Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22031 

This proposed revision would remove 

regulatory language at 7 CFR 253.6(f)(2) 

that imposes a maximum limit on 

dependent care deductions, thereby 

aligning the FDPIR regulations with 

current FDPIR and SNAP policy. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 253 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Food assistance programs, 

Grant programs, Social programs, 

Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Surplus agricultural 

commodities. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR Part 253 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 253—ADMINISTRATION OF THE 

FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM FOR 

HOUSEHOLDS ON INDIAN 

RESERVATIONS 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 253 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 91 Stat. 958 (7 U.S.C. 2011– 

2032). 

2. In § 253.6: 

a. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(i); 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) 

through (d)(2)(iv) as (d)(2)(iii) through 

(d)(2)(v), respectively; 

c. Add new paragraph (d)(2)(ii); 

d. Add new paragraph (d)(2)(vi); 

e. Revise the second sentence of 

paragraph (e)(1)(i); 

f. Add new paragraph (e)(3)(xi); and 

g. Remove the second sentence of 

paragraph (f)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 253.6 Eligibility of households. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) The cash value of life insurance 

policies and the first $1,500 of the 

equity value of one bona fide pre-paid 

funeral agreement per household 

member. The equity value of a pre-paid 

funeral agreement is the value that can 

be legally converted to cash by the 

household member. For example, an 

individual has a $1,200 pre-paid funeral 

agreement with a funeral home. The 

conditions of the agreement allow the 

household to cancel the agreement and 

receive a refund of the $1,200 minus a 

service fee of $50. The equity value of 

the pre-paid funeral agreement is 

$1,150. 

(ii) The value of funds held in 

retirement accounts described in 

sections 401(a), 403(a), 403(b), 408, 

408A, 457(b), and 501(c)(18) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986; the 

value of funds held in a Federal Thrift 

Savings Plan account as described in 5 

U.S.C. 8439; and any other retirement 

program or account for which a resource 

exclusion is allowed under the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP). 

* * * * * 

(vi) The value of funds held in a 

qualified education savings program 

described in section 529 of Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 or in a Coverdell 

education savings account under section 

530 of that Code, and any other 

education savings program or account 

for which a resource exclusion is 

allowed under SNAP. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * The income eligibility 

standards shall be the applicable SNAP 

net monthly income eligibility 

standards for the appropriate area, 

increased by the amount of the 

applicable SNAP standard deduction for 

that area. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(xi) Combat pay. Combat pay is 

defined as additional payment that is 

received by or from a member of the 

United States Armed Forces deployed to 

a combat zone, if the additional pay is 

the result of deployment to or service in 

a combat zone, and was not received 

immediately prior to serving in a 

combat zone. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 20, 2010. 

Kevin W. Concannon, 

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition, and 

Consumer Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9645 Filed 4–22–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

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: 

Proposed 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: Proposed determination. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as 

amended, requires the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) to issue a final 

determination by June 30, 2010, as to 

whether energy conservation standards 

for HID lamps are warranted. Pursuant 

to court order, this final determination 

must be made by June 30, 2010. This 

document informs interested parties of 

the analysis underlying this proposal, 

which examines the potential energy 

savings and whether a future energy 

conservation standard for this 

equipment would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. In 

this document, DOE also announces the 

availability of a preliminary technical 

support document (TSD), which 

provides additional analysis in support 

of the determination. The preliminary 

TSD is 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_lamps.html. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

document and the preliminary TSD are 

welcome and must be submitted no later 

than May 27, 2010. For detailed 

instructions, see section IV ‘‘Public 

Participation.’’ 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EE–DET–03–001 and/or 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 

1904–AA86, by any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: hid.determination@ee.doe.

gov. Include docket number EE–DET– 

03–001 and/or RIN 1904–AA86 in the 

subject line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Technical Support Document for HighIntensity Discharge (HID) Lamps, docket 

number EE–DET–03–001 and/or RIN 

1904–AA86, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Please submit one signed paper 

original. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed paper original. 

For additional instruction on 

submitting comments, see section IV, 

‘‘Public Participation.’’ 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, the 

preliminary 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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

22032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1For editorial reasons, Part C, Certain Industrial 

Equipment, was redesignated as Part A–1 in the 

United States Code. 

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. You may 

also obtain copies of certain documents 

in this proceeding from the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy’s Web site at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

high_intensity_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: 

Linda.Graves@ee.doe.gov. 

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: 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit or review public comments, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone (202) 586–2945. E-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Proposed Determination 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Background 

1. Definitions 

2. 2003 Draft Report 

3. 2004 Draft Report 

II. Discussion of the Analysis of HighIntensity 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. Analysis 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. 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 of 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments 

V. Approval of the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary 

I. Summary of the Proposed 

Determination 

EPCA requires DOE to issue a final 

determination whether energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

would be technologically feasible, 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. DOE has 

tentatively determined that such 

standards are technologically feasible, 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. Thus, DOE 

proposes to issue a positive 

determination. In its analysis for this 

proposed 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 lamps and 

high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps. 

Both pulse-start MH and HPS lamps are 

existing HID technologies that are 

technically feasible. DOE’s analysis 

determined whether a potential 

standard that sets a level that eliminates 

inefficient probe-start MH lamps would 

be economically justified and would 

result in significant energy savings. 

DOE has tentatively 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 which could be set 

that would reduce the life-cycle cost 

(LCC) of ownership for the typical 

consumer; that is, the increase in 

equipment cost resulting from a 

standard would be more than offset by 

energy cost savings over the life of the 

system. 

