamp fixtures. Id.
    DOE agrees that the greater-than-500-W ballasts have higher 
efficiencies than the lower-wattage equipment. However, based on test 
data, DOE still found a range of efficiencies present in commercially 
available ballasts, indicating technological feasibility. DOE also 
verified NEMA's comment that these high-wattage products have fewer 
shipments than the lower-wattage products included in this rulemaking, 
but they consume more energy per installation. DOE's analysis indicates 
that regulation of these higher wattages could be economically 
justified and has the potential for significant energy savings. 
Finally, based on review of product catalogs, DOE determined that 
fixtures rated for use with lamps rated for wattages greater than 2000 
W served small-market-share applications like graphic arts, ultraviolet 
curing, and scanners. Therefore, DOE proposes not to include fixtures 
rated for wattages greater than 2000 W in this rulemaking. In summary, 
because DOE finds economic justification and potential energy savings 
in regulating ballasts greater than 500 W and less than or equal to 
2000 W, DOE proposes that these fixtures be included in the scope of 
this rulemaking. DOE requests comment on this proposal.
3. General Lighting
    EISA 2007 defines the scope of this rulemaking as applying to 
fixtures used in general lighting applications. (42 U.S.C. 6291(64)) In 
section 2 of 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart A, a general lighting application 
is defined as lighting that provides an interior or exterior area with 
overall illumination. DOE is proposing to add this definition to 10 CFR 
431.2,\14\ the section of the CFR that relates to commercial and 
industrial equipment. DOE applies this definition to determine which 
lighting applications DOE has the authority to cover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The general lighting application definition prescribed by 
EISA 2007 was previously incorporated into the consumer products 
section (10 CFR Part 430), but has not yet been added to the 
commercial and industrial equipment section (10 CFR Part 431).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA and OSRAM SYLVANIA (OSI) recommended capping the greater-than-
500 W class at 1000 W because 1000 W is the highest wattage used for 
general lighting applications, arguing that DOE does not have authority 
to consider higher wattages. (NEMA, No. 34 at pp. 13-14; OSI, No. 27 at 
p. 4) OSI also commented that metal halide systems are also used in 
specialty applications such as stage, theater, television, film, solar 
simulation, airfield, medical/surgical, microscope, endoscope, video 
projection, display, treatment of skin disorders, sports, and 
automotive. OSI recommended that these specialized applications be 
excluded from this rulemaking. (OSI, No. 27 at p. 7)
    DOE's research indicated that there are a number of fixtures 
available for general lighting applications above 1000 W. The primary 
application of such fixtures is outdoor sports lighting, which commonly 
uses metal halide ballasts of 1000 W to 2000 W. Because sports lighting 
provides overall illumination to an exterior area (playing field and 
stadium), DOE believes sports lighting does meet the definition of a 
general lighting application. While DOE agrees that some special 
applications listed by OSI do not fit under the covered general 
illumination definition, others, such as sports and airfield lighting, 
do provide general illumination to an exterior area and are covered by 
this rulemaking. DOE requests comment on this proposal.
4. Summary
    DOE proposes to include metal halide lamp fixtures designed to 
operate ballasts rated from 50 W to 2000 W and for use in general 
lighting applications in the scope of coverage. EISA 2007 exempted 
specific metal halide lamp fixtures from regulation. These included (a) 
fixtures that include regulated-lag ballasts, (b) fixtures that include 
480 V electronic metal halide ballasts, and (c) fixtures that include 
lamps rated at 150 W with ballasts that (1) are rated for use in wet 
locations and (2) contain a ballast that is rated to operate at ambient 
air temperatures greater than 50 [deg]C. In this rulemaking, DOE 
proposes to continue the exemption for the first two categories 
(regulated-lag ballasts and 480 V electronic ballasts) but not for the 
third, certain 150 W fixtures. DOE finds that regulating these 150 W 
ballasts could provide considerable potential energy savings and would 
be economically justifiable. As such, DOE proposes that the 150 W 
ballasts rated for use in wet locations and containing a ballast that 
is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures greater than 50 [deg]C 
be covered in this rulemaking.

[[Page 51475]]

B. Alternative Approaches to Energy Conservation Standards: System 
Approaches

    EISA 2007 requires DOE to set standards for metal halide lamp 
fixtures. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(2)) As previously stated, although metal 
halide lamp fixtures usually comprise a metal halide lamp, a metal 
halide ballast, and other fixture components, EPCA established MHLF 
energy conservation standards by setting minimum efficiency 
requirements for only the ballast. For the preliminary analysis, DOE 
considered three system approaches as alternatives to regulating only 
ballast efficiency. The first was a lamp and ballast system approach in 
which the lamp and ballast would be rated together in terms of lumens 
per lamp-ballast system watts. The second was a whole fixture system 
approach in which the ballast, lamp, and optics/enclosure would all be 
rated together in terms of a fixture-level metric such as Fitted Target 
Efficacy (FTE) or Target Efficacy Rating (TER). The third was an 
approach similar to California Title 20, which allowed for multiple 
compliance pathways utilizing a combination of design standards, 
ballast efficiency standards, and lamp wattage requirements. DOE 
received several comments on these three system approaches.
    In general, interested parties recognized the potential value for 
system approaches over a ballast efficiency approach, but also noted 
several limitations related to each possible approach. NEEA supported 
systems approaches to rating equipment, but did not find any of the 
three specific approaches discussed in the preliminary analysis to be 
practicable to implement. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2) Philips stated that, 
generally, NEMA considers the system approach to be the preferred 
approach for any rulemaking. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
33 at p. 32) Philips noted that a system approach is an extremely 
complex issue and pointed out that there are other metrics beyond those 
that DOE listed as under consideration. (Philips, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 33 at pp. 36-37) DOE found that the three system 
approaches considered in the preliminary TSD have the theoretical 
potential of saving more energy than the current ballast-only approach, 
but also have many practical limitations. DOE weighed the benefits and 
drawbacks of each system approach, but for this rulemaking, DOE 
proposes a ballast-efficiency approach consistent with the current EISA 
2007 regulations. DOE discusses each of the system approaches in the 
following sections. DOE also discusses the possibility of a coordinated 
metal halide lamp fixture and high-intensity discharge lamp rulemaking 
in section III.C as an additional approach to considering all aspects 
of the metal halide lighting system when considering energy 
conservation standards.
1. Lamp-Ballast System
    In the lamp-ballast system approach, metal halide lamp fixtures 
would be regulated on the basis of a lumens-per-watt metric that 
assesses the performance of the lamp and ballast included in the 
fixture. Fixture manufacturers would be required to report the system 
lumens per watt (lm/W) of every lamp and ballast pair included in their 
fixtures. This approach has the potential to save more energy and allow 
more design flexibility for manufacturers. However, this approach is 
somewhat at odds with current fixture sales practices. Fixture 
manufacturers commonly ship fixtures with the ballast installed to 
ensure that the fixture is compliant with fire safety requirements and 
meets energy conservation standards. There are currently no 
requirements for fixtures to be shipped with certain lamps, and in 
general, fixture manufacturers noted that few fixtures are sold with 
lamps, giving customers flexibility to choose lamps from a variety of 
manufacturers. In a lamp-ballast system approach, fixture manufacturers 
would be required to provide fixtures with installed lamps and 
ballasts, and customers would be limited to predetermined lamp and 
ballast combinations.
    During preliminary interviews, DOE found that there are several 
metal halide ballast manufacturers that do not manufacture metal halide 
lamps. In a lamp-ballast system approach, these manufacturers could 
have a competitive disadvantage compared with manufacturers that 
manufacture both lamps and ballasts. Manufacturers said that for 
fixture manufacturers that are not vertically integrated (i.e., fixture 
manufacturers that do not also produce lamps and ballasts), sourcing 
lamp and ballast systems is problematic as only a few manufacturers 
have the capability to provide them. Non-vertically-integrated 
manufacturers also said that they would not have the same ability to 
optimize the fixtures as their lamp and ballast-manufacturer 
competitors. Based on the concern that some manufacturers would be at a 
disadvantage to their vertically integrated competitors and that 
fixtures are typically not shipped with lamps, DOE preliminarily 
determined that ballast efficiency was a better approach than lamp-
ballast systems.
    NEMA described the pros and cons of a simple lumens-per-watt 
standard based on a lamp-ballast system. NEMA stated that this 
methodology provides more technological flexibility and can yield 
overall higher performance by including the effect of lamp efficacy. On 
the other hand, NEMA stated that there are compatibility issues with 
operation of certain lamp and ballast pairs. While some of these 
compatibility issues would be resolved through use of a database, that 
database would require management by the industry, which represents 
additional cost and a reporting burden if manufacturers are required to 
report on various lamp and ballast combinations. It also might require 
manufacturers to transport mercury (if DOE mandates that a fixture be 
sold with a lamp). (NEMA, No. 34 at p. 5)
    Georgia Power and NEEA commented on the practical limitations of a 
lamp-ballast system approach. Georgia Power pointed out that utilities 
buy lamps and fixtures separately and strive to minimize the number of 
lamp types that they must stock to use in new and existing fixtures. 
Georgia Power said that matching different lamps to different ballasts 
of the same wattage would be costly and very confusing. Additionally, 
Georgia Power noted that training the installers and relampers would be 
costly and impractical for the utilities. (Georgia Power, No. 28 at p. 
1) NEEA commented that because there is no way to control which 
replacement lamps are used after the initial lamp fails, real system 
energy savings may be smaller than forecasts that assume an equivalent 
lamp is used as a replacement. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2)
    With regards to lamp-ballast compatibility concerns with a lamp-
ballast approach to setting standards, OSI commented that lamp and 
electronic ballast manufacturers already maintain lists of compatible 
products, indicating a lamp-ballast approach would not create 
additional burden. OSI stated that NEMA's main concern is with high-
frequency electronic ballasts operating high-wattage lamps. As noted in 
section V.C.8, these ballasts can create acoustic resonance problems 
with lamps. The issue is further complicated by the fact that different 
lamps have different acoustic resonance points. OSI noted that NEMA has 
assembled a task force on lamp and electronic ballast compatibility 
issues, and the task force is close to finalizing compatibility test 
procedures. Once finalized, each manufacturer will conduct testing 
based on the procedure to determine

