[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 126 (Thursday, July 1, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37975-37990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16041]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 37975]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EE-DET-03-001]
RIN 1904-AA86


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain 
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Final Determination Concerning the 
Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for High-Intensity 
Discharge (HID) Lamps

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

ACTION: Final determination.

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

SUMMARY: Based on the best available information, the U.S. Department 
of Energy (DOE) has determined that energy conservation standards for 
certain high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps are technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and would likely result in 
significant energy savings. By notice and comment rulemaking, this 
final determination initiates the process of establishing test 
procedures and potential energy conservation standards for this 
equipment. Pursuant to court order, this final determination must be 
made by June 30, 2010.

DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 2010.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket (EE-DET-03-001) to reach background 
documents, the technical support document (TSD), or comments received, 
go to the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building 
Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, 
DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 
above telephone number for additional information about visiting the 
Resource Room. Copies of certain documents in this proceeding may be 
obtained from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's 
Web site at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_discharge_lamps.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Graves, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-1851. E-mail: [email protected]; 
or Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. E-mail: mail to: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Determination
    A. Legal Authority
    B. Background
    1. Scope of Coverage
    2. Definitions
    3. Effects on Small Businesses
II. Discussion of the Analysis of High-Intensity Discharge Lamps
    A. Purpose and Content
    B. Methodology
    1. Market and Technology Assessment
    2. Engineering Analysis
    3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
    4. National Energy Savings Analysis
    5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis
    C. Analytical Results
    1. Engineering Analysis
    2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    3. National Energy Savings and Consumer Impacts
    D. Discussion
    1. Technological Feasibility
    2. Significance of Energy Savings
    3. Economic Justification
III. Conclusion
    A. Final Determination
    B. Future Proceedings
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    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
V. Approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary

I. Summary of the Determination

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act; 42 U.S.C. 
6291 et seq.) requires DOE to issue a final determination regarding 
whether energy conservation standards for HID lamps would be 
technologically feasible, economically justified, and would likely 
result in significant energy savings. DOE has determined that such 
standards are technologically feasible, economically justified, and 
would likely result in significant energy savings. Thus, DOE issues a 
positive final determination today.
    In its analysis for this final determination, DOE evaluated 
potential standards for HID that would lead to a migration from less 
efficient probe-start metal halide (MH) lamps to more efficient pulse-
start MH (PMH) lamps and high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps. Both PMH and 
HPS lamps are existing HID technologies that are technically feasible. 
Further, based on this analysis, DOE has determined that a potential 
standard setting a level that eliminates inefficient probe-start MH 
lamps likely would be economically justified and likely would result in 
significant energy savings. DOE received comments from three different 
interested parties regarding the April 27, 2010, notice of proposed 
determination (NOPD). Without exception, the commenters were supportive 
of the proposed positive determination and of establishing energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps.
    DOE has determined that standards for HID lamps would be expected 
to be economically justified from the perspective of an individual 
consumer. According to DOE's analysis, there is at least one set of 
standard levels for HID lamps that would reduce the life-cycle cost 
(LCC) of ownership for the typical consumer (i.e., the increase in 
equipment cost resulting from a standard would be more than offset by 
energy cost savings over the life of the lamp-and-ballast system). In 
response to the NOPD, DOE received comments regarding the LCC analysis, 
with two of the commenters stating that cost inputs

[[Page 37976]]

and resulting LCC values for baseline and substitute HID lighting 
systems were too high. (ACEE, No. 22 at p. 2; SDG&E No. 23 at p. 3) \1\ 
DOE examined a large set of cost data in estimating HID lighting system 
costs for the proposed determination, and did not collect additional 
data as a result of these comments. If DOE had collected more data and 
found that its cost estimates were, in fact, too high, this finding 
would not have changed DOE's conclusion that energy conservation 
standards for HID lamps would potentially be economically justified. 
However, DOE will conduct a more in-depth evaluation of equipment cost 
inputs for the LCC analysis in an upcoming energy conservation 
standards rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A notation in the form ``ACEE, No. 22 at p. 2'' refers to 
(1) a statement that was submitted by the American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy and is recorded in the docket ``Energy 
Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: High-
Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps,'' Docket Number EERE-2006-DET-0112 
as comment number 22; and (2) a passage that appears on page 2 of 
that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also concludes that standards would be cost-effective from a 
national perspective. The national net present value (NPV) from 
standards could be as much as $30.0 billion in 2010$ for products 
purchased during the 30-year analysis period (2017 to 2046), assuming 
an annual real discount rate of 3 percent. This forecast considers only 
the direct financial costs and benefits of standards to consumers, 
specifically the increased equipment costs of HID lamps and the 
associated energy cost savings. In its determination analysis, DOE did 
not monetize or otherwise characterize any other potential costs and 
benefits of standards, such as manufacturer impacts or power plant 
emission reductions. Additional effects will be examined in a future 
analysis of the economic justification of particular standard levels in 
the context of a standards rulemaking that would set specific energy 
conservation requirements.
    DOE's analysis also indicates that standards would likely result in 
significant cumulative energy savings over the 30-year analysis period 
(2017-2046) of at least 11.4 quads. These savings are equivalent to the 
electricity consumption of approximately 57 million U.S. homes during 1 
year. This is a much higher estimate than that announced by DOE in the 
NOPD. For the NOPD analysis, DOE presented a full range of potential 
energy savings in chapter 6 of the TSD (section 6.2), and reported the 
lowest of these results in the notice, which was the initial 2.8 quads 
estimate that represented the physical energy savings discounted at a 
7-percent discount rate. 75 FR 22031, 22032 (April 27, 2010). However, 
DOE refined its analyses during the comment period--which included a 
correction to a technical error in the spreadsheet calculation--and is 
now highlighting the undiscounted physical energy savings of 11.4 
quads, in an effort to be more consistent with other DOE determinations 
\2\. (See, e.g., the non-class A external power supplies rule, 75 FR 
27179 (May 14, 2010).) Further documentation supporting the analyses 
described in this notice is contained in a separate TSD, available from 
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_discharge_lamps.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Discounting is an economic and financial concept that 
reflects the fact that often the value of a quantity in the future 
is less than the value today. For financial estimates, DOE 
highlights discounted values to reflect the time value of money, 
while for non-financial physical quantities, DOE highlights 
undiscounted sums and calculates the discounted sums as a 
sensitivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Legal Authority

    The National Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978 amended EPCA to 
add a Part C to Title III of EPCA,\3\ which established an energy 
conservation program for certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992), Public Law 102-486, 
106 Stat. 2776, also amended EPCA and expanded Title III to include HID 
lamps. Specifically, EPACT 1992 amended section 346 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6317) to provide that the Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) must 
prescribe testing requirements and energy conservation standards for 
those HID lamps for which the Secretary determines that energy 
conservation standards ``would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would likely result in significant energy 
savings.'' (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1).)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For editorial reasons, Part C, Certain Industrial Equipment, 
was redesignated as Part A-1 in the U.S. Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to these requirements of EPCA, because DOE has made a 
positive final determination, DOE must proceed to establish testing 
requirements for those HID lamps to which today's final determination 
applies. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1).) Subsequently, DOE will conduct a 
rulemaking to establish appropriate energy conservation standards. 
During the standards rulemaking, DOE will decide whether and at what 
level(s) to promulgate energy conservation standards. The decision will 
be based on an in-depth consideration, with the assistance of public 
participation, of the technological feasibility, economic 
justification, and energy savings of specific potential standard levels 
in the context of the criteria and procedures for prescribing new or 
amended standards established by section 325(o) and (p) of EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(p).)