Standards would also be cost-effective 

from a national perspective. The 

national net present value (NPV) from 

standards could be as much as $15.0 

billion in 2009$ for products purchased 

from 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 

proposed 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. If the final 

determination is positive, then such 

additional impacts would 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 result in significant 

cumulative energy savings over the 

analysis period (2017 to 2046)—at least 

2.8 quads. This is equivalent to the 

annual electricity consumption of 

approximately 14 million U.S. homes. 

Further documentation supporting the 

analyses described in this notice is 

contained in a separate preliminary 

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_lamps.html. 

A. Legal Authority 

The National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act of 1978 amended EPCA to 

add a part C to title III of EPCA 1

establishing an energy conservation 

program for certain industrial 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) The 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), 

Public Law 102–486, 106 Stat. 2776 also 

amended EPCA, and included 

amendments that expanded title III to 

include HID lamps. Specifically, EPACT 

amended section 346 of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6317) to provide in paragraph (a) 

that the Secretary of Energy (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 result in significant energy 

savings.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) 

Under EPCA, if DOE makes a positive 

determination, then it must proceed to 

establish testing requirements for those 

HID lamps to which the 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 would 

decide whether, and at what level(s), to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22033 

2A notation in the form ‘‘NEMA, No. 6 at pp. 1– 

2’’ identifies a written comment (1) made by NEMA; 

(2) recorded in document number 6 that is filed in 

the docket of the HID lamp energy conservation 

standards rulemaking EE–DET–03–001 and 

maintained in the Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program; and (3) which appears on 

pages 1–2 of document number 6. 

promulgate energy conservation 

standards. This decision would be based 

on an in-depth consideration, with 

public participation, of the 

technological feasibility, economic 

justification, and energy savings of 

potential standard levels in the context 

of the criteria and procedures for 

prescribing new or amended standards 

established by section 325(o) and (p). 

(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 prepared 

reports describing its analyses. DOE 

published these draft reports in June 

2003 and December 2004, and made 

them 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_lamps.html. The reports 

made no recommendation concerning 

the determination that DOE should 

make. 

After the 2003 report, DOE received 

comments. The National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

encouraged DOE to extend coverage to 

HID lamps even if no energy 

conservation standard were set. (NEMA, 

No. 6 at pp. 1–2) 2 Again after the 2004 

report, NEMA made a similar comment. 

NEMA also emphasized that ‘‘it is 

incumbent on DOE to state clearly in a 

forthcoming determination that HID 

lamps are ‘covered products’ and thus 

Federal law preempts State regulation of 

all HID lamps.’’ (NEMA, No. 15 at p. 1.) 

In 2002, DOE began the analysis in 

preparation for a proposed 

determination. DOE conducted initial 

analyses and shared its initial findings 

regarding efficiency improvement in 

HID lamps in the June 2003 draft report. 

Subsequently, DOE received additional 

data and information provided by 

NEMA. More recently, NEMA provided 

HID lamp shipments by lamp type for 

2003 to 2008, and shipments by wattage 

grouping (i.e., low, medium, and high) 

for 2008 that was used in the analysis 

for today’s proposed determination. 

1. Definitions 

DOE reviewed the relevant portions of 

the Energy Independence Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA 2007), and 10 CFR part 

431 for applicable existing definitions 

for use in conducting a determination 

for energy conservation standards for 

HID lamps. EISA 2007 amended EPCA, 

in part by adding key terms that are 

applicable to the HID determination, 

including ‘‘high intensity discharge 

lamp,’’ ‘‘mercury vapor lamp,’’ and 

‘‘metal halide lamp.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291) 

These terms are defined as follows: 

‘‘High intensity discharge lamp’’ 

means an electric-discharge lamp in 

which— 

(1) The light-producing arc is 

stabilized by the arc tube wall 

temperature; and 

(2) The arc tube wall loading is in 

excess of 3 watts (W)/centimeters 

squared (cm2), including such lamps 

that are mercury vapor, metal halide, 

and high-pressure sodium lamps. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(46)(A).) 

‘‘Mercury vapor lamp’’ means a high 

intensity discharge lamp in which the 

major portion of the light is produced by 

radiation from mercury typically 

operating at a partial vapor pressure in 

excess of 100,000 pascals (Pa) 

(approximately 1 standard atmosphere). 

It includes clear, phosphor-coated, and 

self-ballasted screw-base lamps. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(47)(A).) 

‘‘Metal halide lamp’’ means a highintensity discharge lamp in which the 

major portion of the light is produced by 

radiation of metal halides and their 

product of dissociation, possibly in 

combination with metallic vapors. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(63).) 

Although current statutory definitions 

pertaining to HID lamps are relatively 

comprehensive, DOE believes that an 

additional definition will be necessary 

should DOE begin a test procedure 

rulemaking for HID lamps. Therefore, in 

the future, DOE will propose inserting a 

definition for ‘‘high pressure sodium 

lamp’’ into 10 CFR 431.452, ‘‘Definitions 

concerning high-intensity discharge 

lamps.’’ 

Although low-pressure sodium (LPS) 

lamps are often classified as HID lamps 

in catalogues, they do not meet the 

definition of an HID lamp pursuant to 

EPCA, as amended. The arc tube wall 

loading for LPS lamps is lower than the 

statutorily defined 3 W/cm2 threshold; 

therefore, LPS lamps are not HID lamps 

for purposes of today’s proposed 

determination. 