[[Page 51476]]

compatibility with other products. OSI recommended that all electronic 
metal halide ballasts be designed to meet existing American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) standards based on magnetic operation. This 
redesign will help assure lamp and ballast compatibility. (OSI, No. 27 
at p. 7)
    In the preliminary TSD, DOE also considered a `table of standard 
lamps' for use in a lamp-ballast system standard approach. The use of a 
table of standard lamps would allow for fixture performance to be 
assigned to all fixtures, including those not shipped with lamps. This 
table of standard lamps would allow for conversion of tested ballast 
efficiency to lumens per watt for determination of compliance with a 
lamp-ballast system standard, mitigating the potential for lost 
competitive advantage for ballast-only manufacturers. NEEA commented 
that they did not agree that a table of standard lamps (and a lamp-
ballast system approach without a table of standard lamps) would 
adequately control which replacement lamps are used in fixtures. (NEEA, 
No. 31 at p. 2)
    DOE recognizes these positive and negative aspects of the lamp and 
ballast approach (both with and without the table of standard lamps) 
and has weighed them carefully and tentatively decided not to propose 
this approach. DOE found that a lamp and ballast system approach might 
be burdensome due to unresolved compatibility and compliance issues 
related to specifying performance of every lamp and ballast combination 
sold. DOE tentatively agrees with Georgia Power's concern that some 
users could need to stock multiple lamps for pairing with different 
manufacturers' ballasts of the same wattage, unless they were willing 
to place all of their lamp and ballast orders from a single supplier. 
Additionally, once the original lamp fails, customers may replace it 
with a lower-efficacy alternative. A lamp-ballast system approach could 
also complicate defining categories and classes. In regards to a lamp-
ballast system approach with a table of standard lamps, DOE agrees with 
NEEA that such a table would not address customers using less-
efficacious replacement lamps and does not provide an adequate 
improvement over a traditional lamp-ballast system approach or a simple 
ballast efficiency approach. Though inclusion of the table could be 
more equitable for ballast-only manufacturers, it is still hindered by 
compliance and compatibility issues, and would likely result in less 
energy savings than a pure lamp-ballast system approach.
2. Fixtures Systems--Lamp, Ballast, Optics, and Enclosure
    For the preliminary TSD, DOE analyzed fixture-level metrics by 
conducting independent research and interviewing manufacturers. DOE 
found that fixture energy use depends on four variables: (1) Lamp 
efficacy; (2) ballast efficiency; (3) light absorption by the fixture; 
and (4) usefulness of light emitted by the fixture (direction or light 
distribution pattern). DOE considered two alternative metrics to 
quantify these areas of importance, namely FTE and TER. DOE drafted the 
FTE metric for the solid-state lighting (SSL) ENERGY STAR[supreg] 
program. NEMA, along with its luminaire division, developed TER. FTE 
and TER metrics treat each fixture-energy-use area of importance more 
effectively in some ways than others.
    The FTE metric measures the fixture performance by fitting a 
rectangle to a uniform ``pool'' of light for each fixture, then 
multiplying the lumens delivered to this pool by the percent coverage 
of the rectangular target, and dividing the result by input watts to 
the fixture. Because FTE was developed for roadway and parking lot 
applications, separate algorithms for each respective application would 
need to be calculated and verified. As FTE is calculated using a 
rectangular area, a fixture that is designed to (1) light a non-
rectangular area, (2) produce a large amount of unlighted area within 
the rectangle, or (3) produce specific light patterns that light both a 
horizontal plane and a vertical plane, or even above the fixture, will 
be at a disadvantage.
    TER involves calculating fixture efficacy by multiplying the light 
leaving the fixture by the Coefficient of Utilization (CU), which 
factors in the distribution of light, room geometry, and room surface 
reflectances. CU represents the percentage of rated lamp lumens 
reaching the workplane. The calculation of efficacy for TER also takes 
into account lamp and ballast efficiency. TER has 22 different types of 
luminaire classifications, each with a different TER calculation method 
and value,\15\ though every classification is not applicable to metal 
halide lamp fixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ There are two main calculation methods--one for indoor and 
one for outdoor applications. The methods are then customized to 
each classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the preliminary TSD, DOE tentatively decided not to implement 
either FTE or TER. DOE found that FTE only accounts for light hitting 
the specified test area and does not take into account other surfaces 
that the fixture is designed to light. This methodology disadvantages 
fixture types not designed to light a uniform, flat, rectangular space. 
DOE tentatively decided not to use TER out of concern that certain 
fixtures could fall within multiple categories of fixture due to their 
designs. Because of the need for uniformity and more simplicity, DOE 
preliminarily found TER unsuitable this rulemaking. The following 
discussion describes the comments DOE received about the use of these 
metrics.
    Georgia Power and Progress Energy Carolinas suggested that TER and 
FTE were better metrics than the current ballast-efficiency metric 
because they address the optical performance of the entire fixture, 
accounting for light directionality and losses. (Georgia Power, No. 28 
at p. 1; Progress Energy Carolinas, No. 24 at p. 1) However, NEEA 
commented that it did not believe that FTE or TER is appropriate as the 
basis for energy efficiency standards at this time. NEEA stated that 
either approach could be used as a design optimization framework, but 
both have sufficient drawbacks and lack of field implementation 
experience that render them unusable as the basis for a minimum 
efficiency standard. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2) NEMA agreed with the 
preliminary TSD, stating that because this rulemaking covers all types 
of products (e.g., downlights, track lighting, industrial highbay/
lowbay, streetlighting, roadway lighting, floodlights, parking lots, 
parking garages), it is challenging to define a metric that effectively 
covers all applications without flawed assumptions. Specifically, NEMA 
pointed out that none of the metrics considered covers equipment that 
is designed to be aimed or tilted. (NEMA, No. 34 at p. 6) Both NEEA and 
Empower Electronics also supported DOE's determination from the 
preliminary TSD not to use either FTE or TER. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2; 
Empower Electronics, No. 36 at p. 4)
    Though a fixture-level metric has the potential to save the most 
energy, DOE does not believe an approach currently exists that 
adequately assesses the types of metal halide lamp fixtures included in 
this rulemaking. Because FTE is focused on applications that deliver 
light to a horizontal space and a TER standard would require fixture 
classifications that have not yet been developed, DOE has determined 
that ballast efficiency is a better approach at this time. Therefore, 
DOE does not find fixture-level metrics practicable for setting 
standards for this equipment at this time, and proposes not to use a 
system-approach metric in this rulemaking.

[[Page 51477]]

3. California Title 20 Approach
    California's Title 20 \16\ includes regulations that aim to reduce 
energy consumption in appliances, including metal halide lamp 
fixtures.\17\ For metal halide lamp fixtures, Title 20 requires 
compliance through one of four primary paths: (1) The use of lamps from 
reduced-wattage bins with a minimum 88 percent efficient ballast; (2) 
an integrated motion sensor and high-low control with a minimum 88 
percent efficient ballast; (3) an integrated daylight sensor and high-
low control (for indoor only) with a minimum 88 percent efficient 
ballast; and (4) high-efficiency ballasts with a minimum efficiency of 
90 percent for 150 W to 250 W lamps or 92 percent for 251 W to 500 W 
lamps. In the preliminary TSD, DOE requested comment on the 
implementation of a similar approach, with multiple options for 
compliance, including the integration of controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ www.energy.ca.gov/regs/title20/.
    \17\ California's term `metal halide luminaire' refers to the 
same item as DOE's `metal halide lamp fixture.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters gave direct feedback on the Title 20 approach. 
Energy Solutions supported DOE's consideration of a Title 20 or Title-
20-like approach. (Energy Solutions, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 
at p. 39) NEMA and Acuity Brands Lighting (Acuity) stated that although 
it also adds complexity to the associated enforcement and reporting, 
the Title 20 approach provides flexibility for manufacturers and 
designers. Additionally, NEMA and Acuity noted that the Title 20 
requirement for 336 W to 500 W reduced-wattage lamps to produce 80 lm/W 
is not currently achievable. Acuity requested that DOE not consider 
these lamp specifications, and stated that they have been working with 
the California Energy Commission (CEC) to correct that efficacy level. 
(NEMA, No. 34 at p. 6; Acuity, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at p. 
41)
    NEMA and Philips then addressed regulations that consider lamps and 
ballasts simultaneously for analysis, but assign performance metrics to 
each component individually. NEMA commented that they would support 
regulation that allows for lower ballast efficiency requirements in 
conjunction with higher lamp efficacy requirements. However, NEMA noted 
that a requirement to ship high-efficacy lamps in new fixtures would 
not prevent future replacement of these lamps with lower-efficacy 
alternatives. (NEMA, No. 34 at p. 5) Philips noted that it is possible 
to specify certain lamps for particular fixtures through an 
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing. Philips explained that if a 
ballast and a fixture are labeled for a particular lamp, then that 
fixture would only keep its UL listing when that lamp is used. This 
could mitigate the risk that the type of lamp originally packaged with 
the fixture would be replaced with a less-efficacious alternative. 
Additionally, Philips pointed out that for ENERGY STAR and fluorescent 
lamps, NEMA has maintained a table of corresponding lamp and ballast 
efficacies so that fixture manufacturers can easily select compliant 
products. Philips suggested that DOE could create a similar database 
for this rulemaking. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at pp. 
33-34)
    DOE also received many comments on the controls and dimming 
compliance pathways of the Title 20 approach. The CA IOUs noted that 
dimming and occupancy controls can greatly reduce the overall 
electricity consumption of a lighting system. The CA IOUs stated that 
many electronic ballasts in the 150 W to 575 W range include dimming 
circuitry. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 5) OSI agreed that the use of dimming 
as an energy-saving tool is growing. OSI clarified that it is actually 
easier to develop an electronic metal halide dimming ballast than a 
magnetic one; and the electronic ballast will provide more utility for 
the end user. (OSI, No. 27 at p. 3) The CA IOUs specifically noted that 
for outdoor fixtures, from a public safety standpoint, dimming can be 
prohibitively slow in magnetic ballasts. However, there are 
commercially available electronically ballasted systems with 
appropriate response times that are much better suited for the 
transition towards fully controllable and dimmable fixtures. (CA IOUs, 
No. 32 at p. 5)
    Several commenters provided feedback on the relative merits of 
electronic metal halide lamp dimming, magnetic metal halide lamp 
dimming, and other lighting technologies like fluorescent lighting. OSI 
explained that magnetic ballasts (by using a split capacitor) can only 
provide two light levels (bi-level dimming). An electronic ballast has 
a microprocessor to provide stepped dimming at programmed levels or 
continuous dimming using a 0 to 10 V signal. A continuously dimming 
ballast is compatible with daylight harvesting, scheduling, building 
management, demand response systems, and other processes where dimming 
is desirable. OSI stated that dimming can be provided in various 
applications, including outdoor lighting, by replacing a magnetic 
ballast with an electronic one with no rewiring needed. (OSI, No. 27 at 
p. 3) Progress Energy Carolinas stated that bi-level dimming in 
magnetic ballasts has been around for years and has a proven track 
record. Although there is an efficacy decrease associated with dimming 
to 50 percent, Progress Energy Carolinas concluded that bi-level 
dimming is cost effective. (Progress Energy Carolinas, No. 24. at pp. 
1-2) NEMA stated, however, that the incremental cost associated with an 
integrated bi-level dimming control in a metal halide lamp fixture can 
almost double the overall fixture cost. By contrast, the cost of 
integrated controls for a fluorescent lamp fixture designed for the 
same application requirements are about 30 to 40 percent higher than 
without controls, and the controls have more functionality due to the 
instant on and continuous dimming capability of the fluorescent system. 
For these reasons, NEMA argued that bi-level dimming with metal halide 
lamp fixtures is more costly and has less functionality than 
alternative technologies. (NEMA, No. 34 at p. 9)
    Next, DOE received several comments relating to the applications 
that commonly use dimming, and the potential for difficulty in 
distinguishing some of these categories based on technical features. 
NEMA pointed out that although dimming metal halide lamp fixtures in 
certain applications where there is sporadic or limited occupancy 
(e.g., high-bay and low-bay applications for warehousing) can result in 
significant energy reduction, many MHLF applications are not well 
suited for bi-level control capabilities, such as operations and 
roadway lighting that operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 
(NEMA, No. 34 at p. 9) Progress Energy Carolinas also noted that apart 
from dusk-to-dawn photocontrol, occupancy sensors will not work for 
street lighting. Progress Energy Carolinas stated that street lighting 
would need to be controlled with a smart-box type of control. (Progress 
Energy Carolinas, No. 24 at p. 2) Cooper Lighting suggested that DOE 
analyze dimming in roadway lighting separately from other applications. 
(Cooper, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at p. 40) Georgia Power 
recognized that the specifics of which applications can and cannot be 
dimmed, and how to measure energy reduction in unmetered applications 
(e.g., roadway lighting provided by a utility), will be complex. 
(Georgia Power, No. 28 at p. 1) NEMA noted that because DOE cannot 
distinguish products based on application type, it is unclear how DOE 
would describe regulatory requirements without specifying the use of 
controls based on application characteristics.