B. Background

    DOE conducted previous analyses estimating the likely range of 
energy savings and economic benefits that would result from energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps, and published draft reports 
describing its analyses in 2003 \4\ and 2004.\5\ The draft reports and 
their corresponding technical support documents (referred to as the 
2003 TSD and 2004 TSD in today's notice) were made available for public 
comment on the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web 
site at http;//www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance--standards/
commercial/high--intensity--discharge--lamps.html. The reports made no 
recommendation concerning the determination that DOE should make. 
Parties that submitted comments after the 2003 draft report included 
the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), the 
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Delta Power Supply 
(Delta), Edison Electric Institute, National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association (NEMA), the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 
(PennDOT), and Ms. Lucinda Seigel. DOE received comments after the 2004 
draft report from ACEEE, Benya Lighting Design (Benya), and NEMA. Those 
comments were discussed where applicable in the NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In June of 2003, DOE published the Draft Framework for 
Determination Analysis of Energy Conservation Standards for High-
Intensity Discharge Lamps. This report can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_discharge_lamps.html.
    \5\ In December of 2004, DOE published the High-Intensity 
Discharge Lamps Analysis of Potential Energy Savings. This report 
can be found at:  http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_discharge_lamps.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In advance of today's final determination, DOE published a TSD on 
the aforementioned web site in conjunction with the NOPD, which was 
published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2010 (75 FR 22031). In 
response to the NOPD, DOE received comments from ACEEE, NEMA, and San 
Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). All three interested parties were 
supportive of the proposed positive

[[Page 37977]]

determination and of the establishment of energy conservation standards 
for HID lamps. Where specific comments were received, they are 
addressed below.
1. Scope of Coverage
    For purposes of today's final determination, DOE limited its 
analyses to HID technologies. DOE received comments in response to its 
previous draft reports regarding alternative non-HID technologies 
including induction and fluorescent lamps. 75 FR 22031, 22033 (April 
27, 2010). In comments submitted in response to the NOPD, both ACEEE 
and SDG&E recommended considering non-HID sources that compete with HID 
lighting systems. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2) SDG&E specifically identified 
light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and electronic HID ballasts. (SDG&E, No. 
23 at p. 3) However, as stated in the NOPD, non-HID lamp technologies 
(including electronic HID ballasts) are outside the scope of the 
determination process 75 FR 22031, 22033 (April 27, 2010). DOE will 
consider the effects of non-HID lamp technologies (e.g., the 
penetration of LED products in the HID lighting market, and their 
effects on future HID lamp shipments) as part of the future energy 
conservation standards rulemaking.
2. Definitions
    In the NOPD, DOE listed the already codified definitions applicable 
to the determination, including those for ``HID lamp,'' ``mercury vapor 
(MV) lamp,'' and ``MH lamp.'' DOE also proposed a definition for HPS 
lamp, to be inserted into Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) 431.452, and included the definition in the list of items for 
comment. 75 FR 22031, 22033 (April 27, 2010) In comments on the NOPD, 
NEMA recommended a definition for ``HPS lamps'' from American National 
Standard Institute (ANSI) C82.9-1996, ``American National Standard for 
High-Intensity Discharge and Low-Pressure Sodium Lamps, Ballasts and 
Transformers.'' (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 3) Under subsection 3.27, 
``Definitions,'' ANSIC82.9-1996 defines ``HPS lamp'' as ``[a] high-
intensity discharge (HID) lamp in which the major portion of the light 
is produced from radiation from sodium vapor operating at a partial 
pressure of about 6.67 x 10\3\ pascals (50 torr) or greater.'' DOE will 
consider this proposed definition when developing test procedures and 
potential energy conservation standards for HID lamps.
3. Effects on Small Businesses
    In the NOPD, DOE requested comment on the possible effect of energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps on small businesses. NEMA 
commented that the full cost of all the components involved (e.g., 
lamp, ballast, or new fixture) would need to be cost effective for 
large and small businesses alike. Further, NEMA indicated that the 
energy savings from a required replacement HID system under new 
standards should pay for the new equipment in less than 3 years, and 
that payback periods (PBPs) exceeding 3 years would have negative 
effects on small businesses. NEMA also noted that the color quality of 
replacement HID systems must be appropriate for their intended lighting 
applications, and that eliminating cost-effective lamp types with 
desired color qualities would also negatively affect small businesses. 
(NEMA, No. 21 at p. 3) In the upcoming energy conservation standards 
rulemaking, DOE will consider the comments from NEMA in developing both 
HID lamp equipment classes and detailed inputs for its LCC analysis, 
and in identifying potentially affected consumer types for its LCC 
subgroup analysis.

II. Discussion of the Analysis of High-Intensity Discharge Lamps

A. Purpose and Content

    DOE analyzed the feasibility of achieving significant energy 
savings from energy conservation standards for HID lamps, and presents 
the results of the related market and technology assessments, 
engineering analysis, and economic analyses in a TSD for this final 
determination. In subsequent analyses for the energy conservation 
standards rulemaking, DOE will perform the analyses required by EPCA. 
These analyses will involve more precise and detailed information that 
DOE will develop during the standards rulemaking process and will 
detail the effects of proposed energy conservation standards for HID 
lamps.

B. Methodology

    To address EPCA requirements that DOE determine whether energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps would be technologically feasible, 
economically justified, and would likely result in significant energy 
savings (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)), DOE's analysis consisted of five 
component analyses: (1) A market and technology assessment to 
characterize where and how HID lamps are used; (2) an engineering 
analysis to estimate the relationship between product costs and energy 
use; (3) an LCC analysis to estimate the costs and benefits to users 
from increased efficacy \6\ in HID lamps; (4) a national energy savings 
analysis to estimate the potential energy savings on a national scale; 
and (5) a national consumer impacts analysis to estimate potential 
economic costs and benefits that would result from improving energy 
efficacy in the considered HID lamps. These separate analyses are 
briefly addressed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Efficacy,'' expressed in units of lumens per watt, is used 
here to characterize the efficiency with which a lamp or lamp-and-
ballast system produces light. ``Efficiency'' is unitless, and is 
used as a general term (e.g., ``energy efficiency'') or to 
characterize lamp ballasts, which do not produce light (e.g., 
``higher efficiency ballast designs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Market and Technology Assessment
    In support of today's final determination, DOE conducted research 
into the market for considered HID lamps, including national annual 
shipments, the current range of lamp efficacies, lamp applications and 
utilization, market structure, and distribution channels. In the NOPD, 
DOE requested data and comments on several analysis inputs. 75 FR 
22031, 22042 (April, 27, 2010). NEMA responded that it would work with 
DOE during the rulemaking process for an energy conservation standard 
to provide additional data for the following analysis inputs:
     Equipment (including lamp, ballast, and fixture) 
lifetimes;
     Present-year shipments estimates;
     Present-year efficiency distributions;
     Market-growth forecasts; and
     Usage profiles. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 3)
    NEMA also provided specific comments regarding a single efficacy 
metric (i.e., lumens per watt) for HID lamps, and technology options 
for increasing HID lighting system efficiency. NEMA commented that 
factors such as lamp operating position, arc tube shielding for open-
fixture operation, and directional (i.e., reflector) lamp designs will 
affect lamp efficacies and should be considered in an energy 
conservation standard. In particular, NEMA suggested that lumens per 
watt is not an appropriate efficacy metric for directional lamps, and 
that an appropriate metric has not yet been developed. DOE will 
consider these factors in developing test procedures and equipment 
classes in the upcoming energy conservation standards rulemaking. With 
respect to HID lamp-and-ballast system efficacy, NEMA referenced its 
whitepaper LSD 54-2010, ``The Strengths and Potentials of Metal

[[Page 37978]]