2. 2003 Draft Report 

DOE received comments on the June 

2003 draft report from Allegheny Power; 

the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE); the 

California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans); Delta Power Supply (Delta); 

EEI; NEMA; the Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation 

(PennDOT); and Ms. Lucinda Seigel. 

Unlike today’s proposed determination, 

DOE’s previous reports focused 

primarily on MV lamps rather than all 

HID lamp technologies. The following is 

a discussion of general comments 

received in response to the 2003 draft 

report, and a limited review of specific 

technical comments. 

Comments responding to the 2003 

Draft Report were generally supportive 

of a positive determination, and 

indicated that substantial benefits could 

be obtained from a standard that 

eliminated less efficient MV lamps. 

Delta stated that it wanted its comment 

to be considered an ‘‘emphatic YES’’ to 

an HID lamp standard. (Delta, No. 9 at 

p. 2) Many interested parties were in 

favor of restrictions on MV lamps. 

Caltrans commented that a possible rule 

eliminating MV would not affect it 

because it had stopped installing MV 

products and replaced most MV fixtures 

with HPS. (Caltrans, No. 8 at p. 1) 

ACEEE commented on the 2003 draft 

report that ‘‘ACEEE agrees that it makes 

sense to establish a minimum efficacy 

standard that eliminates mercury vapor 

lamps for many, if not all, applications.’’ 

(ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 1) NEMA 

commented that MV lamps will have 

been in the marketplace for over 80 

years, and energy efficient replacements 

in the form of HPS and MH lamps have 

been generally available for 40 years. 

DOE also received specific technical 

comments regarding possible lamp 

efficacy (i.e., a measure of the 

conversion of power into visible light 

which is the technical term for lamp 

efficiency in the lighting industry and 

which is expressed in units of lumens/ 

W). ACEEE referenced the minimum 

lamp efficacy of 60 lumens/W permitted 

in exterior lighting by the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers/IESNA 

Standard 90.1–1999. ACEEE further 

recommended that DOE set minimum 

efficacy requirements that would 

eliminate probe-start MH lamps greater 

than 150 W. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2) 

DOE received many comments 

regarding alternative, non-HID 

technologies, including induction and 

fluorescent. Non-HID technologies are 

achieving market penetration in lighting 

applications traditionally dominated by 

HID; however, a detailed evaluation of 

these non-HID technologies falls outside 

of the scope of today’s proposed 

determination. DOE will more fully 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

22034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

consider other non-HID sources as part 

of a full standards rulemaking. 

A comment was also received 

regarding the potential effect of 

standards on small businesses. Caltrans 

stated that small businesses usually are 

not manufacturers of lamps and ballasts 

and believed that the potential impact 

on small businesses would be minimal. 

(Caltrans, No. 8 at p. 1) In its technology 

and market assessments, DOE found 

that the majority of HID lamps are 

manufactured by a limited number of 

large companies. However, if DOE 

makes a positive determination, it will 

evaluate the potential effects of energy 

conservation standards on small 

businesses in subsequent HID lamp 

rulemakings. 

3. 2004 Draft Report 

DOE received additional comments 

on the December 2004 draft report from 

ACEEE, Benya Lighting Design (Benya), 

and NEMA. These comments are 

discussed in detail in the 

‘‘Methodology’’ section of this notice. 

II. Discussion of the Analysis of HighIntensity Discharge Lamps 

A. Purpose and Content 

DOE performed an analysis of the 

feasibility of achieving significant 

energy savings as a result of energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps. 

DOE presents the results of this analysis 

in a preliminary TSD for this proposed 

determination. In subsequent analyses 

for the standards preliminary analysis, 

NOPR, and final rule, 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 and 

economically justified, and result in 

significant energy savings (42 U.S.C. 

6317(b)(1)), DOE’s performed five 

component analyses: (1) A market and 

technology assessment to understand 

better 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 

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. The 

following is a brief description of each 

analysis. 

1. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE conducted research into the 

market for considered HID lamps, 

including national annual shipments, 

the current range of lamp-and-ballast 

system efficacies, lamp applications and 

utilization, market structure, and 

distribution channels. It used 

information from trade associations that 

support industrial sectors and reviewed 

literature in technical journals. At 

DOE’s request, NEMA provided data on 

lamp shipments of HID lamps, 

subcategorized by HPS, MV, and MH 

lamp data from its member 

manufacturers, for the five-year period 

from 2003 to 2008. NEMA had provided 

data for 1990 to 2002 to DOE in 

previous efforts related to today’s 

proposed 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. 

Dimming of HID lamps is not 

common. 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 that that dimming ballasts 

are relatively new (having only been 

commercially available since the 1990s); 

that HID lamps should not be dimmed 

below 50 percent of the rated lamp 

wattage; that color, life and efficacy are 

affected by dimming; and that few 

standards exist for dimming HID 

systems requiring that the system (lamp 

and ballast) be tested in the field to 

determine if the performance of the 

lamp and ballast working together is 

acceptable. Given these barriers to the 

dimming of HID lamps in typical 

applications, DOE assumed that the HID 

lamps are operating at full power for the 

purpose of the analysis supporting this 

proposed determination. 

Several comments in response to the 

2004 draft report addressed elements of 

the HID lamp market and how standards 

promulgated by DOE might impact the 

market. 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.) 