[[Page 51478]]

(NEMA, No. 34 at p. 9) Specifically, NEMA also observed that the Title 
20 approach requires differentiation between indoor and outdoor 
products, which DOE would have to define based on product attributes. 
(NEMA, No. 34 at p. 6)
    Several commenters reported on the low percentage of fixtures using 
the controls pathways to compliance for California Title 20. Energy 
Solutions and the CA IOUs reported that of the chosen compliance 
pathways recorded in the CEC Appliance Database, most are either the 
reduced lamp wattage or the ballast efficiency requirement; not many 
report the controls compliance pathway. (Energy Solutions, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at pp. 39-40; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2) 
Philips explained that the controls compliance pathway has not been 
embraced because Title 20 requires all pieces of a control system to be 
integral to the fixture. Philips urged DOE to consider that a 
simplified approach to controllable fixtures would encourage more 
dimming systems and, therefore, more energy savings. (Philips Lighting 
Electronics, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at p. 40) Similarly, 
NEMA supported the concept of controllable fixtures and also suggested 
that controls be separate from the fixture for any regulations. NEMA 
stated that any incorporation of controls should be technology-neutral, 
allowing various control technologies without requiring the control to 
be integral to the fixture. (NEMA, No. 34 at p. 6)
    NEEA expressed concern over any forecasted energy savings resulting 
from the implementation of dimming ballasts, commenting that the 
presence of controls and the capability of dimming are no guarantee of 
use, and therefore, no guarantee of the promised energy savings. 
Consequently, NEEA did not agree with a Title 20 approach as part of a 
federal minimum efficiency standard. Furthermore, NEEA opposed DOE's 
adoption of the Title 20 approach because California's regulatory 
approach depends heavily on the existence of its Title 24 regulations 
(which have no DOE analog) for compliance and enforcement, including 
verifying the installation of the qualifying components that would meet 
the system requirements. For these reasons, NEEA felt that the Title 20 
approach is unworkable at the federal level. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 3)
    In response to the various approaches in California Title 20, DOE 
is concerned that adopting these methods would risk reducing energy 
savings and complicating compliance and enforcement relative to 
ballast-efficiency-only regulations. With regards to the controls/
dimming approach, DOE tentatively agrees that a standard requiring the 
presence of controls or dimming does not ensure energy savings. DOE 
believes that the use of such technologies is much less popular for 
metal halide systems relative to other lighting technologies. Metal 
halide lamp fixtures typically take 5 to 10 minutes to re-strike and 
turn on again after being turned off, so controls that would turn metal 
halide lamp fixtures on and off more frequently have less utility 
relative to lighting with instant restarting capability. Additionally, 
a majority of metal halide lamp fixtures installed today use magnetic 
ballasts. Magnetic ballasts are typically only capable of bi-level 
dimming, giving them less functionality compared to other lighting 
technologies. Regarding the approach to allow less-efficient ballasts 
when sold in fixtures with more efficacious lamps, DOE is concerned 
that some energy savings could be lost if the lamp is replaced with a 
less efficacious lamp after the first failure, similar to its 
conclusions with lamp and ballast systems. Given the uncertainty of 
resulting energy savings, DOE has tentatively decided not to propose 
Title-20-like standards in this rulemaking.

C. Combined Rulemakings

    In addition to system approaches, another method for maximizing 
energy savings and simplifying compliance would be to combine the metal 
halide lamp fixture and high-intensity discharge (HID) lamp rulemakings 
(Docket EERE-2010-BT-STD-0043). These rulemakings are related because 
the MH lamps used in metal halide lamp fixtures are a subset of HID 
lamps. During the comment period and the public meeting for the metal 
halide lamp fixture preliminary TSD, and also in subsequent 
manufacturer interviews, DOE received requests that DOE consider metal 
halide lamp fixtures and HID lamps in a combined manner. The stated 
benefits of this approach include maximizing potential energy savings, 
avoiding conflicting rules for related technologies, avoiding 
duplicative efforts, improving consistency and ease of review, saving 
taxpayer dollars, and simplifying compliance. Based on the outcome of 
this NOPR, DOE will consider how to best combine the rulemakings.
    OSI, NEMA, and Philips commented that the metal halide lamp fixture 
rulemaking should be conducted in conjunction with metal halide lamp 
rulemakings. (OSI, No. 27 at p. 6; NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
33 at p. 15; NEMA, No. 34 at p. 5; Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 33 at p. 32) NEMA expressed concern that potential energy savings 
could be missed by keeping the metal halide lamp fixtures and HID lamps 
rulemakings separate. (NEMA, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at p. 
15) OSI and NEMA recommended that the ballast efficiency and lamp 
efficacy regulations be completed in conjunction so that overall system 
efficacy can be recognized in resulting regulations. (OSI, No. 27 at p. 
6; NEMA, No. 34 at p. 21) Additionally, Philips stated that keeping the 
lamp and ballast rulemakings separate will add complexity to 
maintaining lamp and ballast compatibility. (Philips, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 33 at p. 32) Philips noted that if ballast regulations 
eliminate certain ballast types, they may also take certain lamps out 
of the market, losing all energy savings that were meant to be 
generated by the lamps' standards. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 33 at p. 132)
    In its work to date on the HID lamp and MHLF energy conservation 
standards, DOE has identified and is using a number of shared data 
sources and analytical processes in the two rulemakings. The following 
is an initial inventory of rulemaking data and processes either fully 
or partially shared between HID lamps and metal halide lamp fixtures:
     market and technology assessments;
     distribution channels and price markups;
     annual operating hours;
     lamp, fixture, and ballast lifetimes;
     lamp lumen maintenance;
     installation times and costs;
     electricity prices;
     discount rates;
     lamp and fixture shipments;
     life-cycle cost (LCC) subgroup analysis; and
     Regulatory impact analysis.
    DOE is currently evaluating the data and analytical processes that 
are shared between the two rulemakings.

D. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption Standards

    EPCA requires energy conservation standards adopted for covered 
equipment after July 1, 2010 to address standby mode and off mode 
energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) The requirement to incorporate 
standby mode and off mode energy use into the energy conservation 
standards analysis is therefore applicable in this rulemaking. 10 CFR 
431.322 defines the terms ``active mode,'' ``standby mode,'' and ``off 
mode'' as follows:
     ``Active mode'' is the condition in which an energy-using 
piece of

[[Page 51479]]

equipment is connected to a main power source, has been activated, and 
provides one or more main functions.
     ``Off mode'' is the condition in which an energy-using 
piece of equipment is connected to a main power source, and is not 
providing any standby or active mode function.
     ``Standby mode'' is the condition in which an energy-using 
piece of equipment is connected to a main power source and offers one 
or more of the following user-oriented or protective functions: 
facilitating the activation or deactivation of other functions 
(including active mode) by remote switch (including remote control), 
internal sensor, or timer; or providing continuous functions, including 
information or status displays (including clocks) or sensor-based 
functions.
    For the preliminary TSD, DOE analyzed these definitions to 
determine their applicability to metal halide lamp fixtures. DOE 
tentatively found that it is possible for metal halide fixtures to 
operate in active mode and standby mode. The off mode condition does 
not apply because metal halide lamp fixtures do not operate in off 
mode. 74 FR 33171, 33175 (July 10, 2009).\18\ Therefore, for this 
energy conservation standard rulemaking, DOE only considered the active 
mode and standby mode energy use provisions from EISA 2007 applicable 
to metal halide lamp fixtures that are (or could be) covered by this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The definition of ``off mode'' requires that ballasts be 
connected to a main power source and not provide any standby mode or 
active mode function. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii)) As discussed in 
the metal halide ballast test procedures, DOE does not believe that 
there is any condition in which the ballast is connected to the main 
power source and is not already accounted for in either active mode 
or standby mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that metal halide lamp fixtures can be designed with 
auxiliary control devices, which could consume energy in standby mode. 
One example of this fixture design involves Digitally Addressable Light 
Interface (DALI) enabled ballasts. These ballasts may draw power in 
standby mode, as the internal circuitry remains on and active even when 
the ballast is not driving any lamps. DOE has yet to encounter such a 
ballast that it could purchase. DOE has continued to search for and 
consider DALI-enabled fixtures, as well as other types of metal halide 
lamp fixtures, to evaluate the issue of standby mode energy use in 
metal halide lamp fixtures. In the preliminary TSD, DOE tentatively 
concluded that it cannot establish a separate standard that 
incorporates standby mode energy use and invited comments on the issue 
of standby mode and ballast designs that incorporate it.
    Philips and NEMA both expressed NEMA's view, agreeing that a 
standard cannot be established for standby mode energy consumption. 
(Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at p. 29, NEMA, No. 34 at 
p. 3) Empower Electronics also commented that a standby mode energy 
standard cannot be established. (Empower Electronics, No. 36 at p. 2) 
NEEA agreed with DOE's findings and proposals for standby mode and off 
mode. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2)
    With no new findings with regard to ballasts drawing power in 
standby and off modes and comments supporting DOE's preliminary 
proposal, DOE continues to conclude in this NOPR that it cannot 
establish a separate standard that incorporates standby mode or off 
mode energy consumption.