Halide Lighting Systems,'' as a possible resource for information about 
HID system efficacy improvements. (NEMA, No. 21 at pp. 2-4) DOE 
evaluated the whitepaper and found that it does not contain additional 
data that would substantially affect the analytical results of the 
preliminary determination analysis.
    For today's final determination, in response to DOE's request, NEMA 
provided data on HID lamp shipments, subcategorized by HPS, MV, and MH 
lamp data from its member manufacturers, for the 5-year period from 
2003 to 2008. NEMA provided data for 1990 to 2002 to DOE in previous 
efforts related to today's final determination. Based on its market 
research, DOE found that HID lamps are typically used in commercial, 
industrial, and municipal applications with differing electricity 
tariffs. DOE estimates that, on average, HID lamps are used in 
applications (e.g., municipal (exterior) and industrial) that typically 
operate 12 hours per day or more.
    DOE has concluded, as stated in the NOPD, that dimming of HID lamps 
is not common. 75 FR 22031, 22034 (April 27, 2010). DOE examined NEMA's 
Lighting Systems Division Document LSD 14-2002, ``Guidelines on the 
Application of Dimming High Intensity Discharge Lamps,'' to evaluate 
typical practices for HID dimming. LSD 14-2002 notes the four 
applicable dimming issues related to this final determination: (1) That 
that dimming ballasts are relatively new to the HID lighting market 
(having only been commercially available since the 1990s); (2) that HID 
lamps should not be dimmed below 50 percent of the rated lamp wattage; 
(3) that color, life and efficacy are negatively affected by dimming; 
and (4) that few standards exist for dimming of HID lamp-and-ballast 
systems (NEMA recommends that users evaluate dimming systems in the 
field to ensure adequate performance.) Given these barriers to the 
dimming of HID lamps in typical applications, DOE has assumed that HID 
lamps are operating at full power for the purpose of the analysis 
supporting this final determination. NEMA commented that these 
statements about dimming are true, but that dimming is becoming 
increasingly important and that legislation (both adopted and pending) 
features HID dimming. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 2) As addressed in chapter 2 
of the TSD (section 2.4), California requires that indoor metal halide 
luminaires manufactured after January 1, 2010 comply with at least one 
enhanced efficiency option (including more efficient ballasts or a 
dimming ballast) \7\; and draft legislation before Congress would 
require that certain outdoor luminaires (including those using HID 
sources) manufactured after January 1, 2016 be dimmable. DOE 
acknowledges that dimming is becoming more prevalent with HID systems, 
but has decided that consideration of dimming at this time would not 
substantially alter the results of the determination analysis because 
of its currently small market share. DOE will consider relevant aspects 
of dimming in the test procedure and energy conservation standards 
rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CAL. CODE REGS title 20, Sec.  1605.3(n)(2) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several comments provided in response to the 2004 draft report 
addressed elements of the HID lamp market and how standards promulgated 
by DOE might affect the market. Specifically, Benya commented that 
standards that effectively banned MV lamps could be warranted and 
beneficial. (Benya, No. 14 at p. 1) ACEEE commented that DOE should 
focus on replacing probe-start MH with pulse-start MH, in addition to 
possibly introducing standards for MV lamps. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 1)
    Pursuant to EPCA, MV ballasts, except for those with specialty 
applications (e.g., reprographics), can no longer be manufactured or 
imported as of January 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ee); 10 CFR 431.286) 
Consequently, the analysis for this final determination assumes that 
any MV lamp shipments will service existing MV ballasts only, and that 
MV lamp shipments will decline as a result.
    Moreover, regulations currently in effect in six states (Arizona, 
California, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington) limit the 
use of probe-start MH technologies by banning fixtures in the wattage 
range of 150-500 from having probe-start ballasts. DOE's analysis for 
today's final determination includes information regarding the impact 
of State regulations, and considers market trends in both MV and probe-
start MH technologies. In light of this background, DOE agrees with 
ACEEE's comment that pulse-start MH lamps should be considered as a 
substitute for both MV and probe-start MH lamps, and addressed this 
option in its analysis.
    A key factor in the relative performance of different HID lamp 
technologies is the lamp lifetime. Manufacturers publish the life 
rating for HID lamps known as B50 (i.e., the point at which 50 percent 
of a population of lamps is still operating). DOE received information 
regarding lamp and ballast lifetimes in comments received in response 
to the 2003 draft report. Specifically, DOE received comments that MV 
and HPS lamps were typically relamped (i.e., replaced) every 4 years, 
and MH lamps typically every 2 years. Allegheny further suggested that 
the lamp life is generally the rated lamp life by the manufacturer. 
(Caltrans, No. 8 at p. 2; Allegheny, No. 12 at p. 1) Typical life of 
HID lamps varies with lamp type and wattage, and ranges from 8,000 to 
greater than 24,000 hours, according to the manufacturer catalog data 
surveyed and included in chapter 3 of the TSD (sections 3.3-3.5). In 
determining annual maintenance costs, DOE used median rated lamp 
lifetime as the basis for relamping schedules.
    DOE used the industry-accepted, widely-cited life of magnetic 
ballasts of 50,000 hours. After the 2003 draft report, Allegheny noted 
that MV ballast lifetimes are 12 years or greater. (Allegheny, No. 12 
at p. 1) Allegheny did not provide the corresponding typical annual 
operating hours for the MV ballast, however. In the 2003 draft report, 
DOE assumed that MV lamps were used primarily for fixed (stationary) 
outdoor lighting (see chapter 2 of the 2003 TSD). DOE retains this 
assumption for today's final determination, and assumes an average 
daily operation of 12 hours (a typical ``dusk to dawn'' operating 
scenario), or annual operation of 4,380 hours for MV systems (see TSD 
chapter 2, section 2.2). By extension, 12 years of dusk-to-dawn 
operation would total 52,560 hours; therefore, Allegheny's 12-year 
ballast lifetime is consistent with DOE's assumed lifetime of 50,000 
hours.
    The life of the light fixture (also known as a luminaire) varies 
but generally lasts as long as the ballast. After reviewing the NOPD, 
ACEEE recommended additional research on the frequency of ballast 
replacement versus fixture replacement to inform the analysis. (ACEEE, 
No. 22 at p. 2) During the MH lamp fixture public meeting on January 
26, 2010, interested parties commented that, for an exterior fixture 
the ballast would routinely be replaced many times before the fixture 
would be replaced. (Philips, Metal Halide Lamp Fixture Energy 
Conservation Standard (EERE-2009-BT-STD-0018, RIN 1904-AC00), Framework 
Document Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.005 at p. 92) DOE agrees 
with the commenters that the collection of more lifetime data will be 
useful for the evaluation of relevant standards, and DOE will more 
fully evaluate replacement frequencies for lamps, ballasts, and 
fixtures in the test procedure and energy conservation standards 
rulemaking.

[[Page 37979]]

    Another factor that can affect the energy usage of an HID lighting 
system is the energy usage of the ballast. DOE analyzed the system 
(lamp and ballast) power since particular lamp technologies are usually 
associated with a technology-specific ballast design. DOE evaluated 
manufacturer data, across multiple manufacturers, on ballast 
performance for multiple HID ballast designs, including constant-
wattage autotransformer, constant-wattage isolated, high-reactance 
autotransformer, and magnetically regulated electronic ballasts. Based 
on its evaluation, DOE determined that the variation in ballast input 
power across ballast designs for a given lamp wattage is relatively 
small when compared to the variation in energy use among different HID 
lighting system technologies.
    For this final determination, DOE analyzed a range of lamp 
capacities. At least two conventions exist for characterizing HID lamp 
capacity: (1) Input power and (2) lumen (i.e., light) output. DOE 
categorized representative HID lamps based on the lumen output 
(measured in mean lumens) of the analyzed baseline lamp types because 
as lamps become more efficient, the input power should decrease as the 
user service (i.e., lumen output) stays the same or increases. Lamp 
lumen output directly correlates with illumination levels produced by 
lighting equipment and is, therefore, a more relevant measure for 
lighting applications than wattage, which does not predict illumination 
levels. The analyzed equipment classes correspond with medium-wattage 
HID lamps (defined as between 150 and 500 watts (W)), which was the 
primary wattage range considered in the 2004 draft report. However, 
because DOE considers lumen output instead of wattage as a more 
appropriate measure of lamp utility from a consumer perspective, it 
uses lumen output as the basis for categorization in today's final 
determination as shown in Table II.1 of this notice, which provides the 
engineering analysis results.
2. Engineering Analysis
    In the engineering analysis, DOE identified representative baseline 
HID lighting systems and energy-efficient substitutes within each lumen 
output category. Both the baseline system and the energy-efficient 
substitutes have different input power ratings (i.e., the wattage 
required by the lamp-and-ballast system), with the input power rating 
decreasing with the increased efficacy of the substitute. The 
engineering analysis outputs of cost and energy consumption are 
critical inputs to subsequent financial cost-benefit calculations for 
individual consumers, performed in the LCC and the national impacts 
analysis. DOE developed end-user prices, including a contractor mark-up 
rate and average national sales tax for analyzed lamp, lamp-and-
ballast, and luminaire designs.
    DOE did not include MV lamps in the engineering analysis for 
today's final determination. DOE forecasts that MV lamp shipments will 
decline to zero by the compliance date of a potential HID lamps 
standard, assumed as 2017, because of the statutory ban on the 
importation and manufacture of MV ballasts after January 1, 2008. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(ee)) Consequently, DOE did not analyze MV baseline lamps in 
its LCC analysis because MV fixtures are no longer a viable purchase 
option. However, DOE did consider the existing MV fixtures in the 
existing HID installed base when it performed its national energy 
savings/national consumer benefits analysis. This installed base of MV 
systems will age and is expected to be replaced with other HID 
technologies over time.
    DOE has examined other currently available commercial equipment for 
replacing the least efficacious (baseline) HID sources--MV and probe-
start MH lamps. ACEEE noted, in response to the 2003 draft report, that 
any potential standard should address the replacement of probe-start MH 
lamps with pulse-start MH lamps. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2) Typical 
substitutes used to replace both MV or probe-start MH technologies 
include HPS and pulse-start MH lamps. HPS lamps are among the most 
efficacious electric light sources, and are a viable substitute in 
applications where energy efficiency and/or lower first cost is 
considered more important than color quality. Pulse-start MH is the 
most efficient broad spectrum (``white light'') HID technology and has 
a higher first cost than both MV and HPS. In response to the NOPD, 
ACEEE commented that further analysis should include accounting for 
savings gained from eliminating the least efficacious pulse-start MH 
and HPS lamps. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that 
elimination of these lamp types may provide additional energy savings, 
but notes that an exhaustive exploration of all possible standards is 
not required for a positive final determination today. During an energy 
conservation standards analysis, DOE will examine equipment classes for 
all HID lamps, not just the representative set of lamps considered in 
today's notice. NEMA commented that DOE should not assume that HPS is a 
suitable substitute for MH in all applications due to color quality. 
(NEMA, No. 21 at p. 2) DOE agrees with NEMA and does not assume that 
HPS lamps are suitable for all applications. When evaluating potential 
energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into 
classes by the energy used, capacity, or other performance-related 
features that impact efficiency, and other factors such as the utility 
of the product to users. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE typically establishes 
different energy conservation standards for different equipment 
classes, and will evaluate the efficacy and utility of different MH and 
HPS lamp designs in developing proposed equipment classes. For the 
determination analysis, DOE assumed that lower efficacy MH lamps are 
replaced by a combination of higher efficiency MH and HPS lighting 
systems.
    DOE assumes in the analysis supporting the final determination that 
changes in lamp technology will lead to changes in the entire lamp 
system. DOE therefore used a systems approach in analyzing the 
representative equipment types because both lamps and ballasts 
determine a system's energy use and lumen output. Accordingly, the 
analysis paired lamps with corresponding ballasts to develop 
representative lamp-and-ballast systems, in order to estimate the 
actual energy usage and lumen output of operating lamps. In response to 
the NOPD, NEMA commented that they agreed with this approach. (NEMA, 
No. 21 at p. 4)
    In the engineering analysis, DOE considered only magnetic ballasts 
because they are the most common ballast used in HID lighting systems. 
DOE estimated that magnetic ballasts constitute over 90 percent of HID 
ballasts currently sold, and an even higher percentage of the installed 
HID ballast stock. Electronic ballasts entered the market at the end of 
the 1990s and still occupy less than a 10-percent market share because 
of a variety of technical and operational barriers that are discussed 
in some detail in chapter 3 of the TSD (section 3.7). In its comments, 
NEMA stated that greater savings will result from the application of 
electronic HID ballasts and/or intelligent controls rather than from 
increasing lamp efficacies. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 4) While DOE 
appreciates NEMA's comment, EPCA specifically directs DOE to prescribe 
energy conservation standards for HID lamps, and does not provide DOE 
with the authority to regulate HID ballasts. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(2).) 
DOE notes that it is currently developing energy conservation standards 
for MH lamp