Since these comments were received, 

new legislation was enacted in 

California that prevents MV ballasts 

from being manufactured or imported 

pursuant to 10 CFR 431.286. See CAL. 

CODE REGS. Title 20, § 1605.3(n)(2) 

(2010). Consequently the analysis for 

this proposed determination assumes 

that any MV lamp shipments will 

service existing MV ballasts only, and 

that MV lamp shipments will decline as 

a result. 

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 

the proposed determination uses 

information regarding the impact of the 

State regulations and considers market 

trends in both MV and probe-start MH 

technologies. 

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 an operating 

population of lamps is still operating). 

DOE received information regarding 

lamp and ballast lifetimes in comments 

received in response to the 2003 draft 

report. DOE received comments that MV 

and HPS lamps were typically relamped 

(i.e., replaced) every 4 years, and MH 

lamps typically every 2 years. (Caltrans, 

No. 8 at p. 2; Allegheny, No. 12 at p. 1) 

Allegheny further stated that the lamp 

life is generally the rated lamp life by 

the manufacturer. 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 the preliminary TSD. 

To determine annual maintenance costs, 

DOE uses median rated lamp lifetime as 

the basis for relamping schedules. 

HID lamps typically cannot operate 

without a ballast that is specifically 

designed for a corresponding lamp 

technology. The vast majority of ballasts 

for HID lamps are of the electromagnetic 

(magnetic) type. The industry-accepted 

life of magnetic ballasts is 50,000 hours, 

and is widely cited in ballast catalogs 

and by utility programs. After the 2003 

report, Allegheny stated that MV ballast 

lifetimes are 12 years or greater. 

(Allegheny, No. 12 at p. 1) The life of 

the light fixture (also known as a 

luminaire) varies but generally lasts as 

long as the ballast. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22035 

Another factor that can affect the 

energy consumption of an HID lighting 

system is the energy consumption 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 received comments related to 

system input power in response to the 

technical reports preceding today’s 

proposed determination. ACEEE 

commented that an energy analysis 

should use the system wattage for the 

input power. (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 3) In 

response, DOE selected a representative 

ballast to pair with the lamp, and used 

the system input power to determine 

energy usage for the proposed 

determination. DOE evaluated 

manufacturer data on ballast 

performance for multiple HID ballast 

designs including constant-wattage 

autotransformer, constant-wattage 

isolated, high-reactance 

autotransformer, and magneticallyregulated 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 compared to the 

energy use difference between different 

HID lighting system technologies. For 

example, for 175 W probe-start ballasts, 

the minimum surveyed input power 

was 200 W, the maximum surveyed 

input power was 226 W, and the median 

input power was 208 W. There is only 

a 13 percent range in input power from 

the minimum to the maximum input 

powers surveyed. DOE calculated 

median input wattage across applicable 

ballast designs to calculate the system 

energy consumption and concluded that 

ballast energy consumption variation 

should be less than a 7-percent effect. 

This variation is small compared to the 

relative magnitude of energy savings 

calculated in DOE’s analysis. By 

comparison, the most efficient HID 

substitute for the baseline 175 watt 

probe start MH lamp is a 100 watt HPS 

lamp that uses more than 40 percent 

less power. 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

analyzed a range of lamp capacities. At 

least two conventions exist for 

characterizing HID lamp capacity: Input 

power and light output. DOE 

categorized representative HID lamps 

based on the light output (measured in 

mean lumens) of the analyzed baseline 

lamp types since, as lamps get more 

efficient, the input power should 

decrease as the user service (i.e., light 

output) stays the same or increases. The 

analyzed equipment classes correspond 

with medium-wattage HID lamps 

(defined as between 150 and 500 watts), 

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 proposed 

determination as shown in table II.1 in 

section C.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 efficiency substitutes have different 

power ratings, with the power rating 

decreasing with the increased efficacy of 

the substitute. The engineering analysis 

outputs of cost and power 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 

proposed determination. DOE forecasts 

that MV lamp shipments will decline to 

zero by the effective date of a potential 

HID lamps standard, assumed as 2017 

because of the ban on MV ballast 

manufactured after January 1, 2008, 

codified in EPCA as amended. (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 in existing HID installed base when 

it performed its national energy savings/ 

national consumer benefits analysis. 

This installed base of MV systems will 

age and be replaced with other HID 

technologies over time. 

DOE examined other currently 

available commercial equipment for 

replacing the least efficacious (baseline) 

HID sources—MV and probe-start MH. 

ACEEE commented on the 2003 draft 

report, noting that a potential standard 

should address replacing probe-start 

MH lamps with pulse-start MH lamps. 

(ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2.) Substitutes 

include either HPS or pulse-start MH as 

typical options when replacing either 

MV or probe-start MH technologies. 

HPS lamps are among the most efficient 

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 MV and HPS. DOE received 

related comments during the Metal 

Halide Lamp Fixture (DOE Docket No. 

EERE–2009–BT–STD–0018/RIN 1904– 

AC00) public meeting on January 26, 

2010. During this meeting, Philips noted 

that after California enacted a provision 

regarding ballast efficiency that affects 

probe-start MH lamp ballasts, the 

manufacturer saw sales shift from 

probe-start MH to both pulse-start MH 

and HPS. (Philips, RIN1904–AC00 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.005, 

at pp. 85 and 164) Philips noted that 

when California implemented standards 

that eliminated probe-start MH 

technologies, the manufacturer saw a 

majority of its sales for probe-start MH 

lamps shift in equal portions to pulsestart MH and HPS lamps, respectively. 