IV. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

1. Current Test Procedures
    The current test procedures for metal halide ballasts and fixtures 
are outlined in Subpart S of 10 CFR Part 431. The test conditions, 
setup, and methodology generally follow the guidance of ANSI C82.6-
2005. Testing requires the use of a reference lamp, which is to be 
driven by the ballast under test conditions until the ballast reaches 
operational stability. Ballast efficiency for the fixture is then 
calculated as the measured ballast output power divided by the ballast 
input power. In this NOPR, DOE proposes changes to test input voltage, 
testing electronic ballasts, and rounding requirements.
2. Test Input Voltage
    Metal halide ballasts can be operated at a variety of voltages, 
with different voltages chosen based on the application and use of the 
fixture. The most common voltages are 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, 277 V, and 
480 V. Ballasts will also commonly be rated for more than one, such as 
dual-input-voltage ballasts that can be operated on 120 V or 277 V, or 
quad-input-voltage ballasts that can be operated on 120 V, 208 V, 240 
V, or 277 V. DOE received manufacturer feedback that the specific 
design of a ballast and the voltage of the lamp operated by the ballast 
can affect the trend between input voltage and efficiency. DOE likewise 
observed that changes in efficiency (on the level of several percent) 
were possible in individual ballasts based on its own testing of 
multiple-input-voltage ballasts.
    The existing test procedures do not specify the voltage at which a 
ballast is to be tested. Therefore, to ensure consistency among testing 
and reported efficiencies, the input voltage should be specified in the 
test procedures. To set an energy conservation standard based on test 
data, DOE needed to determine which input voltage to use for its data. 
In addition, manufacturers would need to their equipment at the same 
input voltage that DOE used when developing energy conservation 
standards for the regulations to have the intended effect. Because the 
majority of ballasts sold are capable of operating at multiple input 
voltages, DOE is considering standardizing this aspect of testing. In 
the preliminary TSD, DOE requested comment on this issue, specifically 
on the possibility of testing at all input voltages and reporting the 
average of the efficiencies. DOE discusses several input voltage 
specification options in the following paragraphs.
a. Average of Tested Efficiency at All Possible Voltages
    In the preliminary TSD, DOE asked for comment on the possibility of 
testing ballasts at each input voltage at which they are able to 
operate, then having a standard for the average of these efficiencies. 
NEEA commented that they saw the positive aspects of this method of 
testing. NEEA said that even though it would increase testing burden, 
it would also reduce efficiency bias associated with input voltage. 
(NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2) Philips commented that adapting a magnetic 
ballast for use with multiple input voltages lowers the efficiencies on 
one or more of the voltages, but the market has demanded the use of 
multi-tap ballasts, especially because the manufacturers desire to 
reduce inventory in an effort to lower cost. (Philips, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 33 at p. 28) NEMA said it disagreed with measuring at 
multiple voltages and then averaging due to the increased testing 
burden and associated costs. (NEMA, No. 34 at p. 2) Although DOE found 
little difference in ballast efficiency at different input voltages, 
DOE recognizes the possibility for efficiencies associated with rarely 
used input voltages to skew the overall efficiency of ballasts under 
this averaged-efficiencies approach. For example, a ballast might have 
the capability to operate on 120 V and 277 V at approximately 90 
percent efficiency, but at 208 V (an uncommon input voltage for metal 
halide lighting) it operated at only 88 percent efficiency. Averaging 
these three efficiencies would lead to a reported value of about 89 
percent, when the ballast will in all

[[Page 51480]]

likelihood only operate at 120 V or 277 V (at 90 percent efficiency). 
In this instance, averaging the efficiencies misrepresents the 
performance of the ballast in its most common uses. Additionally, DOE 
recognizes that testing at each input voltage could increase the burden 
relative to a requirement of testing ballasts at only a single voltage. 
For these reasons, in this NOPR, DOE is not proposing to test at all 
available input voltages and average the resulting efficiencies.
b. Posting the Highest and Lowest Efficiencies
    Another approach, suggested by Empower Electronics, would require 
testing at each input voltage and listing the best and worst 
efficiencies on the product label. (Empower Electronics, No. 36 at p. 
2) DOE acknowledges that, as with voltage averaging, this method could 
help address the concern that a manufacturer could optimize their 
ballasts on a voltage that could easily increase in efficiency, while 
most customers would be using a non-optimized voltage. Also similar to 
voltage averaging, however, DOE finds that this approach would lead to 
a compliance burden for manufacturers and would increase the required 
tests compared to a requirement to test ballasts only at a single 
voltage.
c. Test at Single Manufacturer-Declared Voltage
    In response to the preliminary TSD, NEMA suggested that the test 
procedures should allow testing at a single voltage determined by the 
manufacturer and declared in the test report. (NEMA, No. 34 at p. 2) In 
manufacturer interviews, DOE received feedback that manufacturers 
optimize ballasts at a specific voltage and prefer to test their 
products at that voltage. DOE is concerned, however, that manufacturers 
might optimize efficiency at a voltage that is most convenient or least 
expensive rather than the voltage most used by customers. Were 
manufacturers to optimize efficiency at a less commonly used voltage, 
the efficiency claimed at this voltage would not be representative of 
typical efficiency in the more common uses. Because the efficiency at 
the manufacturer-declared voltage and the efficiency at the more 
commonly used voltages may not have direct correlation, such test 
procedures could potentially reduce the energy savings of this 
rulemaking.
d. Test at Highest-Rated Voltage
    Another input voltage specification could be that the ballast 
should be tested at the highest voltage possible. OSI commented, and 
NEEA agreed, that fluorescent ballast test procedures set the precedent 
for having to test only at the highest rated voltage. They also said 
that this would reduce costs associated with additional testing for 
metal halide ballasts. (OSI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at p. 
29; NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2) DOE understands the concern regarding 
increased burdens and costs associated with being required to test 
ballasts at multiple input voltages. DOE's research, however, found 
that a ballast's highest-rated voltage is not always its most common 
input voltage. For example, DOE found a significant number of 70 W 
ballasts that were capable of operating on 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, and 277 
V. Testing at the highest-rated voltage would mean these ballasts are 
tested at 277 V, but manufacturer feedback indicated that 70 W ballasts 
are much more likely to be actually used in 120 V applications. One 
possible reaction to energy conservation standards based on this test 
procedure specification could be for manufacturers to optimize 70 W 
ballasts at 277 V (the tested voltage) as opposed to 120 V (the more 
commonly used voltage). Because of this possibility, DOE finds that 
testing and enforcing standards at the highest voltage could reduce the 
potential energy savings of this rulemaking.
e. Test on Input Voltage Based on Wattage and Available Voltages
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing that the most common input voltages 
for each wattage range be used in testing. Progress Energy Carolinas 
commented that an amendment to the current test procedures that would 
specify the required input voltage for testing would not provide enough 
energy savings for the additional expense. (Progress Energy Carolinas, 
No. 24 at p. 2) DOE disagrees with Progress Energy Carolinas' assertion 
that an added expense is inherent in specification of the input voltage 
for testing. DOE's proposal only requires testing at one input voltage, 
the minimum number of tests possible. By proposing testing at a single 
voltage, DOE reduces testing burden relative to a requirement for 
testing at multiple input voltages. In addition, because the input 
voltage specification matches the most commonly used voltage, the 
requirement encourages optimization of efficiency around an input 
voltage commonly used in practice. Finally, analysis of the impact of 
energy savings for this rulemaking is made more accurate by assessing 
ballast efficiency at the most commonly used input voltages.
    In manufacturer interviews, DOE received feedback on usage of 
different input voltages. DOE learned that 208 V is the least used and 
least optimized voltage. DOE also received feedback that efficiencies 
at 277 V and 240 V are similar to each other. In general, DOE 
determined that fixtures with wattages less than 150 W were most often 
used at 120 V. Wattages of 150 W and above were most commonly used at 
277 V. Thus, this NOPR proposes that testing of metal halide ballasts 
use the following input voltages:
     For ballasts less than 150 W that have 120 V as an 
available input voltage, ballasts are to be tested at 120 V.
     For ballasts less than 150 W that lack 120 V as an 
available voltage, ballasts should be tested at the highest available 
input voltage.
     For ballasts operated at greater than or equal to 150 W 
and less than or equal to 2000 W that also have 277 V as an available 
input voltage, ballasts are to be tested at 277 V.
     For ballasts greater than or equal to 150 W and less than 
or equal to 2000 W that lack 277 V as an available input voltage, 
ballasts should be tested at the highest available input voltage.
3. Testing Electronic Ballasts
    With regards to testing electronic metal halide ballasts, DOE 
received feedback on several issues in response to the preliminary TSD. 
Some interested parties commented that the test procedures do not apply 
to any electronic ballasts and others commented that high-frequency 
electronic ballast testing is not specified and is more prone to 
measurement variation than low-frequency electronic ballast testing is. 
DOE discusses these comments below.
    In the preliminary TSD, DOE noted that it would continue to use the 
2005 version of ANSI C82.6 for testing both electronic and magnetic 
ballasts. Philips and Venture both commented that there are currently 
no test procedures for electronic ballasts. (Philips, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 33 at p. 130; Venture, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
33 at p. 130) Both Cooper and NEMA noted that an update to ANSI C82.6 
that was to be released by the end of 2011 would include test 
procedures for low-frequency electronic (LFE) ballasts, but not high-
frequency electronic (HFE) ballasts.\19\ (Cooper, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 33 at pp. 27-28; NEMA, No. 34 at p. 2) NEEA commented 
that