[[Page 37980]]

fixtures that focus on MH lamp ballast efficiency and other performance 
elements in the context of a separate rulemaking. (EERE-2009-BT-STD-
0018, RIN 1904-AC00) Additionally, the Energy Independence Security Act 
of 2007 (EISA 2007) mandates minimum ballast efficiencies for MH 
fixtures sold after January 1, 2009. (42 U.S.C. 6295(hh)(1).) Further, 
as noted above, MV ballasts can no longer be manufactured or imported. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(ee); 10 CFR 431.286)
    In summary, DOE acknowledges that HID lamp efficacy is in part a 
function of lamp-and-ballast system design, and identified 
representative HID systems for its analysis. DOE specifically excluded 
MV systems from its analysis due to the aforementioned existing EPCA 
ban on MV ballasts and the anticipated resulting disappearance of MV 
lamps from the market. Although DOE acknowledges the effects of HID 
ballast design on overall system efficacy, DOE is only required by EPCA 
to address potential HID lamp efficacy standards. DOE will consider 
relevant aspects of ballast design (e.g., electrical characteristics, 
magnetic versus electronic design, dimming capability) and their 
impacts on HID lamps in the test procedure and energy conservation 
rulemaking process.
3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
    DOE conducted an initial LCC analysis to estimate the net financial 
benefit to users from potential energy conservation standards that 
would increase the efficacy of HID lamps. The LCC analysis compared the 
additional initial cost of a more efficacious lamp and related fixture 
to the discounted value of electricity savings over the life of the 
fixture ballast. DOE's LCC analysis used the following five inputs: (1) 
Estimated average annual operating hours and lamp lifetimes, (2) 
estimated average prices for lamps and fixtures, (3) representative 
maintenance costs, (4) electricity prices paid by users of HID lamps, 
and (5) the discount rate. For the purpose of today's final 
determination, DOE used current national average electricity prices for 
commercial and industrial applications, obtained from the Energy 
Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 AEO 
2010)'' \8\ to calculate impacts on the average HID lamp user. The LCC 
analysis does not include MV lamps because MV ballasts can no longer be 
imported or manufactured after January 1, 2008 (see TSD chapter 2, 
section 2.4 and chapter 5, section 5.2). Accordingly, DOE assumed that 
when MV ballasts fail, consumers will have to switch to another HID 
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ All AEO publications are available online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LCC analysis not only evaluated the replacement of the HID lamp 
but also those cases in which the whole system would need to be 
replaced. Given the specificity of HID lamp-and-ballast combinations, 
DOE assumed that replacement of baseline HID systems with energy-
efficient substitutes would, at a minimum, require a new lamp-and-
ballast system. In some cases, the physical and operational 
characteristics of the replacement lamp-and-ballast system may also 
require replacement of the entire fixture. Consequently, DOE treated 
lamp-and-ballast and fixture replacement as economic issues in the LCC 
analysis, which considered the installed cost of the lamp, lamp-and-
ballast system, and fixture. In analyzing the lighting system, the 
ballast has the longer lifetime and therefore represents the lifetime 
of the system (which may have the lamp replaced several times before 
the ballast is replaced). DOE therefore set the LCC analysis period 
equal to the lifetime of the fixture ballast in years (i.e., 50,000 
hours divided by the assumed annual operating hours, which equals 
approximately 9 years and 12 years for interior and exterior 
applications, respectively). This approach is consistent with the LCC 
methodology that DOE used in the 2003 draft report (see 2003 TSD 
chapter 5, section 5.4).
    DOE assigned annual operating hours to representative equipment 
based on two alternative operating scenarios. Exterior lighting 
applications (e.g., parking lot lighting) were assumed for the 
commercial operating scenario, where HID lamps with poorer color 
quality (e.g., HPS) are a viable substitute for lamps with better color 
quality, depending on energy efficiency and/or first cost requirements. 
Interior lighting applications were assumed for the industrial 
operating scenario, where ``white light'' substitutes with higher color 
quality (e.g., pulse-start MH) are assumed to be mandatory.
    DOE obtained information on hours of operation for the different 
scenarios from industry publications that provide guidance for 
installers and lighting engineers. Based upon these sources, DOE 
estimated 4,200 hours per year of operation for exterior applications 
and 5,840 hours per year for interior applications. A more detailed 
discussion of the data sources and the derivation of these estimates 
are provided in chapter 5 of the TSD (section 5.1).
    In the LCC analysis, DOE also included maintenance costs in the 
estimation of the LCC of HID lighting systems. DOE assumed $225 for 
each exterior relamping and $74 for each interior relamping, and 
requested comment on these values in the NOPD. Chapter 5 of the TSD 
provides the rationale for how both the exterior and interior 
maintenance costs were derived. No substantive comments were received; 
therefore, DOE will consider using these maintenance values in the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking.
    For the LCC analysis, DOE estimated average commercial and 
industrial electricity prices using the 2017 to 2030 forecasts set 
forth in EIA's AEO 2010. DOE used the average price for the relevant 
end-use sector (i.e., commercial or industrial) over the course of the 
30-year analysis period (2017-2046). In the NOPD, DOE requested comment 
as to whether, in the energy conservation standards rulemaking 
analysis, DOE's analysis should include the minimum, mean, and maximum 
energy tariffs for the relevant end use sectors. DOE did not receive 
any comments relating to this issue, and will consider evaluating 
minimum, mean, and maximum energy tariffs in the energy conservation 
standards rulemaking.
    In the LCC analysis, the discount rate determines the relative 
value of future energy savings compared to increases in first costs 
that may arise from a potential energy conservation standard. DOE 
estimates the cost of capital for commercial and industrial companies 
by examining both debt and equity capital, and develops an 
appropriately weighted average of the cost to the company of equity and 
debt financing. The resulting average discounted industrial and 
commercial discount rates used in the LCC analysis are 7.6 percent and 
7.0 percent, respectively (see TSD chapter 5, section 5.1). DOE did not 
receive any comments on the use of the discount rates in response to 
the NOPD. DOE notes that these commercial and industrial sector 
discount rates are the same as those used in the final rule for general 
service fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamps. 74 FR 34080, 
34113 (July 14, 2009). In the energy conservation standards rulemaking 
for HID lamps, DOE will review current economic data in developing 
updated discount rates, as applicable.
    In the 2003 draft report, DOE used available retail catalog pricing 
for HID lamp and fixture prices. In response, NEMA commented that 
retail price catalogs are not a good source of actual cost information, 
and recommended hiring an energy service company to solicit bids on 
prices. (NEMA, No. 6 at