Therefore, DOE used both HPS and 

pulse-start MH as substitute options to 

the baseline probe-start MH 

technologies. 

DOE assumes in the analysis 

supporting today’s proposed 

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 light 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 light output of operating 

lamps. 

In the engineering analysis for today’s 

proposed determination, DOE only 

considered magnetic ballasts because 

they are the most common ballast for 

HID lighting systems. DOE estimates 

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 the preliminary TSD. 

3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

DOE conducted an initial LCC 

analysis to estimate the net financial 

benefit to users from the increased 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

22036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the following inputs: Estimated average 

annual operating hours and lamp 

lifetimes; estimated average prices for 

lamps and fixtures; representative 

maintenance costs; electricity prices 

paid by users of HID lamps; and the 

discount rate. In commenting on 

previous draft reports, PennDOT noted 

that tariffs vary by region even within 

the same State. (PennDOT, No. 5 at p. 

1.) While DOE agrees that there is 

regional variation of tariffs, for the 

purpose of today’s proposed 

determination, DOE uses national 

average electricity prices for 2009 from 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2009 

(AEO 2009) for commercial and 

industrial applications to calculate 

impacts for the average HID lamp user. 

The LCC analysis does not include MV 

lamps, since MV ballasts can no longer 

be imported or manufactured; DOE 

assumed that when MV ballasts failed 

consumers would have to switch to 

another HID technology. 

The LCC analysis not only evaluated 

the replacement of the HID lamp, but 

also those cases where 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-andballast 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 considers the 

installed cost of the lamp, lamp-andballast 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 annual operating hours. 

This approach is consistent with the 

LCC methodology that DOE used in the 

2003 draft report. 

DOE assigned annual operating hours 

to representative equipment based on 

two operating scenarios. Exterior 

lighting applications were assumed for 

the commercial operating scenario, 

where HID lamps with poorer color 

quality (e.g., HPS) are a viable substitute 

(e.g., street and parking lot lighting). 

Interior lighting applications were 

assumed for the industrial operating 

scenario, where ‘‘white light’’ substitutes 

with higher color quality (e.g., pulsestart MH) are assumed as mandatory. 

DOE obtained information on hours of 

operation for the different scenarios 

from industry publications that provide 

guidance for installers and lighting 

engineers. From 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 the preliminary TSD. 

In the LCC analysis, DOE also 

includes maintenance costs in the 

estimation of the LCC of HID lighting 

systems. DOE examined a range of 

publicly available information sources 

and estimated an average annual 

maintenance cost of $225 per relamping 

for exterior applications. DOE could not 

find comparable data for representative 

interior maintenance costs but because 

of the increased accessibility and better 

working conditions for interior 

installations, DOE divided the exterior 

relamping costs by three to estimate the 

interior relamping costs. Therefore, for 

today’s proposed determination DOE 

used $225 for each exterior relamping 

and $74 for each interior relamping. 

DOE requests comment on these 

representative maintenance costs. 

For the LCC analysis, DOE estimated 

average commercial and industrial 

electricity prices using the 2017 to 2030 

forecasts from EIA’s AEO 2009. After the 

2003 Report, DOE received two 

comments regarding the price of 

electricity. ACEEE recommended using 

a later version of the AEO in the final 

rule. (ACEEE, No. 11 at 3.) PennDOT 

stated that energy tariffs vary across the 

State between the range of $0.035/kWh 

to $0.15/kWh. PennDOT felt that the 

2003 rates between $0.09/kWh to $0.11/ 

kWh may not return a valid result when 

compared to actual costs. (PennDOT, 

No. 5 at p. 1.) While DOE agrees that 

there may be substantial variability in 

tariffs, for today’s proposed 

determination DOE believes that using 

the average price of electricity is 

sufficient to characterize the overall 

economic justification of a potential 

standard. DOE is therefore using the 

average price per end use sector (i.e., 

commercial or industrial) over the 

course of the analysis period. DOE 

requests comment as to whether in the 

full rulemaking analysis, DOE’s analysis 

should include the minimum, mean, 

and the maximum energy tariffs for the 

relevant end use sectors. 

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 received comments from ACEEE 

regarding the discount rates used in the 

2003 report. ACEEE felt that the 8- 

percent rate was reasonable and the 15- 

percent rate was much too high. 

(ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2.) For commercial 

and industrial consumers, 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. 

In the 2003 report, DOE used 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 p. 4.) DOE considered 

this comment, but while DOE agrees 

that there may be inaccuracies in list 

prices, DOE believes that there may also 

be distortions in bid prices that would 

create data that is unrepresentative of 

future costs. Currently the country is 

experiencing a deep recession where bid 

prices are likely to be substantially 

deflated compared to the case of average 

economic conditions. This is likely to 

distort any bid price data that would be 

solicited by DOE. DOE therefore 

believes at this time that catalogue price 

data is as representative as bid price 

data for the purposes of today’s 

proposed determination. 

DOE estimated the base purchase 

price of representative HID lamps, 

ballasts, and fixtures using prices 

available on both the W.W. Grainger, 

Inc. and Goodmart Web sites. These 

online retailer price catalogues 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 municipal 

procurement contracts also exist for HID 

lamps and 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 then to be highly variable. 