[[Page 51481]]

this delay should preclude DOE from altering the test procedures for 
electronic metal halide ballasts at this time. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2) 
In DOE's reading of ANSI C82.6, the scope dictates testing HID lamp 
ballasts without specifying applicability only to magnetic ballasts. In 
interviews with manufacturers, DOE received feedback confirming that 
ANSI C82.6-2005 does provide a method for testing low-frequency 
ballasts. Additionally, section 4.4.3 of ANSI C82.6-2005 discusses low-
frequency electronic ballasts in the context of alternative 
stabilization methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ At the time of development of this NOPR in mid-2012, an 
update to ANSI C82.6-2005 was not yet available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also received comments that HFE ballasts should be excluded 
from the rulemaking because there are no test procedures for them. 
Philips, OSI, and NEMA noted that the available equipment cannot test 
HFE ballast frequencies above 125 kHz as accurately as other ballasts, 
and Philips noted that HFE ballast testing accuracy can range from plus 
or minus two to five percent. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
33 at p. 130; NEMA, No. 34 at p. 14; OSI, No. 27 at p. 4) NEEA 
commented that manufacturers stated that there are no ANSI or NEMA HFE 
standards, and that no test procedures could accurately assess the 
efficiency of these ballasts to within plus or minus one percent. Based 
on this information, NEEA recommended that DOE should not consider 
these products in this rulemaking. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 9) Empower 
Electronics commented that the test procedures should be amended to 
include HFE ballast testing. (Empower Electronics, No. 36 at p. 2) DOE 
agrees that the instrumentation in ANSI C82.6-2005 is specified only up 
to 800 Hz for ammeters and voltmeters and to 1 kHz for wattmeters, and 
also that these would be insufficient for measurements of HFE ballasts.
    DOE is proposing to amend the metal halide ballast and fixtures 
test procedures to specify the instrumentation required to test HFE 
ballasts. DOE found that the instrumentation commonly used for high-
frequency electronic metal halide ballast testing is the same 
instrumentation used for fluorescent lamp ballast testing. DOE proposes 
that instrumentation at least as accurate as required by ANSI C82.6-
2005 be used to assess the output frequency of the ballast. Once the 
output frequency is determined to be greater than or equal to 1000 Hz, 
(the frequency at which DOE proposes to define high-frequency 
electronic ballasts), the test procedure instrumentation would be 
required to include a power analyzer that conforms to ANSI C82.6-2005 
with a maximum of 100 picofarads (pF) capacitance to ground and 
frequency response between 40 Hz and 1 MHz. The test procedures would 
also require a current probe compliant with ANSI C82.6-2005 that is 
galvanically isolated and has a frequency response between 40 Hz and 20 
MHz, and lamp current measurement where the full transducer ratio is 
set in the power analyzer to match the current to the analyzer. The 
full transducer ratio would be required to satisfy:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AU13.055

Where:
Iin is current through the current transducer;
Vout is the voltage out of the transducer;
Rin is the power analyzer impedance; and
Rs is the current probe output impedance.
4. Rounding Requirements
    DOE also proposes to amend the metal halide ballast test procedure 
requirements for measuring and recording input wattage and output 
wattage to require rounding to the nearest tenth of a watt, and the 
resulting calculation of efficiency to the nearest tenth of a percent. 
Through testing, DOE found that testing multiple samples of the same 
ballast yielded a range of ballast efficiencies typically differing by 
less than one percent. Because this data introduces both test 
measurement and sample to sample variation, the test measurement itself 
should be at least this accurate. Therefore, DOE believes its test 
procedures can resolve differences of less than one percent and 
rounding to the tenths decimal place would be reasonable.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening analysis 
based on information it has gathered on current technology options and 
prototype designs that could improve the efficiency of the products or 
equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. As the first step in 
this analysis, DOE develops a list of design options for consideration 
in consultation with manufacturers, design engineers, and other 
interested parties. DOE then determines which of these options for 
improving efficiency is technologically feasible. DOE considers 
technologies incorporated in commercially available products or in 
working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i)
    Once DOE has determined that particular design options are 
technologically feasible, it evaluates each of these design options 
according to the following three screening criteria: (1) Practicability 
to manufacture, install, or service; (2) adverse impacts on product 
utility or availability; and (3) adverse impacts on health or safety. 
Section V.B of this notice discusses the results of the screening 
analysis for metal halide lamp fixtures. In particular, it lists the 
designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are the 
basis for the TSLs in this rulemaking. For further details on the 
screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    Section 325(o) of EPCA requires that when DOE amends standards for 
a type or class of covered equipment, it must determine the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use 
that is technologically feasible for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) 
Accordingly, DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible (``max 
tech'') ballast efficiency in this NOPR's engineering analysis, using 
the design options identified in the screening analysis (see chapter 4 
of the NOPR TSD).
    To determine the max tech level, DOE conducted a survey of the MHLF 
market and the research fields that support the market. DOE's view 
based on test data is that within a given equipment class, no working 
prototypes exist that have a distinguishably higher ballast efficiency 
than currently available equipment. Therefore, the highest efficiency 
level presented, which represents the most efficient tier of 
commercially available equipment, is the max tech level for this 
rulemaking. This highest efficiency level requires electronic ballasts 
using the best components and circuit topologies commercially available 
for fixtures rated >=50 W to <=500 W. The max tech efficiency level 
requires the highest grades of core steel and copper windings for the 
fixtures rated >500 W and <=2000 W.
    DOE did not screen out any technology options in the preliminary 
analysis. DOE received several comments regarding its determination of 
max tech ballast efficiency in the preliminary TSD. These comments are 
discussed in section V.C.8. For this NOPR, DOE conducted additional 
analysis to determine the appropriate max tech levels for metal halide 
ballasts. As discussed in section V.C.3, DOE added 150 W as a 
representative wattage, and tested ballasts to establish an appropriate 
max tech level for this wattage. DOE also conducted additional

[[Page 51482]]

testing of the 70 W, 250 W, 400 W, and 1000 W ballasts on the market, 
and determined the highest efficiency levels that are technologically 
feasible within each equipment class. As discussed in section V.C.9, 
data for each equipment class has been fit with a wattage-efficiency 
equation to determine the minimum efficiency levels. Table IV.1 
presents the max tech efficiencies for each wattage range analyzed in 
the NOPR.

                                           Table IV.1--Max Tech Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Equipment class wattage range        Efficiency level*                 Efficiency level equation %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=50 and <=100.....................  EL4....................  100/(1+0.36*P[caret](-0.3))[dagger].
>100 and <150*.....................  EL4....................  100/(1+0.36*P[caret](-0.3)).
>=150** and <=250..................  EL4....................  100/(1+0.36*P[caret](-0.3)).
>250 and <=500.....................  EL4....................  100/(1+0.36*P[caret](-0.3)).
>500 and <=2000....................  EL2....................  For >500 W to <1000 W:
                                                              3.2*10[caret](-3)*P + 89.9
                                                              For >=1000 W to <=2000 W: 93.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for use
  in wet locations, as specified by the National Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a
  ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2001.
** Excludes 150 W fixtures exempted by EISA 2007, which are fixtures rated only for 150 watt lamps; rated for
  use in wet locations, as specified by the National Electrical Code 2002, section 410.4(A); and containing a
  ballast that is rated to operate at ambient air temperatures above 50 [deg]C, as specified by UL 1029-2001.
[dagger] P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp that the fixture is designed to operate.

    DOE requests comment on its selection of the max tech levels and 
whether it is technologically feasible to attain these high 
efficiencies. Specifically, DOE seeks data on the potential change in 
efficiency, the design options employed, and the associated change in 
cost. Any design option that DOE considers to improve efficiency must 
meet the four criteria outlined in the screening analysis: 
technological feasibility; practicability to manufacture, install, and 
service; adverse impacts on product or equipment utility to customers 
or availability; and adverse impacts on health or safety. DOE also 
requests comment on any technological barriers to an improvement in 
efficiency above the max tech efficiency levels for all or certain 
types of ballasts.

C. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from the equipment that 
are the subject of this rulemaking purchased in the 30-year period that 
begins in the year of compliance with new or amended standards (2016-
2045). The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 
purchased in the 30-year period.\20\ DOE quantified the energy savings 
attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption 
between each standards case and the base case. The base case represents 
a projection of energy consumption in the absence of amended mandatory 
efficiency standards, and considers market forces and policies that 
affect demand for more efficient equipment. For example, in the base 
case, DOE models a migration from covered metal halide lamp fixtures to 
higher-efficiency technologies such as high-intensity fluorescent 
(HIF), induction lights, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). DOE also 
models a move to other HID fixtures such as high-pressure sodium, based 
on data given by manufacturers during the 2010 framework public 
meeting. (Philips, Public Meeting Transcript, No.8 at p. 91)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In the past DOE presented energy savings results for only 
the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the 
calculation of economic impacts, however, DOE considered operating 
cost savings measured over the entire lifetime of equipment 
purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has chosen to modify its 
presentation of national energy savings to be consistent with the 
approach used for its national economic analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its NIA spreadsheet to estimate energy savings from new or 
amended-standards for the metal halide lamp fixtures that are the 
subject of this rulemaking. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in 
section V.G of this notice and in chapter 11 of the NOPR TSD) 
calculates energy savings in site energy, which is the energy directly 
consumed by products at the locations where they are used. DOE reports 
national energy savings on an annual basis in terms of the source 
(primary) energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is 
used to generate and transmit the site energy. To convert site energy 
to source energy, DOE derived annual conversion factors from the model 
used to prepare the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual 
Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO2013).
    DOE has begun to also estimate energy savings using full-fuel-cycle 
metrics. The full-fuel-cycle (FFC) metric includes the energy consumed 
in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels, and, thus, 
presents a more complete picture of the impacts of efficiency 
standards. DOE's approach is based on application of FFC multipliers 
for each fuel type used by covered products and equipment, as discussed 
in DOE's statement of policy published in the Federal Register on 
August 18, 2011 (76 FR 51281), and in the notice of policy amendment. 
77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012).
2. Significance of Savings
    As noted above, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) prevents DOE from adopting 
a standard for a covered product unless such standard would result in 
``significant'' energy savings. Although the term ``significant'' is 
not defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), 
indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings in this 
context to be savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' The energy 
savings for all of the TSLs considered in this rulemaking (presented in 
section VI.B.3) are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE considers them 
``significant'' within the meaning of section 325 of EPCA.

D. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    As noted in section II.A, EPCA provides seven factors to be 
evaluated in determining whether a potential energy conservation 
standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)) The 
following sections discuss how DOE addresses each of those seven 
factors in this rulemaking.