[[Page 37981]]

p. 4) DOE considered this comment, but concludes that although that 
there may be inaccuracies in list prices, there is a greater risk that 
there may be distortions in bid prices that would create data that are 
unrepresentative of future costs. Currently, the country is 
experiencing a deep recession in which bid prices are likely to be 
deflated substantially when compared to average economic conditions. 
This situation is likely to distort any bid price data that DOE would 
solicit. For the purposes of today's final determination, DOE therefore 
assumes that catalog price data are more representative than bid price 
data, and used recent catalog data (accessed online between August 2009 
and April 2010) for its LCC analysis (see TSD chapter 5, section 5.1). 
In a future energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE will consider 
multiple sources for pricing data.
    For today's final determination, DOE estimated the base purchase 
price of representative HID lamps, ballasts, and fixtures using current 
prices available on both the W.W. Grainger, Inc. and Goodmart Web sites 
9 10. DOE notes that it also used this approach for 
estimating base pricing in the Small Electric Motor Determination. 71 
FR 38799, 38803 (July 10, 2006). These online retailer price catalogs 
were selected because they offer a wide range of products (i.e., lamps, 
ballasts, and fixtures) for multiple types of HID lamps and wattages. 
The referenced Web sites are also publicly available (requiring no 
special log in to access the data) and offer product information that 
can be applied to the full range of HID lighting system technologies 
and components. DOE considered using both municipal and State 
procurement contracts as sources of pricing data, but eliminated these 
data from consideration in the determination analysis. Specifically, 
municipal procurement contracts for HID lamps can provide price data, 
but do not contain price data for other components of the lamp system 
needed for the analysis. DOE also evaluated State procurement contracts 
for fixtures but found them to be too highly variable to be useful. 
Chapter 5 of the TSD (section 5.1) presents the price data that DOE 
obtained from all sources, including RS-Means, State procurement 
contracts, Grainger, and Goodmart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ http://www.grainger.com (last accessed April 16, 2010).
    \10\ http://www.goodmart.com (last accessed April 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its analysis, DOE observed that HID prices vary by region, 
manufacturer, quantity, type, and quality (and that end users pay 
different prices). Therefore, DOE attempted to select price data for 
different lighting system options that were directly comparable. DOE 
also added a contractor mark-up of 13 percent and a sales tax of 7 
percent in calculating equipment prices (see TSD chapter 5, section 
5.1). As stated in the NOPD, the contractor markup value was 
recommended by ACEEE in response to the 2003 draft report, and DOE 
found the value consistent with other lighting rules. 75 FR 22031, 
22037 (April 27, 2010). DOE proposed using an average national sales 
tax of 7 percent in the NOPD. 75 FR 22031, 22037 (April 27, 2010) DOE 
received no comments regarding this proposal. A 7-percent sales tax is 
consistent with the rate used in the recent non-class A external power 
supplies final determination. 75 FR 27170, 271741 (May 14, 2010). In 
the NOPD, DOE invited comment on its selection and analysis of the 
available HID lighting system price data. ACEEE and SDG&E recommended 
that DOE revisit the product price assumptions in the LCC because the 
prices presented in chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD (section 5.1) were high. 
(ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2; SDG&E No. 23 at p. 3) DOE will conduct a more 
in-depth evaluation of equipment pricing in an energy conservation 
standards rulemaking, as a refined analysis would not change the 
outcome of today's positive final determination.
    Depending on when different parts of an HID lighting system are 
replaced, the costs of switching to improved efficacy lamps can involve 
lamp-and-ballast replacement, or replacement of the entire fixture. For 
example, an original fixture may not physically accommodate the new 
ballast required by an improved efficacy lamp, thereby necessitating 
fixture replacement. The analysis underlying today's final 
determination includes lamp-and-ballast and fixture replacement costs 
when calculating the LCC for HID lamps. In the NOPD, DOE also requested 
comment regarding equipment costs related to increasing lamp efficacy. 
NEMA responded that the lighting industry anticipates higher lamp costs 
with increasing efficacy. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 4) DOE acknowledges this 
general cost-efficacy relationship, as illustrated in chapter 5 of the 
TSD, with higher prices for pulse-start MH lamps compared with probe-
start MH lamps.
4. National Energy Savings Analysis
    To estimate national energy savings for HID lamps sold from 2017 
through 2046, DOE calculated the estimated energy usage of the analyzed 
lamp-and-ballast systems in a base case (absent a standard) and a 
standards case. As discussed in chapter 6 of the TSD (section 6.1), DOE 
calculated the installed base of HID lamps using historical lamp 
shipments data provided by NEMA. Projected shipments were based on the 
lamp lifetimes, system energy use, and operating scenarios developed 
for the LCC analysis, as well as estimated market and substitution 
trends in the base case and standards case. For this initial analysis, 
DOE did not address the effects of emerging, non-HID lighting 
technologies (e.g., LEDs) on HID lamp shipments, but notes that an 
exhaustive shipments analysis is not required for a positive 
determination. DOE intends to address emerging technologies in its more 
robust shipments analysis as part of the energy conservation standards 
rulemaking process.
    In response to the NOPD, DOE received a comment from SDG&E 
regarding shipment projections starting in 2017. SDG&E recommended that 
DOE ``revise the assumption that new MH fixtures sold in 2017 will 
contain probe-start ballasts.'' (SDG&E, No. 23 at p. 2) ACEEE also 
recommended that DOE revise its assumptions for MH lamp shipments. 
(ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that both existing Federal and 
State legislation, as discussed in the TSD, will affect the 
installation of probe-start MH fixtures (see NOPD TSD chapter 2, 
section 2.4). The State bans on ballasts for probe-start MH lamps, as 
well as more stringent Federal ballast efficiency requirements for 
probe-start MH lamps, will affect shipments of fixtures containing 
probe-start MH lamps. However, DOE's shipment projections were not 
based on new probe-start MH fixtures being sold in 2017. As discussed 
in chapter 2 of the NOPD TSD (section 2.1), the majority of existing 
installed MH fixtures (estimated at 35 million as of 2002) contain 
probe-start ballasts. These legacy fixtures will require replacement 
lamps even without replacement of the ballast. Such replacement 
shipments are reflected in DOE's shipment projections in the analysis 
for this determination.\11\ DOE will further refine the lamp shipment 
projections as part of the energy conservation standards rulemaking 
process, consulting fixture shipments data gathered in the MH lamp 
fixture rulemaking as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Shipment projections presented in National Energy Savings/
Net Present Value spreadsheet at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/hid_analytical_spreadsheet_tools.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate potential energy savings from the proposed energy 
conservation standards case, DOE used a spreadsheet model that 
calculated total end-use electricity savings in each year of the 30-
year analysis period (2017-2046). The model features an equipment-
retirement function to calculate the

[[Page 37982]]

number of units sold in a given year, or vintage, which would still be 
in operation in future years. For example, some of the HID lamps sold 
in 2030 will operate through 2035. DOE calculated primary energy (i.e., 
energy used by the power plant) savings associated with end-use 
electricity (i.e., site energy used by the lamp-and-ballast system) 
savings using data from EIA's AEO 2010. These data provided a factor, 
or an average multiplier, for relating end-use electricity to primary 
energy use for each year from 2017 to 2030. DOE extrapolated the trend 
in these years to derive factors for 2031 to 2046. Energy use in both 
the potential standards case and base case are calculated for all 
equipment categories and converted to quads. The difference in energy 
use between every equipment category in these two cases is summed 
across all years of the analysis period. A more detailed discussion of 
the national energy savings model, data sources, and results is 
provided in chapter 6 of the TSD (section 6.1).
5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis
    DOE estimated the national economic effect on end-users in terms of 
the NPV of cumulative benefits during the 30-year analysis period 
(2017-2046). It considered the effects under the same range of 
scenarios as it did for estimating national energy savings. It also 
used the new equipment costs and energy savings for each energy 
efficiency level that it applied in the LCC analysis. To simplify the 
analysis, DOE estimated the value of energy savings using the average 
AEO 2010 forecast electricity price from 2017 to 2030. To estimate the 
trend in electricity prices after 2030, DOE extrapolated its forecasted 
electricity prices for 2031 to 2046 by applying the average rate of 
price change during 2020-2030. As discussed in chapter 6 of the TSD 
(section 6.1), DOE discounted future costs and benefits by using a 3-
percent and 7-percent discount rate, respectively, according to the 
``Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit Analysis of Federal 
Programs'' issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
(Circular No. A-94, September 2003).