DOE therefore used the prices 

developed from the Grainger and 

Goodmart Web sites as an information 

source that is publicly available 

(requiring no special log in to access the 

data) and which offers product 

information that could be applied to the 

full range of HID lighting system 

technologies and components. The 

preliminary TSD lists the price data that 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22037 

DOE obtained from all sources, 

including RS–Means, State procurement 

contracts, Grainger, and Goodmart. HID 

prices vary by region, manufacturer, 

quantity, type, and quality (and that end 

users may pay different prices), and 

therefore DOE attempted to select price 

data for different lighting system 

options that were directly comparable. 

DOE invites comment on its selection 

and analysis of the available HID 

lighting system price data. 

DOE added a contractor mark-up to 

the fixture cost to reflect the actual 

installed prices in the LCC. ACEEE 

commented that DOE should assume a 

13-percent contractor mark-up rate. 

(ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 2.) DOE compared 

this markup with data from other 

lighting rules, agreed with the ACEEE 

comment, and used a mark-up of 13 

percent in the proposed determination. 

DOE also added an average national 

sales tax of 7 percent to the installed 

cost. 

Depending on when different parts of 

an HID lighting system are replaced, the 

costs of switching to improved efficacy 

lamps can vary. DOE therefore 

requested comment in the 2003 draft 

report regarding when a standard might 

prompt: (1) A lamp replacement; (2) 

replacement of both the lamp and the 

ballast; or (3) replacement of the entire 

HID lighting fixture. Allegheny 

commented that for all but roadway 

fixtures that are customer-owned and 

under Allegheny’s contract 

maintenance, Allegheny would replace 

the fixture outright if the lamp were no 

longer available. (Allegheny, No. 12 at 

pp. 2–3.) DOE also asked interested 

parties ‘‘to provide their estimates of the 

percentage of the market that will 

choose each replacement option.’’ 

Allegheny surveyed fixture and lamp 

suppliers and found that 80 percent 

would replace the fixture, and the 

remaining 20 percent would either 

replace the lamp or lamp-and-ballast. 

(Allegheny, No. 12 at pp. 2–3.) 

Allegheny’s comments are supported by 

ACEEE’s comments that ‘‘evidence 

supports full luminaire replacement of 

some metal halide systems over more 

time-consuming lamp/ballast 

replacements.’’ (ACEEE, No. 11 at p. 3.) 

Today’s proposed determination 

includes lamp-and-ballast and fixture 

replacement costs when determining the 

LCC for HID 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 analyzed lamp-andballast systems in a base case (absent a 

standard) and a standards case. 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. 

To estimate potential energy savings 

from the proposed energy conservation 

standard, DOE used an accounting 

model that calculated total end-use 

electricity savings in each year of a 30- 

year forecast. The model featured an 

equipment-retirement function to 

calculate the 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 

savings using data from EIA’s AEO 

2009. These data provided 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. 

5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis 

DOE estimated the national economic 

effect on end users in terms of the NPV 

of cumulative benefits from 2017 to 

2046. It considered the effects under the 

same range of scenarios as it did for 

estimating national energy savings. It 

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 2009 

forecast electricity price from 2017 to 

2030. DOE discounted future costs and 

benefits by using 3 percent and 7 

percent discount rate, according to the 

‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit Analysis of Federal Programs,’’ 

issued by the Office of Management and 

Budget in 1992 (Circular No. A–94, 

Revised). 

C. Analysis Results 

1. Engineering Analysis 

As described above, DOE conducted 

separate analyses examining 10 

representative HID lamp types, as 

presented in Table II.1. 

TABLE II.1—REPRESENTATIVE LAMP OPTIONS

Category Sub-category 

Approximate 

light output 

mean lumens * 

Baseline 

W 

Energy 

efficient 

option 1, 

PMH ** 

W 

Energy 

efficient 

option 2, HPS 

W 

Medium wattage (150–500) .............. Probe-Start MH baseline .................. 8,800 175 150 100 

13,700 250 175 150 

23,500 360 320 250 

25,200 400 320 250 

* Mean lumens provided from manufacturers’ catalogs. 

** PMH = pulse-start metal halide. 

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. 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. A full rulemaking would yield 

more detailed results than the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

22038 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 MH BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

175 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

150 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

175 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

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 

Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................ 808.83 1,056.34 1,947.52 2,059.27 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥247.51 ........................ ¥111.75 

Payback Period (years) ................................................................................... ........................ 24.94 ........................ 6.87 

TABLE II.3—250 W PROBE-START MH BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

250 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

175 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

250 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

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 

Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................ 853.30 994.23 1,983.51 2,126.51 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥140.93 ........................ ¥143.00 

Payback Period (years) ................................................................................... ........................ 7.22 ........................ 6.39 

TABLE II.4—360 W PROBE-START MH BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

360 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

320 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

360 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

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 

Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................ 788.24 1,083.54 1,919.94 2,146.17 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥295.30 ........................ ¥226.23 

Payback Period (years) ................................................................................... ........................ 22.08 ........................ 5.64 

TABLE II.5—400 W PROBE-START MH BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

400 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

320 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

400 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

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 

Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................ 810.40 1,083.54 1,937.06 2,146.17 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥273.14 ........................ ¥209.11 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22039 

TABLE II.5—400 W PROBE-START MH BASELINE—Continued 

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

400 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

320 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

400 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

250 W HPS 

$ 

Payback Period (years) ................................................................................... ........................ 8.15 ........................ 3.66 

Table II.6 to Table II.69 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. A full rulemaking 

would yield more detailed results than 

the representative analyses conducted. 