[[Page 51483]]

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Customers
    In determining the impacts of a new or amended standard on 
manufacturers, DOE first determines quantitative impacts using an 
annual-cash-flow approach. This approach includes both a short-term 
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the 
period between the announcement of a regulation and when the regulation 
comes into effect--and a long-term (30-year) assessment. The 
quantitative impacts analyzed include INPV (which values the industry 
based on expected future cash flows), annual cash flows, and changes in 
revenue and income. Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on 
different types of manufacturers, including an analysis of impacts on 
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on 
overall and technology-specific domestic manufacturer employment and 
manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to 
result in plant closures and loss of capital investment for technology-
specific manufacturers. DOE also takes into account cumulative impacts 
of different DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on 
manufacturers.
    For individual customers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. LCC is 
separately specified as one of the seven factors to consider when 
determining the economic justification for a new or amended standard 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)), and is discussed in the following 
section. For customers viewed from a national perspective, DOE 
calculates the net present value of the economic impacts on them over 
the 30-year equipment shipments period used in this rulemaking.
b. Life-Cycle Costs
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a fixture (including 
its installation) and its operating expenses (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the fixture. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency levels are 
calculated relative to a base case that reflects likely trends in the 
absence of new or amended standards. The LCC analysis required a 
variety of inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy 
consumption, energy prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment 
lifetimes, and customer discount rates. DOE assumed in its analysis 
that customers purchase the equipment in 2016.
    To account for uncertainty and variability in specific inputs, such 
as equipment lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 
values, with probabilities attached to each value. DOE identifies the 
percentage of customers estimated to receive LCC savings or experience 
an LCC increase, in addition to the average LCC savings associated with 
a particular standard level. DOE also evaluates the LCC impacts of 
potential standards on identifiable subgroups of customers that may be 
affected disproportionately by a national standard.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As 
discussed in section V.G, DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet to project 
national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    In establishing classes of equipment and evaluating design options 
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE seeks to develop 
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the 
equipment under consideration. The efficiency levels considered in 
today's NOPR will not affect features valued by customers, such as 
input voltage and light output. Therefore, DOE believes that none of 
the TSLs presented in section VI.A would reduce the utility or 
performance of the ballasts considered in the rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV))
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition likely to 
result from standards. It directs the Attorney General to determine the 
impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a 
proposed standard and to transmit this determination to the Secretary, 
not later than 60 days after the publication of a proposed rule, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE has transmitted a copy of 
today's proposed rule to the Attorney General and has requested that 
the Department of Justice (DOJ) provide its determination on this 
issue. DOE will address the Attorney General's determination in any 
final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    The energy savings from the proposed standards are likely to 
provide improvements to the security and reliability of the nation's 
energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result 
in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the nation's 
electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate 
how standards may affect the nation's needed power generation capacity.
    The proposed standards also are likely to result in environmental 
benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and 
greenhouse gases associated with energy production. DOE reports the 
emissions impacts from today's proposed standards, and from each TSL it 
considered, in section VI.B.6 of this notice. DOE also reports 
estimates of the economic value of emissions reductions resulting from 
the considered TSLs.
g. Other Factors
    EPCA allows the Secretary to consider any other relevant factors in 
determining whether a standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) Under this provision, DOE considered subgroups 
of customers that may experience disproportionately adverse effects 
under the standards proposed in this rule. DOE specifically assessed 
the effect of standards on utilities, transportation facility owners, 
and warehouse owners. In considering these subgroups, DOE analyzed 
differences in electricity prices, operating hours, discount rates, and 
baseline ballasts. See section V.H for further detail.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the customer of 
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed 
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for 
customers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In 
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers 
the full range of

[[Page 51484]]

impacts to customers, manufacturers, the nation, and the environment, 
as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 
analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic 
justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or 
rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic 
justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is 
discussed in section VI.B.1 of this NOPR.

V. Methodology and Discussion

    DOE used two spreadsheet tools to estimate the impact of today's 
proposed standards. The first spreadsheet tool calculates LCCs and PBPs 
of potential new energy conservation standards. The second spreadsheet 
tool provides shipment projections and then calculates national energy 
savings and net present value impacts of potential new energy 
conservation standards. The Department also assessed manufacturer 
impacts, largely through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model 
(GRIM).
    Additionally, DOE estimated the impacts of energy efficiency 
standards on utilities and the environment. DOE used a version of EIA's 
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) for the utility and 
environmental analyses. The NEMS model simulates the energy sector of 
the U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a 
widely known reference energy forecast for the United States. The NEMS-
based model used for appliance standards analysis is called NEMS-BT (BT 
stands for DOE's Building Technologies Program), and is based on the 
current AEO (AEO2013) NEMS with minor modifications.\21\ The NEMS-BT 
accounts for the interactions between the various energy supply and 
demand sectors and the economy as a whole. For more information on 
NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview, DOE/
EIA-0581 (98) (Feb. 1998), available at: tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/
forecasting/058198.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The EIA does not approve use of the name ``NEMS'' unless it 
describes an AEO version of the model without any modification to 
code or data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code 
modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that 
deviate from AEO assumptions, the name ``NEMS-BT'' refers to the 
model as used here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. General
    When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for 
the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the products, the 
industry structure, and the market characteristics. This activity 
includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments based on 
publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market 
and technology assessment for this rulemaking include: Equipment 
classes and manufacturers; historical shipments; market trends; 
regulatory and non-regulatory programs; and technologies or design 
options that could improve the energy efficiency of the product(s) 
under examination. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion 
of the market and technology assessment.
2. Equipment Classes
    In establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered 
equipment into classes by: (a) The type of energy used, (b) the 
capacity of the equipment, or (c) any other performance-related feature 
that justifies different standard levels, such as features affecting 
consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE then considers establishing 
separate standard levels for each equipment class based on the criteria 
set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE considered several potential 
class-setting factors for fixtures, including rated lamp wattage, input 
voltage, number of lamps operated, starting method, electronic 
configuration, circuit type, and fixture application. DOE preliminarily 
determined that rated lamp wattage was the only factor affecting both 
consumer utility and efficiency. DOE, therefore, analyzed four 
equipment classes for fixtures with rated lamp wattages: (1) Greater 
than or equal to 50 W and less than 150 W; (2) greater than or equal to 
150 W and less than or equal to 250 W; (3) greater than 250 W and less 
than or equal to 500 W; and (4) greater than 500 W. As discussed in the 
following sections, several interested parties commented on the 
preliminary equipment classes and the other class-setting factors that 
DOE considered.
a. Input Voltage
    Metal halide lamp fixtures are available in a variety of input 
voltages (such as 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, 277 V, and 480 V), and the 
majority of fixtures are equipped with ballasts that are capable of 
operating at multiple input voltages (for example quad-input-voltage 
ballasts are able to operate at 120 V, 208 V, 240 V, and 277 V). DOE 
determined that input voltage represents a feature affecting consumer 
utility as certain applications demand specific input voltages. 
Although input voltage can affect ballast resistive losses and thus, 
efficiency, for the preliminary analysis, DOE's ballast testing did not 
indicate a prevailing relationship (e.g., higher voltages are not 
always more efficient) between discrete input voltages and ballast 
efficiencies. Therefore, in the preliminary analysis, DOE did not 
establish separate equipment classes for metal halide lamp fixtures 
based on input voltage. In the preliminary analysis, DOE suggested that 
efficiency be represented by the average of tested efficiencies at each 
of the input voltages at which the ballast is rated for operation.
    In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received several 
comments supporting and opposing input voltage as a class-setting 
criterion. NEMA noted that multiple-input-voltage ballasts are often 
optimized for the most popular voltage application. For example, a 
quint-input-voltage ballast (able to operate at five different input 
voltages) will often have a lower efficiency at 480 V than at 277 V 
because the ballast is optimized for 277 V operation. NEMA suggested 
that 480 V-capable ballasts be given an efficiency allowance, or that 
all ballasts be allowed to be tested at the optimal operating voltage 
as specified by the manufacturer. (NEMA, No. 34 at p. 10) Georgia Power 
also commented that due to their increased costs relative to non-480 V 
ballasts, dedicated 480 V and quint-input-voltage ballasts should be in 
a separate equipment class. (Georgia Power, No. 28 at p. 1) Progress 
Energy Carolinas agreed that separate equipment classes should be 
established for ballasts above 300 V. (Progress Energy Carolinas, No. 
24 at p. 2) NEEA found that voltage does not appear to be a significant 
factor in energy efficiency performance or system utility. However, 
NEEA had no objection to treating 480 V systems as a separate class, 
should DOE choose to do so. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 3) Empower Electronics 
commented that a separate classification based on input voltage is not 
needed. (Empower Electronics, No. 36 at p. 5)
    As discussed in section IV.A of this NOPR, DOE is proposing that 
metal halide ballasts be tested at a single input voltage, based on the 
lamp wattage operated by the ballast. Ballasts that operate lamps 150 W 
or less would be tested at 120 V, and all others would be tested at 277 
V, unless the ballast is incapable of operating at the specified input 
voltage; in that case, the ballast would be tested at the highest input 
voltage possible. DOE's view is that this proposal would reduce the 
testing burden and better characterize the

[[Page 51485]]