C. Analytical Results

1. Engineering Analysis
    As described above, DOE conducted separate analyses examining ten 
representative HID lamp types: Probe-start MH (175, 250, 360, and 400-
watt), PMH (150, 175, and 320-watt), and HPS (100, 150, and 250-watt). 
These lamp types are categorized by mean lumen output in Table II.1, 
with some PMH and HPS lamp types appearing in more than one lumen 
output category.

  Table II.1--Representative Substitutes for Baseline Probe-Start Metal
                              Halide Lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate lumen
   output mean      Baseline probe-   Energy efficient  Energy efficient
     lumens*           start MH W      option 1, PMH W   option 2, HPS W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           8,800                175               150               100
          13,700                250               175               150
          23,500                360               320               250
          25,200                400               320               250
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the engineering analysis, for a lamp to be considered a suitable 
option, its replacement had to produce at least 90 percent of the mean 
lumen output of the baseline system and draw less power than the 
baseline lamp-and-ballast system. As detailed in chapter 4 of the TSD 
(section 4.3), power was determined by the lamp-and-ballast input, 
based in part on the representative ballast type chosen for each 
option.
2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    Table II.2 to Table II.5 present the results for medium wattage 
probe-start MH lamps and higher-efficiency substitute HID lamps in a 
lamp-only replacement scenario. In this scenario, a failed baseline 
lamp is replaced either with an identical baseline lamp, or with a 
substitute lamp-and-ballast system. These analyses were based on 
representative, incremental lamp and fixture prices as well as 
maintenance costs. The upcoming energy conservation standards 
rulemaking will yield more detailed results than did the representative 
analyses conducted. Generally, the LCC of a high-efficiency lamp and 
ballast replacement is higher than the LCC of an inefficient lamp-only 
replacement.

                               Table II.2 175-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 175 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 175 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         150 W PMH $        MH $         100 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price...................................  ..............          190.22  ..............          234.10
Lamp Price......................................           49.58           64.09           49.58           49.23
Total First Cost................................           49.58          254.31           49.58          283.33
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          204.73  ..............          233.75
Annual Operating Cost...........................          149.23          141.02          297.28          263.26
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............            8.21  ..............           34.02
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,234.57        1,436.01        2,537.89        2,420.47
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -201.43  ..............          117.42
PBP (years).....................................  ..............           24.94  ..............            6.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 37983]]


                               Table II.3 250-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 250 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 250 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         175 W PMH $        MH $         150 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price...................................  ..............          195.54  ..............          260.18
Lamp Price......................................           53.08           68.76           53.08           60.91
Total First Cost................................           53.08          264.30           53.08          321.09
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          211.22  ..............          268.01
Annual Operating Cost...........................          178.85          149.59          330.11          288.18
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           29.26  ..............           41.93
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,445.34        1,421.98        2,795.06        2,655.59
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............           23.36  ..............           139.4
PBP (years).....................................  ..............            7.22  ..............            6.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table II.4 360-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 360 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 360 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price...................................  ..............          226.43  ..............          211.52
Lamp Price......................................           56.92           90.54           56.92           79.64
Total First Cost................................           56.92          316.97           56.92          291.16
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          260.05  ..............          234.24
Annual Operating Cost...........................          217.75          205.97          373.22          331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           11.78  ..............           41.53
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,598.68        1,827.86        3,021.94        2,968.38
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -229.18  ..............           53.56
PBP (years).....................................  ..............           22.08  ..............            5.64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table II.5 400-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 400 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 400 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballast Price...................................  ..............          226.43  ..............          211.52
Lamp Price......................................           58.08           90.54           58.08           79.64
Total First Cost................................           58.08          316.97           58.08          291.16
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          258.89  ..............          233.08
Annual Operating Cost...........................          237.74          205.97          395.37          331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           31.77  ..............           63.68
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,733.03        1,827.86        3,188.30        2,968.38
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............          -94.83  ..............          219.92
PBP (years).....................................  ..............            8.15  ..............            3.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table II.6 through Table II.9 present the results for medium 
wattage probe-start MH lamps and higher-efficiency substitute HID lamps 
in a new construction or fixture replacement scenario. In this 
scenario, a consumer selects either a baseline or substitute fixture 
and lamp. In the exterior lighting cases, the HPS substitutes have a 
lower LCC. These analyses were based on representative and incremental 
lamp and fixture prices as well as maintenance costs.

                               Table II.6 175-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 175 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 175 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         150 W PMH $        MH $         100 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................          260.51          310.10          356.51          376.34
Lamp Price......................................           49.58           64.09           49.58           49.23
Total First Cost................................          310.09          374.19          406.09          425.57
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............           64.10  ..............           19.73
Annual Operating Cost...........................          149.23          141.02          297.28          263.26

[[Page 37984]]

 
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............            8.21  ..............           34.02
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,495.08        1,555.89        2,894.40        2,562.72
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............          -60.80  ..............          331.69
PBP (years).....................................  ..............            7.81  ..............            0.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table II.7 250-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 250 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 250 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         175 W PMH $        MH $         150 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................          297.77          325.63          393.77          382.01
Lamp Price......................................           53.08           68.76           53.08           60.91
Total First Cost................................          350.85          394.39          446.85          442.92
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............           43.54  ..............           -3.93
Annual Operating Cost...........................          178.85          149.59          330.11          288.18
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           29.26  ..............           41.93
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,552.07        1,743.11        3,188.83        2,777.42
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............          191.05  ..............          411.40
PBP (years).....................................  ..............            1.49  ..............           -0.09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table II.8 360-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 360 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 360 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................          352.43          415.69          448.43          393.34
Lamp Price......................................           56.92           90.54           56.92           79.64
Total First Cost................................          409.35          506.23          505.35          472.98
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............           96.88  ..............          -32.37
Annual Operating Cost...........................          217.75          205.97          373.22          331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           11.78  ..............           41.53
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,951.11        2,017.12        3,470.37        3,150.20
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............          -66.01  ..............          320.17
PBP (years).....................................  ..............            8.23  ..............           -0.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table II.9 400-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 400 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 400 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................          372.31          415.69          468.31          393.34
Lamp Price......................................           58.08           90.54           58.08           79.64
Total First Cost................................          430.39          506.23          526.39          472.98
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............           75.84  ..............          -53.41
Annual Operating Cost...........................          237.74          205.97          395.37          331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           31.77  ..............           63.68
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        2,105.34        2,017.12        3,656.61        3,150.20
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............           88.22  ..............          506.40
PBP (years).....................................  ..............            2.39  ..............           -0.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NEMA requested a third set of tables showing the LCC when a lamp in 
an existing fixture must be replaced, but the more efficacious lamp 
(with ballast) cannot be installed in the existing fixture. This 
scenario requires purchase of an entirely new fixture, not just a lamp 
and ballast. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 4) DOE acknowledges that, in some 
cases, the ballast for a more efficacious lamp might not fit either 
mechanically or electrically in the existing fixture, and that a new 
fixture containing the more efficacious lamp be installed. DOE refers 
the reader to the tables below.

[[Page 37985]]

Table II.10 through II.13 present the results for medium wattage probe-
start MH lamps and higher-efficiency substitute HID lamps where the 
lamp has failed and a lamp and ballast cannot be retrofitted into the 
existing fixture. In this scenario, a consumer either replaces the 
baseline lamp in the fixture or replaces the fixture with a new 
substitute fixture and lamp. In this case, the LCC savings is less than 
in the alternative scenarios presented in previous tables. DOE gave 
this replacement scenario its proportional weight in the national 
impact analysis, which aggregated consumer impacts from all cases into 
national cost and benefit estimates.

