MEMORANDUM 

RE: Ex Parte Communications in Connection with 

 Docket No’s EERE–2010–BT–TP–0044 and EERE–2010–BT–STD–0043 

 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

 HID Lamps 

To: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov 

From: Alex Boesenberg, Manager of Regulatory Affairs 

 National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

Date: August 30, 2013 

This memorandum memorializes a communication involving NEMA Lamp Section members and 

DOE staff in connection with this proceeding. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) appreciates the opportunity to meet with the Department of Energy’s staff regarding 

industry concerns for the HID Lamps Rulemakings on August 28, 2013. 

Attendees of the meeting were as follows: John Cymbalsky (DOE), Lucy deButts (DOE), Susan 

Callahan (OSRAM Sylvania), Tom Harding (Venture Lighting), Mark Duffy (GE), Keith Cook 

(Philips), Michael Litvinovich (ULT) and Alex Boesenberg (NEMA). 

The principal purpose of the meeting was to discuss the timing of the Test Procedures 

Rulemaking and the Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking, which are being run in parallel, 

and some substantive issues related HID testing. Historically, a test procedures rulemaking 

precedes the energy conservation standard rulemaking, if not completely, then substantially. 

NEMA noted that this is also happening in the ongoing Electric Motors Rulemaking, and the 

motor industry is also facing similar challenges in commenting on one milestone document and 

then another, without knowing how the first is being adjusted following public comments. The 

consequence is that NEMA’s comments to DOE are conditional (i.e., subject to caveats). NEMA 

members were uneasy with this process, and felt the rulemaking record would benefit if the test 

procedure was complete or substantially complete before the energy conservation standard was 

developed. NEMA members commented on their concerns surrounding this as well. DOE 

noted an intention to move the HID Lamps Test Procedure out ahead, and that a revised NOPR 

is expected to be the next HID milestone released in the coming weeks/months. 

The fact that the Metal Halide Lamps Fixtures Rulemaking is also in progress, at the NOPR 

stage, was also discussed briefly because these fixtures used a variety of HID lamps, and 

concerns over changes to the Fixtures Rule (as affecting HID ballasts) could generate 

significant mismatch between the types of ballasts found to be favored by that regulation and 

the types of lamps favored by the HID regulations. Careful coordination among rulemakings 

was important, so that industry does not end up with ballasts and fixtures for which no lamps 

exist, and vice versa. DOE indicated that they were conducting coordination, but NEMA 

members noted their impressions, developed during manufacturer interviews for these 

rulemakings, that coordination was not apparent in the questions posed during the interviews. 

DOE indicated they would investigate this. 

NEMA members noted that, while IES test standards for HID lamps do exist, the NVLAP/NIST 

program has never actually accredited anyone to test HID lamps with those standards since 

there has been no need to date. It was recommended that DOE consider the approximately 6 

month timeline for accreditation, as well as the fact that all test labs (approximately 10 U.S. 
2 

manufacturer and 3rd party) will all be applying at once. Lab accreditation is also of concern 

when it comes to testing lamps for reporting to DOE, in terms of rating performance parameters 

and such. The significance of this point is that industry has approximately 20-30 years of test 

data for some products, but this data was gathered in non-accredited labs (since none have yet 

been accredited for HID testing) and so consideration for how to treat pre-Final rule data needs 

to be carefully addressed. 

NEMA members also raised concerns related to terminology, for example, “rated,” “declared,” 

“average,” “mean” and other administrative and statistical terms, each of which carries different 

meaning and is measured and reported differently in some cases. Certain references, the 

aforementioned IES test standards, use these terms quite specifically and it is critical to 

compliance that there be consistency in terminology between regulations and the referenced 

standards. Without that consistency the test standards could be applied in a manner in which 

they were intended when developed, changing the benchmark while in motion, as it were. 

NEMA members expressed concerns over statistical variation and tolerances, and again 

recommended the DOE use the content in NEMA white paper LSD-63 as guidance on how to 

analyze and treat data and performance measures. As an example, while an HID lamp sample 

size equation is not given in LSD-63’s written examples it can be calculated by using the 

guidance given in tables 6-1 and 6-2 and Section 7 of the document. The DOE was 

encouraged to have their analysts use this approach when determining sample size and to 

increase internal familiarity and use of the principles of LSD-63 in general. 

NEMA members noted that the existing draft definition of Basic Model casts a very wide net, as 

HID lamps are not arranged in families like other products. This opens the possibility that every 

HID lamp, since every one is slightly different, could be considered a Basic Model, which would 

exponentially increase testing and certification costs. The DOE countered that the converse 

might also be true, and that industry could define a very small number of basic models, even 

just one, bearing in mind that a verification test failure in such an arrangement would fail the 

basic model’s siblings. The DOE seemed open to suggestions from manufacturers, which can 

be further pursued in the upcoming HID Rulemaking milestones and the CCE rulemaking. 

NEMA members expressed concern over the amount of product testing for a previously unregulated product line; the cost of the test rigs, accreditation, staffing, and electricity usage to 

life test multi-thousand watt lamps. It was noted that perhaps AEDMs can mitigate this, and the 

DOE was open to further suggestions during the rulemaking process. 

NEMA and its members again thank the U.S. Department of Energy for hosting the meeting and 

for considering the points made therein. We look forward to working with the DOE further on 

this important project. If you have any questions on these comments, please contact me at 703-

841-3268 or alex.boesenberg@nema.org. 

Sincerely, 

Alex Boesenberg 

Manager, Regulatory Affairs 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association