TABLE II.6—175 W PROBE-START MH BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

175 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

150 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

175 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

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 

Annual Operating Cost Differential .................................................................. ........................ 8.21 ........................ 34.02 

Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................ 1,069.34 1,176.22 2,304.03 2,201.51 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥106.89 ........................ 102.52 

Payback Period (years) ................................................................................... ........................ 7.81 ........................ 0.58 

TABLE II.7—250 W PROBE-START MH BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

250 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

175 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

250 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

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 

Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................ 1,151.07 1,124.32 2,377.28 2,248.34 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ 26.75 ........................ 128.94 

.

Payback Period (years) ................................................................................... ........................ 1.49 ........................ ¥0.09 

TABLE II.8—360 W PROBE-START MH BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

360 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

320 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

360 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

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 

Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................ 1,140.67 1,272.81 2,368.37 2,328.00 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥132.14 ........................ 40.37 

Payback Period (years) ................................................................................... ........................ 8.22 ........................ ¥0.78 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

22040 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.9—400 W PROBE-START MH BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

400 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

320 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

400 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

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 

Life-Cycle Cost (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................ 1,182.71 1,272.81 2,405.37 2,328.00 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥90.10 ........................ 77.37 

Payback Period (years) ................................................................................... ........................ 2.39 ........................ ¥0.84 

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 

engineering analysis data. DOE assumed 

that energy conservation standards 

would take effect in 2017, and estimated 

cumulative energy savings and NPV 

impacts relative to a base case and a 

standards case. 

The results using DOE’s analysis of 

design options indicate cumulative 

energy savings for medium-wattage HID 

lamps of 2.8 quads and a corresponding 

NPV of $15.0 billion (2009$) at a 3 

percent discount rate and $3.5 billion at 

a 7 percent discount rate over a 30-year 

analysis period (2017–2046). 

In estimating the NPV, DOE estimated 

the fraction of replacements that would 

use 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 are outweighed 

by those lamp and fixture replacements 

that have positive economic impacts on 

consumers. 

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 

proposes to determine that energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

would be 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 (42 U.S.C. 

6317(a)(1)) mandates that DOE 

determine whether energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps would result in 

‘‘significant energy savings.’’ Today’s 

proposed determination estimates that a 

standard for HID lamps would result in 

energy savings of at least 2.8 quads over 

a 30-year analysis period (2017–2046). 

Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not 

defined in the Act, 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 in 

a manner consistent with section 325 of 

the Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) to be 

savings that were not ‘‘genuinely 

trivial.’’ DOE published two other 

determinations in 2006 (Small Electric 

Motors, 71 FR 38799, 38806 (July 10, 

2006)) and 2009 (Non-Class A External 

Power Supplies, 74 FR 56928, 56929 

(November 3, 2009)) for other 

equipment and products that had 

significant savings. DOE’s determination 

for small electric motors estimated 

energy savings of 0.61 to 0.78 quads 

over a 20-year period and therefore met 

the threshold for ‘‘significant.’’ In the 

small electric motors determination, 

DOE used analysis for room air 

conditioners as a precedent, finding that 

savings of 0.36 to 0.96 quads over a 30- 

year period met the requirement for a 

standard. 62 FR 50122, 50142 

(September 24, 1997). DOE’s analysis in 

the determination for Non-Class A 

External Power Supplies resulted in 

0.14 quads of energy over 30 years 

(2013–2042), and DOE deemed those 

energy savings as ‘‘significant.’’ In the 

2009 final rule for energy conservation 

standards for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines, 

DOE estimated that 0.159 quads would 

be saved over 30 years (2012–2042). 74 

FR 44914, 44915 (August 31, 2009). 

DOE believes that the estimated energy 

savings of 2.8 quads over 30 years for 

the considered HID lamps are not 

‘‘genuinely trivial,’’ and DOE proposes to 

determine that potential energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

would result in significant energy 

savings. 

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)) Using the 

methods and data described in section 

II.B, DOE conducted a LCC analysis to 

estimate the net benefits to users from 

increased efficiency in the considered 

HID lamps. DOE then aggregated the 

results from the LCC analysis to 

estimate national energy savings and 

national economic impacts. DOE 

estimated that the net present value of 

the consumer costs and benefits from a 

potential standard are $15.0 billion and 

$3.5 billion at three percent and seven 

percent discount rates respectively. 

Thus, DOE proposes to determine that 

potential energy conservation standards 

for HID lamps are economically 

justified. 

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

This proposed determination is not 

subject to review under Executive Order 

(E.O.) 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, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22041 

as required by E.O. 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 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 proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. 

Today’s proposed determination, if 

adopted, would set no standards; it 

would 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 rulemaking. On the basis of the 

foregoing, DOE certifies that the 

proposed determination, if adopted, 

would have no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this proposed determination. DOE 

will transmit this certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration for 

review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

This proposed determination, which 

proposes to determine that the 

development of energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps is warranted, 

would impose no new information or 

record keeping requirements. 