                               Table II.10 175-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 175 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 175 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         150 W PMH $        MH $         100 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................  ..............          310.10  ..............          376.34
Lamp Price......................................           49.58           64.09           49.58           49.23
Total First Cost................................           49.58          374.19           49.58          425.57
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          324.61  ..............          375.99
Annual Operating Cost...........................          149.23          141.02          297.28          263.26
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............            8.21  ..............           34.02
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,234.57        1,555.89        2,537.89        2,562.72
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -321.32  ..............          -24.82
PBP (years).....................................  ..............           39.55  ..............           11.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table II.11 250-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 250 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 250 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         150 W PMH $        MH $         150 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................  ..............          325.63  ..............          382.01
Lamp Price......................................           53.08           68.76           53.08           60.91
Total First Cost................................           53.08          394.39           53.08          442.92
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          341.31  ..............          389.84
Annual Operating Cost...........................          178.85          149.59          330.11          288.18
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           29.26  ..............           41.93
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,445.34        1,552.07        2,795.06        2,777.42
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -106.72  ..............           17.63
PBP (years).....................................  ..............           11.66  ..............            9.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table II.12 360-W Probe-Start Metal Halide Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 360 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 360 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................  ..............          415.69  ..............          393.34
Lamp Price......................................           56.92           90.54           56.92           79.64
Total First Cost................................           56.92          506.23           56.92          472.98
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          409.35  ..............          416.06
Annual Operating Cost...........................          217.75          205.97          373.22          331.69
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           11.78  ..............           41.53
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,598.68        2,017.12        3,021.94        3,150.20
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -418.44  ..............         -128.26
PBP (years).....................................  ..............           38.15  ..............           10.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table II.13 400-W Probe-Start MH Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Industrial/interior             Commercial/exterior
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Baseline 400 W   Substitute 1   Baseline 400 W   Substitute 2
                                                       MH $         320 W PMH $        MH $         250 W HPS $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixture Price (incl. ballast)...................  ..............          415.69  ..............          393.34
Lamp Price......................................           58.08           90.54           58.08           79.64
Total First Cost................................           58.08          506.23           58.08          472.98
Incremental First Cost..........................  ..............          448.15  ..............          414.90
Annual Operating Cost...........................          237.74          205.97          395.37          331.69

[[Page 37986]]

 
Annual Operating Cost Differential..............  ..............           31.77  ..............           63.68
LCC (7% Discount Rate)..........................        1,733.03        2,017.12        3,188.30        3,150.20
LCC Savings.....................................  ..............         -284.09  ..............           38.09
PBP (years).....................................  ..............           14.11  ..............            6.51
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE concluded that whether or not there are net LCC savings from a 
potential HID lamp standard depends on the details of the lamp capacity 
and the installation scenario. Given the widely varying results that 
depend on specific installation details, DOE evaluated the total net 
consumer impact of the standard based on the national impact analysis 
which proportionally weighed the different installation cases based on 
two factors: (1) The fraction of lamp sales subject to each type of 
installation and (2) the relative frequency of each specific lamp 
substitution scenario. Although some replacements would have negative 
LCC, today's final determination indicates that standards for HID lamps 
would likely result in positive total net consumer impacts and 
cumulative energy savings.
3. National Energy Savings and Consumer Impacts
    DOE estimated national energy savings and consumer effects of 
energy conservation standards for the considered HID lamps using its 
own initial engineering analysis data. DOE assumed that energy 
conservation standards would take effect in 2017, and estimated the 
cumulative energy savings and NPV impacts relative to a base case and a 
standards case.
    As summarized in chapter 6 of the TSD (section 6.2), the results 
using DOE's analysis of design options indicate cumulative energy 
savings for medium-wattage HID lamps of 11.4 quads (undiscounted), and 
a corresponding NPV of $30.0 billion (2010$) at a 3-percent discount 
rate, and $13.7 billion at a 7-percent discount rate over the 30-year 
analysis period (2017-2046).
    In estimating the NPV, DOE estimated the fractions of replacements 
that would employ the different technologies and would be either a 
lamp-only or a total fixture replacement. While some replacements would 
have negative LCC, on a national scale these replacements are 
outweighed by those lamp and fixture replacements that would have 
positive economic impacts on consumers.
    In response to the NOPD, SDG&E commented that the magnitude of the 
savings of 2.8 quads seemed large in relation to the two other 
determinations (Small Electric Motors 71 FR 38799, 38806 (July 10, 
2006) and Non-Class A External Power Supplies 74 FR 56928, 56929 
(November 3, 2009)) mentioned in the NOPD. (SDG&E, No. 23 at p. 3; 75 
FR 22031, 22040 (April 27, 2010)). DOE agrees that the potential 
savings from an HID lamps rulemaking is large in comparison with the 
Small Electric Motors and External Power Supplies determinations. Yet, 
as previously indicated, the potential energy savings could be as great 
as 11.4 quads when not factoring in a discount rate, as opposed to the 
2.8 quads originally published. DOE has carefully considered publishing 
this higher revised number and, based upon the data available, DOE 
believes that, over 30 years, 11.4 quads is a reasonable initial 
(undiscounted) estimate. For purposes of comparison, the general 
service fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamp final rule found 
undiscounted energy savings of as much as 12 quads over a 30 year 
analysis period. 74 FR 34080, 34083 (July 14, 2009). Neither ACEEE nor 
NEMA commented on the magnitude of potential energy savings for today's 
final determination.

D. Discussion

1. Technological Feasibility
    Section 346(a)(1) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) mandates that DOE 
determine whether energy conservation standards for HID lamps would be 
``technologically feasible.'' DOE determines that energy conservation 
standards for HID lamps are technologically feasible because they can 
be satisfied with HID lighting systems that are currently available on 
the market.
2. Significance of Energy Savings
    Section 346(a)(1) of EPCA mandates that DOE determine whether 
energy conservation standards for HID lamps would result in 
``significant energy savings.'' (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) The term 
``significant'' is not defined in the Act. However, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia in Natural Resources Defense 
Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC Cir. 1985), indicated 
that Congress intended ``significant'' energy savings to be interpreted 
in a manner consistent with section 325 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B)) as savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' Applying 
this test, DOE found in its 2010 final determination for Non-Class A 
External Power Supplies that an energy conservation standard for the 
product that would save as much as 0.14 quad of energy over a 30-year 
period (2013-2042) amounted to ``significant energy savings'' within 
the meaning of EPCA. In this previous determination, DOE noted that 
these savings were equivalent to the annual electricity needs of 1.1 
million U.S. homes. 75 FR 27170, 27179 (May 14, 2010). In today's final 
determination, DOE finds that the estimated energy savings of 11.4 
quads over 30 years for the considered HID lamps are equivalent to the 
annual electricity needs of 57 million U.S. homes. As a result, DOE 
concludes that the potential savings are not ``genuinely trivial,'' and 
thus determines that potential energy conservation standards for HID 
lamps would result in significant energy savings under EPCA.
3. Economic Justification
    Section 346(b)(1) of EPCA requires that energy conservation 
standards for HID lamps be economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6317(b)(1)) In the NOPD, DOE aggregated the results from the LCC 
analyses to estimate national energy savings and national economic 
impacts. DOE estimated that the NPV of the consumer costs and benefits 
from a potential standard are $30.0 billion and $13.7 billion at 3-
percent and 7-percent discount rates, respectively. As noted above, 
both ACEEE and SDG&E commented that the prices used in the LCC analyses 
seemed high. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2; SDG&E, No. 23 at p. 3)

[[Page 37987]]

However, this does not negate the fact that potential energy 
conservation standards would be economically justified. If lower prices 
were used in the LCC analyses, NPV savings would only be expected to be 
greater. DOE will review component prices in the energy conservation 
standards rulemaking; however, the use of prices that may be at the 
high end of the range of possible price estimates is prudent for a 
determination analysis, and helps ensure that the conclusion regarding 
the positive economic justification has a high degree of certainty. 
Therefore, DOE has determined that potential energy conservation 
standards for HID lamps would be expected to be economically justified.

III. Conclusion

A. Final Determination

    Based on its analysis of the available information, DOE has 
determined that energy conservation standards for certain HID lamps 
appear to be technologically feasible and economically justified, and 
would likely result in significant energy savings. Consequently, DOE 
will initiate the development of energy efficiency test procedures and 
energy conservation standards for certain HID lamps.
    All of the design options addressed in this final determination 
document are technologically feasible. DOE's data and available 
manufacturer data show that the considered HID lamp technologies are 
available to all manufacturers. These technologies include different 
methods of starting the lamps (e.g., pulse versus probe-start) and 
different lamp components (e.g., arc tube composition and design for 
HPS versus MH). The lamp manufacturers that DOE consulted produce at 
least one or more types of these higher efficacy lamps. DOE's review of 
available HID lamps from manufacturers (including EYE, GE, OSRAM 
SYLVANIA, Philips, Venture, and Ushio) is presented in spreadsheet 
format on the DOE's Web site at  http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/hid_analytical_spreadsheet_tools.html.
    DOE has determined that potential energy conservation standards for 
HID lamps are expected to be economically justified. The estimated 
aggregate NPV of consumer costs and benefits from a potential standard 
are expected to be $30.0 billion (2010$) at a 3-percent discount rate 
and $13.7 billion at a 7-percent discount rate over the 30-year 
analysis period (2017-2046). DOE has not produced detailed estimates of 
the potential adverse effects of a national standard on manufacturers 
or on individual categories of users. Instead, DOE is relying on the 
presence of existing, more efficacious products in the market today as 
an indicator of the probable economic feasibility for manufacturers of 
producing more efficacious lamps if required by standards.
    Finally, the scenarios examined in DOE's analysis show the 
potential for significant energy savings, with the combined savings for 
medium-wattage HID lamps over the 30-year analysis period (2017-2046) 
of at least 11.4 quads. The 11.4 quads estimated in this final 
determination is an undiscounted value, and is substantially higher 
than the discounted value of 2.8 quads estimated in the NOPD, although 
both values represent the same physical quantity and would constitute 
significant energy savings. 75 FR 22031, 22040 (April 27, 2010).
    During the energy conservation standards rulemaking process, DOE 
will perform a detailed analysis of the effect of possible standards on 
manufacturers as well as a more disaggregated assessment of their 
possible impacts on user subgroups.

B. Future Proceedings

    In terms of the three responses to the NOPD, all commenters 
encouraged DOE to establish an energy conservation standard for HID 
lamps. ACEEE offered support for the proposed positive determination 
and encouraged DOE to move forward with a rulemaking to establish 
standards for HID lamps. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 1) NEMA stated that 
``industry supports cost-effective HID lamp standards that conserve 
energy.'' (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 2) SDG&E encouraged DOE to issue a 
positive final determination and open a new rulemaking to consider 
energy conservation standards for HID lamps. (SDG&E No. 23 at p. 1) 
Each of the commenters also included suggestions regarding the efficacy 
metric for HID lamps of lumens per watt. NEMA recommended that 
standards be based on initial lumens per watt, but suggested that DOE 
consider lumen maintenance factors and reliability, as different 
ballasts can affect the lumen maintenance of the system. Finally, NEMA 
commented that lumens per watt is not an appropriate metric for 
directional lamps and a different unit of measure will be needed. 
(NEMA, No. 21 at p. 2) ACEEE reiterated its comments related to the 
2003 and 2004 draft reports, that ACEEE supports minimum efficiency 
standards for HID lamps. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 1) As stated in the NOPD, 
ACEEE referenced a 60 lumens per watt minimum efficacy requirement in 
response to the 2003 draft report. 75 FR 22031, 22033 (April 27, 2010). 
NEMA indicated that industry would expect conservation standards at the 
very least to eliminate MV lamps. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 2) Further, SDG&E 
commented that substantial savings would be realized with efficiency 
standards that eliminate less efficient HID lamps, such as probe-start 
MH and MV lamps. (SDG&E No. 23 at p. 1)
    Moving forward, SDG&E encouraged DOE to consider combining future 
HID lamp rulemaking with the current MH lamp fixture rulemaking. 
(SDG&E, No. 23 at p. 2) ACEEE suggested that DOE explore the potential 
of combining the rulemaking related to HID lighting systems into a 
single rulemaking with MH lamp fixtures. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 1) 
Finally, NEMA commented that the industry believes that DOE will 
achieve much greater energy savings from HID systems with electronic 
ballasts and/or intelligent controls as compared to savings gained 
through potential standards that increase HID lamp efficacies. (NEMA, 
No. 21 at p. 4)
    In response to the suggestion of a combined rulemaking, DOE, in 
fact, has considered a combined rule, but a combination of the HID 
lamps rule with the MH lamp fixture rule would be problematic for the 
reasons that follow. First, the MH lamp fixture rule covers only metal 
halide fixtures and, thus, does not overlap entirely with an HID lamp 
rule because neither HPS nor MV lamps would be covered. Second, the MH 
lamp fixture rule also applies only to new fixtures. Both ACEEE and 
SDG&E in their comments noted that probe-start MH ballast technology 
has been banned effectively in new fixtures by EISA 2007 due to the 
high efficiency levels mandated for those types of ballasts and banned 
outright in multiple State regulations. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2; SDG&E, 
No. 23 at p. 2) However, DOE notes that probe-start MH lamps can still 
be shipped for replacement applications. A potential HID lamps rule 
that were to set an efficacy level higher than probe-start MH would 
likely yield significant energy savings (see TSD chapter 6, section 
6.2). The MH lamp fixture rule would limit inefficient technologies in 
new fixtures, and the lamps rule would be expected to hasten the 
transition away from inefficient technologies in existing equipment. As 
DOE moves forward with a possible HID energy conservation standard, the 
analysis will be compared and combined with the MH lamp fixture rule 
where possible.
    Given today's positive final determination, DOE will begin the 
process of establishing test procedure

[[Page 37988]]

requirements for HID lamps, which is expected to result in the 
publication of a proposed rule. During the test procedure rulemaking 
process, DOE will consider the American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI) document ANSI C78.389-2004, ``American National Standard for 
Electric Lamps--High Intensity Discharge--Methods of Measuring 
Characteristics,'' and the following Illuminating Engineering Society 
of North America (IESNA) Lighting Measurement (LM) documents: LM-47-01, 
``IESNA Approved Method for Life-Testing of HID Lamps,'' and LM-51-00, 
``IESNA Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements 
of High Intensity Discharge Lamps.''
    DOE will also begin a proceeding to consider establishment of 
energy conservation standards for HID lamps. DOE will collect 
information about design options, inputs on the engineering and LCC 
analyses, and potential impacts on the manufacturers and consumers of 
HID lamps. DOE will evaluate whether potential energy conservation 
standards are technologically feasible, economically justified, and 
would likely result in significant energy savings in accordance with 
the requirements of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) Depending on the outcome 
of these analyses, as well as on other factors set forth in EPCA, DOE 
will determine which, if any, standards would be appropriate for this 
equipment.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    This final determination is not subject to review under Executive 
Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (October 
4, 1993).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996), 
requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for 
any rule that, by law, must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the 
rule on small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing 
negative effects. Also, as required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper 
Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 
(August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 
19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impact of its rules on small 
entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 
FR 7990 (February 19, 2003). DOE has made its procedures and policies 
available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site at http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE reviewed today's final determination under the provisions of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures 
published on February 19, 2003.
    When adopted, today's final determination will set no standards; it 
will only positively determine that future standards may be warranted 
and should be explored in an energy conservation standards rulemaking. 
Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in the context 
of such a future rulemaking. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE 
certifies that this final determination has no significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has 
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this proceeding. DOE 
will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual 
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proceeding determines that the development of energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps may be warranted and, accordingly, 
will impose no new information or recordkeeping requirements on the 
public. Therefore, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this notice, DOE positively determines that future standards may 
be warranted, and environmental impacts, if any, will be explored in a 
subsequent energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has determined 
that review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 
Public Law 91-190, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., is not required 
at this time. NEPA review can only be initiated ``as soon as 
environmental impacts can be meaningfully evaluated.'' (10 CFR 
1021.213(b)) Because this final determination only concludes that 
future standards may be warranted, but does not propose or set any 
standard, DOE has determined that there are no environmental impacts to 
be evaluated at this time. Accordingly, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on 
Federal agencies the duty to: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 
3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation 
specifies the following: (1) The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any 
effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) a clear legal 
standard for

[[Page 37989]]

affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) the retroactive effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and 
(6) other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine 
whether these standards are met, or whether it is unreasonable to meet 
one or more of them. DOE completed the required review and determined 
that to the extent permitted by law, this determination meets the 
relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. 
L. 104-4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal 
agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, 
local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. For regulatory 
actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by 
State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted 
annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 
to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, 
benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) 
and (b)) UMRA requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process 
to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' 
UMRA also requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for 
timely input to small governments that may be potentially affected 
before establishing any requirement that might significantly or 
uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of 
policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 
FR 12820 (March 18, 1997). This policy is also available online at 
http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    Today's final determination will not result in the expenditure of 
$100 million or more in a given year by the HID lamp manufacturers 
affected by this rulemaking. This is because today's final 
determination sets no standards; it only positively determines that 
future standards may be warranted and should be explored in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking. The final determination also does 
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate. Thus, DOE is not 
required by UMRA to prepare a written statement assessing the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of the determination on the national 
economy.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act, 2001 (44 
U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies to review most disseminations of 
information they make to the public under guidelines established by 
each agency pursuant to OMB general guidelines. The OMB's guidelines 
were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines 
were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 
today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that 
it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates a final rule or is expected to lead to 
promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order; and (2) is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the 
administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use if the proposal is implemented, and 
of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's regulatory action determines that development of energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps may be warranted and would not 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy. This action is also not a significant regulatory action for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and it has 
not been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, this final determination is not a significant 
energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004 in consultation with the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, the OMB issued its Final Information Quality 
Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (January 14, 2005). 
The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be 
peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the 
Federal government, including influential scientific information 
related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to 
enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific 
information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards 
rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific information.'' The 
Bulletin defines ``influential scientific information'' as ``scientific 
information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does 
have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or 
private sector decisions.'' 70 FR 2667 (January 14, 2005).
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process 
and analyses and prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses. The ``Energy Conservation 
Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been 
disseminated and is available online at

[[Page 37990]]

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

V. Approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary

    The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy has approved publication of this final determination.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 16, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-16041 Filed 6-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P