energy consumption of metal halide lamp fixtures for the majority of 
applications in which they are installed. Based on the proposed test 
procedures, DOE evaluated efficiency differences between dedicated 480 
V, quint-input-voltage, and quad-input-voltage ballasts (which 
represent the vast majority of ballasts on the market). DOE found that 
the quint-input-voltage ballasts had similar efficiencies as the quad-
input-voltage ballasts when both were tested at 120 V or 277 V. In 
contrast, DOE found that the dedicated 480 V ballasts (tested at 480 V) 
were, on average, 1.4 percent less efficient than quad-input-voltage 
ballasts (tested at 120 V or 277 V).
    Because dedicated 480 V ballasts have a distinct utility and a 
difference in efficiency relative to ballasts tested at 120 V and 277 
V, DOE proposes separate equipment classes for ballasts tested at 480 V 
(in accordance with the test procedures). These would include dedicated 
480 V ballasts and any ballasts that are capable of being operated at 
480 V, but incapable of being operated at the input voltage specified 
by the test procedures (either 120 V or 277 V, depending on lamp 
wattage). DOE requests comment on this proposal.
Fixture Application
    Metal halide lamp fixtures are used in a variety of applications 
such as parking lots, roadways, warehouses, big-box retail, and flood 
lighting. Although the fixture size, shape, and optics are often 
tailored to the application, generally the same types of ballasts are 
currently utilized for most of the applications. DOE did not expect 
fixture-application-related attributes to affect ballast efficiency for 
a given lamp wattage, and in the preliminary analysis DOE did not 
analyze separate equipment classes based on such attributes.
    In response to the preliminary analysis, DOE received several 
comments regarding the problems of utilizing electronic ballasts in 
outdoor applications and recommending that DOE establish separate 
equipment classes for outdoor fixtures and indoor fixtures. Energy 
Solutions noted that there are significant fixture design 
considerations necessitated by outdoor use. (Energy Solutions, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at pp. 46-47) Progress Energy Carolinas 
clarified that ballasts used in outdoor fixtures need to be able to 
withstand high temperatures, voltage variations, and lightning and 
other voltage surges. Progress Energy Carolinas also indicated that the 
same concerns existed with LED fixtures (utilizing electronic drivers) 
and that they were successfully addressed by adding heat sinks to 
dissipate excess heat; building regulation into the drivers to deal 
with voltage variations; and adding metal oxide varistor (MOV) 
protection (typically 10 kilo volt [kV] ANSI C62.41.1-2002 \22\ Class C 
protection) to protect against lightning and other voltage surges. LED 
fixtures also underwent field testing through all four seasons to prove 
overall reliability. Progress Energy Carolinas explained that until 
some of these issues are similarly addressed and their solutions 
proven, end users will be reluctant to use electronic metal halide 
ballasts in outdoor fixtures. (Progress Energy Carolinas, No. 24 at p. 
1) Georgia Power and Progress Energy Carolinas stated that outdoor 
electronic metal halide ballasts have not been widely adopted by 
utilities, largely due to these reliability concerns. NEMA urged DOE to 
establish MHLF standards for outdoor applications (which have higher 
transient requirements and wider operating temperature ranges) such 
that magnetic ballasts would be compliant. (NEMA, No. 34 at p. 9) If 
electronic ballasts are mandated for outdoor fixtures, Progress Energy 
Carolinas recommended that utilities be exempt until reliability 
concerns decrease. (Georgia Power, No. 28 at p. 2; Progress Energy 
Carolinas, No. 24 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ ``Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Guide 
on the Surge Environment in Low-Voltage (V and Less) AC Power 
Circuits,'' Approved April 4, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs, however, stated that electronic ballasts have been 
successfully applied in outdoor applications and are readily available 
on the market today, citing examples of commercially available 
electronic metal halide products rated for outdoor use and 
municipalities that have adopted electronically ballasted metal halide 
streetlights. The CA IOUs expressed their belief that the application 
environment does not affect the utility or the achievable efficiency of 
a ballast. The CA IOUs also stated that should DOE decide that the use 
of electronic ballasts in outdoor environments requires additional 
fixture modifications, DOE would need to conduct separate cost and 
savings analyses for indoor versus outdoor applications. If DOE decides 
to set different equipment classes for indoor and outdoor metal halide 
lamp fixtures, the CA IOUs suggested that DOE adopt California's 
approach for differentiation of these types by specifying fixtures that 
are ``UL 1598 Wet Location Listed and labeled `Suitable for Wet 
Locations' as specified by the National Electrical Code [NEC] 2005, 
Section 410.4(A).'' (CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 2-3)
    Although electronic ballasts are being successfully used in certain 
outdoor applications, DOE acknowledges that there is currently a market 
reluctance to use electronic metal halide ballasts in outdoor 
applications, particularly due to concerns with the electronic 
ballast's ability to withstand voltage transients. However, DOE 
disagrees with NEMA that an efficiency level that requires electronic 
ballasts should not be analyzed or proposed on the basis of the 
features of transient suppression and operating temperature ranges. 
DOE's view is that addressing these concerns with either (1) an 
external surge protection device or (2) internal transient protection 
of the ballast using MOVs in conjunction with other inductors and 
capacitors is technologically feasible, as shown by the CA IOUs' list 
of examples. DOE understands that this added protection also adds an 
incremental cost to the ballast or fixture (further discussed in 
section V.C.12). As these incremental costs could affect the cost 
effectiveness of fixtures for outdoor applications, DOE proposes 
separate equipment classes for indoor and outdoor fixtures. DOE 
proposes that outdoor fixtures be defined as those that (1) are rated 
for use in wet locations and (2) have 10 kV of voltage transient 
protection. Conversely, fixtures that do not meet these requirements 
will be defined as indoor fixtures.
    DOE proposes to define the wet location rating as specified by the 
National Electrical Code 2011,\23\ section 410.10(A) or Underwriters 
Laboratories (UL) 1598 Wet Location Listed.\24\ DOE believes that 
providing two possible definitions will reduce the compliance burden as 
many manufacturers are already familiar with one or both of these 
ratings (the NEC definition was included in EISA 2007 and both are used 
in California energy efficiency regulations). For 10 kV voltage 
transient protection, DOE proposes to use the 10

[[Page 51486]]

kV voltage pulse withstand requirement from ANSI C136.2-2004 as a 
characteristic unique to outdoor fixtures. As discussed in section 
VI.C, based on weighing the benefits and drawbacks of different 
requirements, DOE is proposing efficiency standards that are the same 
for indoor and outdoor equipment classes. If a different requirement is 
ultimately adopted by DOE in the final rule, the definitions of indoor 
and outdoor will be added to the Code of Federal Regulations for metal 
halide lamp fixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The NEC 2011 states that fixtures installed in wet or damp 
locations shall be installed such that water cannot enter or 
accumulate in wiring components, lampholders, or other electrical 
parts. All fixtures installed in wet locations shall be marked, 
``Suitable for Wet Locations.'' All fixtures installed in damp 
locations shall be marked ``Suitable for Wet locations'' or 
``Suitable for Damp Locations.''
    \24\ UL Standard Publication 1598 defines a wet location is one 
in which water or other liquid can drip, splash, or flow on or 
against electrical equipment. A wet location fixture shall be 
constructed to prevent the accumulation of water on live parts, 
electrical components, or conductors not identified for use in 
contact with water. A fixture that permits water to enter the 
fixture shall be provided with a drain hole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Electronic Configuration and Circuit Type
    Of the two metal halide ballast types (electronic and magnetic), 
magnetic ballasts are currently more common. Magnetic ballasts 
typically use transformer-like copper or aluminum windings on a steel 
or iron core. The newer electronic ballasts, which are more efficient 
but less common, rely on integrated circuits, switches, and capacitors/
inductors to control current and voltage to the lamp. Both electronic 
and magnetic ballasts are capable of producing the same light output 
and, with certain modifications (e.g., thermal management, transient 
protection, 120 V auxiliary power functionality), can be used 
interchangeably in all applications.
    Magnetic metal halide ballasts are available in the market in 
several types of circuit configurations including high-reactance 
autotransformer, constant-wattage isolated transformer, constant-
wattage autotransformer (CWA), linear reactor (reactor), and 
magnetically regulated-lag (reg-lag or mag-reg) ballasts. Each magnetic 
circuit type listed has different characteristics that may be preferred 
in certain applications. These characteristics (discussed further in 
chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD) include size, efficiency, and power 
regulation. For example, magnetically regulated-lag ballasts are 
typically the largest and heaviest circuit type, but provide the 
greatest degree of resistance to input voltage variation (which 
sustains light output). In the preliminary analysis, DOE determined 
that although magnetic ballasts are usually less efficient and have a 
lower initial cost than electronic ballasts, neither configuration 
provides a distinct consumer utility over the other. Because electronic 
ballasts can provide the same utility as any magnetic circuit type, can 
be used as substitutes in all applications, and are generally more 
efficient than magnetic ballasts, DOE determined in the preliminary 
analysis that setting separate equipment classes based on electronic 
configuration (magnetic vs. electronic) or on circuit type was 
unnecessary.
    At wattages greater than 500 W, few electronic ballasts are 
available due to their higher cost and lower expected efficiency 
improvement over magnetic ballasts. Electronic ballasts have two 
primary circuit types that operate the lamp at either ``high'' or 
``low'' frequency. DOE proposes to define a high-frequency ballast to 
be a ballast with output frequency greater than or equal to 1000 Hz. 
For low-frequency electronic ballasts, a square current waveform is 
used to diminish acoustic resonance and maintain lamp life. All lamps 
operate well on low-frequency square waves, so these low-frequency 
ballasts have few compatibility issues with lamps. At higher 
frequencies, however, acoustic resonance issues and electromagnetic 
interference (EMI) effects cause compatibility issues with lamps. At 
these high frequencies, ballasts have to be designed to have the right 
frequency for a desired lamp, but the selected frequency may be 
incompatible with other lamps designed for different frequencies. 
Therefore, high-frequency electronic ballasts are less widely 
compatible with lamps relative to low-frequency electronic ballasts. 
High-frequency ballasts may also have difficulty complying with Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) standards.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ FCC regulations at 47 CFR part 18, subpart C set forth 
technical standards for industrial, scientific, and medical 
equipment that specify frequency bands and tolerance ranges as well 
as electromagnetic field strength limits. Some metal halide ballasts 
may be covered under these ``industrial, scientific, and medical 
(ISM) equipment'' standards, which list the general operating 
conditions for ISM equipment. Ballasts designed to exceed 9 kHz 
ballast frequency have to be designed so that interference with 
transmitted radio frequencies is eliminated. 47 CFR 18.111, 18.301-
11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to DOE's preliminary determination not to use 
electronic configuration or circuit type as a class-setting factor, DOE 
received several comments relating to replacement of magnetic ballasts 
with electronic ballasts, possible reliability issues with electronic 
ballasts, and non-efficiency-related benefits to using electronic 
ballasts. Cooper Lighting stated that electronic ballasts are not 
direct replacements for magnetic ballasts in fixtures. (Cooper 
Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 33 at p. 64) With regard to 
reliability, Georgia Power said that (1) electronic ballasts are 
unproven in outdoor applications and (2) electronic ballasts are 
vulnerable to failures due to high temperature, moisture, and voltage 
variations and surges caused by lightning and other outdoor events. 
Progress Energy Carolinas did not disagree with including electronic 
and magnetically ballasted fixtures in the same equipment class, but 
commented that the expected energy savings are small. They stated that 
other operating characteristics drive the use of electronic ballasts in 
indoor applications (i.e., correlated color temperature variation, lamp 
lumen depreciation, and dimming). (Progress Energy Carolinas, No. 24 at 
p. 2) The CA IOUs agreed with Georgia Power that electronic ballasts, 
especially in conjunction with pulse-start ceramic metal halide lamps 
that offer higher efficacy and improved color rendering index (CRI), 
have other advantages that can offset their added cost. The CA IOUs 
also stated that electronic ballasts do save energy relative to 
magnetically ballasted systems. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 4) Finally, 
Empower Electronics supported DOE's preliminary determination, stating 
that equipment classes need not be set according to electronic 
configuration and circuit type. (Empower Electronics, No. 36 at p. 6)
    As discussed in section V.C.12, DOE recognizes the technological 
differences between magnetic and electronic ballasts and has 
incorporated the cost of additional devices or modifications necessary 
for certain applications into its analysis. In section V.I.2, DOE 
addresses impacts on manufacturers of a transition to electronic 
ballasts, but does not consider these impacts in development of 
equipment classes. While acknowledging that customers make purchasing 
decisions on electronic versus magnetic ballasts after consideration of 
other parameters in addition to efficiency, DOE has determined that 
significant energy savings can be realized through a transition from 
magnetic to electronic ballasts (see section VI.B.3). For this NOPR, 
DOE maintains that electronic configuration does not affect consumer 
utility because with the necessary design adders, electronic ballasts 
can provide the same utility as magnetic ballasts. Because of this, DOE 
is not proposing to define equipment classes based on electronic 
configuration and requests comment on this matter.
d. Lamp Wattage
    As lamp wattage increases, lamp and ballast systems generally (but 
not always) produce increasing amounts of light (lumens). The goal of 
efficiency standards is to decrease the wattage needed for the same 
lumens--resulting in an increase in energy efficiency. Because certain 
applications require more light than others, wattage often varies by 
application. For example, low-wattage (less than 150 W) lamps are

[[Page 51487]]

used today in commercial applications for general lighting. Medium-
wattage (150-500 W) lamps are the most widely used today and include 
warehouse, street, and general commercial lighting. High-wattage 
(greater than 500 W) lamps are used today in searchlights, stadiums, 
and other applications that require powerful white light. In the 
preliminary analysis, based on its impact on light output, DOE 
determined that lamp wattage affects consumer utility. DOE also 
determined that the wattage of a lamp operated by a ballast is 
correlated with the ballast efficiency, which generally increases for 
higher-wattage loads. For electronic ballasts, this efficiency gain can 
be attributed to the decreasing proportion of fixed losses (e.g., 
switches) to total losses. For low-wattage electronic ballasts, certain 
fixed losses contribute a larger proportion of total losses than they 
do for high-wattage ballasts. Magnetic ballasts--essentially 
transformers (sometimes with capacitors for power correction and 
igniters for pulse-starting)--have proportionally lower overall losses 
with increased wattage. Transformer losses (resistive losses in 
windings, eddy currents, and hysteresis) do not scale linearly with 
wattage, meaning that overall efficiency increases with wattage. 
Because wattage affects consumer utility (lumen output) and has a 
strong correlation to efficiency, DOE determined that separate 
equipment classes based on wattage were warranted. As a result in the 
preliminary analysis, DOE analyzed four lamp wattage class bins: >=50 W 
and <150 W, >=150 W and <=250 W, >250 W and <=500 W, and >500 W.
    NEEA, Empower Electronics, and Progress Energy Carolinas supported 
DOE's determination in the preliminary analysis that wattage should be 
a class-setting factor. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 3; Empower Electronics, No. 
36 at p. 7; Progress Energy Carolinas, No. 24 at p. 3) Because no 
adverse comments were received on DOE's determination, DOE proposes to 
continue using lamp wattage as a class-setting factor for this NOPR.
    For the NOPR, DOE found that even within a designated wattage range 
(such as between 100 W and 150 W), the potential efficiencies 
manufacturers can reach is not constant, but rather varies with 
wattage. Instead of setting a constant efficiency standard within a 
wattage bin, DOE is proposing the use of an equation-based energy 
conservation standard for certain equipment classes (see section V.C). 
DOE is also continuing to use wattage bins (instead of a single 
equation spanning the entire covered wattage range) to define equipment 
classes, for two reasons. First, the range of ballast efficiencies 
considered can differ significantly by lamp wattage, thus making it 
difficult to construct a single continuous equation for ballast 
efficiency from 50 W to 2000 W. This efficiency difference can be 
attributed to the varying cost of increasing ballast efficiency for 
different wattages and the impact of legislated (EISA 2007) standards 
that affect only some wattage ranges. Second, different wattages often 
serve different applications and have unique cost-efficiency 
relationships. Analyzing each wattage range as a separate equipment 
class allows DOE to establish the energy conservation standards that 
are cost-effective for each wattage bin.
    DOE also received comment that certain wattage ranges used in the 
preliminary analysis should be further divided. Progress Energy 
Carolinas commented that further division of the 50 W to 250 W 
equipment class was warranted on the basis of different levels of 
efficiency being possible for different wattages. (Progress Energy 
Carolinas, No. 24 at p. 1) For this NOPR, DOE determined that the >=50 
W and <150 W range should be further subdivided. DOE's test data 
indicates that efficiency varies more significantly for ballasts that 
operate 50 W to 150 W lamps than for any other wattage range considered 
in the preliminary TSD. Based on catalog information and manufacturer 
interviews, DOE determined that 50 W and 100 W fixtures typically serve 
the same applications, while 150 W products begin to serve applications 
with increased light demand such as area lighting or parking lots. DOE 
used this natural division in wattage based on application to further 
divide the lowest-wattage range from the preliminary analysis.
    With regards to the specification of the boundary between fixtures 
rated to operate at wattages above and below 150 W, Georgia Power 
commented that 150 W fixtures should be included with fixtures less 
than 150 W, not those greater than 150 W. (Georgia Power, No. 2 at p. 
2) DOE agrees that some 150 W fixtures (those exempted by EISA 2007) 
should be included in the >100 to <150 W equipment classes. As 
discussed previously in section III.A.1, there is an existing EISA 2007 
exemption for ballasts rated for only 150 W lamps, used in wet 
locations, and that operate in ambient air temperatures higher than 50 
[deg]C. This exemption has led to a difference in the commercially 
available efficiencies for ballasts that are exempted or not exempted 
from EISA 2007. The exempted ballasts have a range of efficiencies 
similar to wattages less than 150 W. Ballasts not exempted by EISA 2007 
have efficiencies similar to ballasts greater than 150 W. As a result, 
DOE is proposing that 150 W fixtures previously exempted from EISA 2007 
be included in a >100 W and <150 W range, while 150 W fixtures subject 
to EISA 2007 standards would be included in a >=150 W to <=250 W range.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE included all fixtures rated to 
operate at wattages greater than 500 W in the same equipment class. OSI 
suggested that DOE include 500 W ballasts in the highest-wattage range. 
OSI stated that electronic ballasts that operate lamps greater than or 
equal to 500 W have not been developed yet. (OSI, No. 27 at p. 4) In 
response to the lack of electronic ballasts operating lamps greater 
than or equal to 500 W, DOE agrees that there are not commercially 
available electronic ballasts at these wattages today, but also notes 
that magnetic ballasts are also unavailable at this wattage. Because 
leaving the boundary between these two wattage ranges at 500 W does not 
affect any commercially available products, DOE proposes to maintain 
the >250 W and <=500 W range for consistency with the EISA 2007 covered 
wattage range.
    In summary, DOE is proposing to define metal halide lamp fixture 
equipment classes by rated lamp wattage ranges >=50 W to <=100 W, >100 
W to <150 W, >=150 W to <=250 W, >250 W to <=500 W, and >500 W to 
<=2000 W. DOE proposes that 150 W fixtures previously exempted by EISA 
2007 be included in the >100 W to <150 W range, while 150 W fixtures 
subject to EISA 2007 standards continue to be included in the >=150 W 
to <=250 W range. DOE requests comment on these wattage ranges.
e. Number of Lamps
    Metal halide lamp fixtures are commonly designed to operate with a 
single lamp because of lamp characteristics related to re-striking 
(turning the lamp on again after being turned off, because metal halide 
lamps require time to cool down before being lighted again) and voltage 
regulation. DOE's review of manufacturer catalogs revealed that while a 
majority of available ballasts operate only one lamp, a small fraction 
are designed for two lamps. Based on this review, DOE determined that 
there is little to no change in efficiency between one-lamp and two-
lamp metal halide ballast fixtures. In the preliminary analysis, DOE 
determined it unnecessary to consider multiple-lamp ballasts in

[[Page 51488]]

equipment classes separate from single-lamp ballasts.
    NEMA agreed with DOE on the limited number of two-lamp metal halide 
lamp fixtures. Because two-lamp ballasts represent such a small part of 
the market, NEMA suggested they be excluded from the rulemaking. Given 
the optical size of a metal halide lamp, NEMA found it unlikely that a 
manufacturer would use this exemption as a loophole. Fixtures using 
multiple-lamp ballasts would have to be larger, more expensive, and 
less optically efficient than those with single-lamp ballasts. (NEMA, 
No. 34 at p. 10) Because catalog data shows no difference in 
efficiency, in this NOPR, DOE continues to propose including ballasts 
with differing numbers of lamps in the same equipment class. DOE is not 
proposing to exclude 2-lamp ballasts from the scope of coverage.
f. Starting Method
    Metal halide lamp fixtures currently available in the market are 
designed to operate with either probe-start or pulse-start lamps, but 
not a mixture of both types at the same time.\26\ The main differences 
between these starting methods are: (1) The inclusion of a third probe 
in probe-start lamps, (2) the need for an igniter circuit for pulse-
start lamps, and (3) the different wiring specification for ballasts of 
each starting method. Most new applications in the market are pulse-
start due to its higher efficacy (pulse-start lamps provide more lumens 
per watt than probe-start lamps). In the preliminary analysis, DOE did 
not consider probe versus pulse-starting to be a class-setting factor. 
While pulse-start lamps are more efficacious than probe-start lamps, 
probe and pulse-start ballasts can achieve the same levels of ballast 
efficiency and are used in similar applications. DOE did not receive 
any adverse comment relating to this preliminary determination, so in 
this NOPR, DOE proposes that both probe and pulse-start ballasts be 
included in the same equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ DOE is aware of some metal halide lamps that can be 
operated by a pulse-start or a probe-start ballast. These lamps are 
much less common than lamps designed to be operated by ballasts of 
only one starting method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EISA 2007 distinguishes nonpulse-start electronic equipment classes 
by separating them into two rated lamp wattage ranges (>=150 W and 
<=250 W, and >250 W and <=500 W) and applying a more stringent standard 
to them than to other ballast types. According to DOE's review of 
manufacturer catalogs and information provided by manufacturers during 
interviews, nonpulse-start electronic metal halide lamp fixtures are 
not available in the market. While EISA 2007 contemplated the creation 
of additional classes for alternative technologies that could become 
available in the future, DOE has no information that indicates 
differences in efficiency or consumer utility based on pulse-start 
versus nonpulse-start ballast fixtures. Based on this information, in 
the preliminary analysis, DOE determined that a separate equipment 
class for nonpulse-start ballasts was unnecessary. DOE did not receive 
adverse comments relating to this preliminary determination, so in this 
NOPR, DOE is proposing that nonpulse-start electronic ballasts be 
included in the same equipment class as all other starting methods. The 
term nonpulse-start electronic ballast is currently undefined in the 
CFR. T