Accordingly, the Office of Management 

and Budget (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 proposes to 

positively determine that future 

standards may be warranted and that 

environmental impacts should be 

explored in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. DOE has 

determined that review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), Pub. L. 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 

proposed determination would only 

determine that future standards may be 

warranted, but would not propose to 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 

E.O. 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 proposed 

determination and concludes that it 

would not preempt State law or 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 for 

the equipment that is the subject of 

today’s proposed 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 E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 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 E.O. 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 

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 E.O. 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 proposed determination 

meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (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 1 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 at http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov). Today’s proposed 

determination contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these UMRA requirements 

do not apply. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

22042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed determination would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 

DOE determined that this proposed 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriation Act of 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 general guidelines 

issued by OMB. 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 

proposed determination under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to 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 E.O. 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 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

proposal is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that today’s 

action proposing to determine that 

development of energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps may be 

warranted 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 E.O. 12866, or 

any successor order. Therefore, this 

proposed determination is not a 

significant energy action. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects for this proposed 

determination. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (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 has 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 at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice of 

proposed determination no later than 

the date provided at the beginning of 

this notice. After the close of the 

comment period, DOE will review the 

comments received and determine, by 

June 30, 2010, whether energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

are warranted. 

Comments, data, and information 

submitted to DOE’s e-mail address for 

this proposed determination should be 

provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. 

Submissions should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption, and wherever possible 

comments should include the electronic 

signature of the author. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

According to 10 CFR Part 1004.11, 

any person submitting information that 

he or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: One copy of 

the document should have all the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) a 

description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known or available from 

public sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligations 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting persons which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) a date 

after which such information might no 

longer be considered confidential; and 

(7) why disclosure of the information 

would be contrary to the public interest. 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comments 

Comments are welcome on all aspects 

of this proposed determination. DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comment from interested parties on the 

following issues as they relate to HID 

lamps: 

• Applications not included in the 

proposed determination analysis; 

• Definition of high-pressure sodium 

lamps; 

• Equipment (including lamp, ballast, 

and fixture) lifetimes; 

• Possible negative effects on small 

businesses; 

• Present-year shipments estimates; 

• Present-year efficiency 

distributions; 

• Market-growth forecasts; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 22043 

• Usage profiles; 

• Technology options for increasing 

efficiency; 

• Costs related to increasing 

efficiency; 

• Equipment cost; 

• Maintenance costs; 

• Unit energy consumption 

calculations and values; and 

• Alternative sources, databases, and 

methodologies for the analyses and 

inputs used in this proposed 

determination. 

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 proposed 

determination. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 22, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9714 Filed 4–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0449; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–SW–38–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta 

S.p.A. (Agusta) Model A109E 

Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for the 

Agusta Model A109E helicopters. This 

proposed AD results from a mandatory 

continuing airworthiness information 

(MCAI) AD issued by the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which 

is the Technical Agent for the Member 

States of the European Community. The 

MCAI AD states that after a report of an 

electrical failure, an investigation 

revealed inadequate functioning of the 

35 amperes (Amps) battery bus (BATT 

BUS) circuit breaker that was not within 

design requirements. These actions are 

intended to replace the 35 Amps with 

a 50 Amps circuit breaker and replace 

the wires with oversized ones to prevent 

an electrical failure, loss of electrical 

power, and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

You may get the service information 

identified in this proposed AD from 

Agusta, Via Giovanni Agusta, 520 21017 

Cascina Costa di Samarate (VA), Italy, 

telephone 39 0331–229111, fax 39 

0331–229605/222595, or at http://

customersupport.agusta.com/

technical_advice.php. 

Examining the docket: You may 

examine the AD docket on the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov or in 

person at the Docket Operations office 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The AD docket contains this proposed 

AD, the economic evaluation, any 

comments received, and other 

information. The street address for the 

Docket Operations office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is stated in the 

ADDRESSES section of this AD. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

DOT/FAA Southwest Region, Mark 

Wiley, ASW–111, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 

Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 

76137, telephone (817) 222–5114, fax 

(817) 222–5961. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

data, views, or arguments about this 

proposed AD. Send your comments to 

an address listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this proposal. Include ‘‘Docket 

No. FAA–2010–0449; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–SW–38–AD’’ at the 

beginning of your comments. We 

specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

this proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend this proposed AD based 

on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

EASA, which is the Technical Agent 

for the Member States of the European 

Community, has issued EASA AD 2009– 

0137, dated June 23, 2009, to correct an 

unsafe condition for the Agusta Model 

A109E helicopters. 

Following a report of an electrical 

failure, Agusta investigated the 

electrical power generation system and 

identified inadequate functioning of the 

35 Amps BATT BUS circuit breaker. To 

prevent an electrical failure, the 

manufacturer has developed a BATT 

BUS circuit breaker modification kit for 

replacing the 35 Amps circuit breaker 

with a 50 Amps circuit breaker and 

replacing the wires with oversized ones. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI AD and any 

related service information in the AD 

docket. 

Related Service Information 

Agusta has issued Bollettino Tecnico 

No. 109EP–98, dated June 22, 2009, that 

specifies modifying the BATT BUS 

circuit breaker installation. The service 

information specifies modifying the 

fuselage electrical installation, part 

number (P/N) 109–0741–49, and the 

overhead panel electrical installation, 

P/N 109–0741–55, with a BATT BUS 

circuit breaker modification kit, P/N 

109–0824–73–101. The actions 

described in the MCAI AD are intended 

to correct the same unsafe condition as 

that identified in the service 

information. 

FAA’s Evaluation and Unsafe Condition 

Determination 

This model helicopter has been 

approved by the aviation authority of 

Italy and is approved for operation in 

the United States. Pursuant to our 

bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, 

their Technical Agent, has notified us of 

the unsafe condition described in the 

MCAI AD. We are proposing this AD 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS