4-i 

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING ANALYSIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 SCREENED-OUT TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................ 4-2

4.3 REMAINING TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................... 4-2

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 4.3.1 HID Lamp Design Options ....................................................................................... 4-2
4-1 

CHAPTER 4. SCREENING ANALYSIS 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter discusses the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) screening analysis of 

the technology options identified for high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps. As discussed in 

chapter 3 of the technical support document (TSD), DOE consults with industry, technical 

experts, and other interested parties to develop a list of technology options for consideration. The 

purpose of the screening analysis is to determine which options to consider further and which to 

screen out. 

 Section 325(o)(2) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) provides that any 

new or revised standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is determined to be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)) In view of the EPCA requirements, appendix A to subpart C of title 10, Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430 (10 CFR part 430), Procedures, Interpretations, and 

Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Products (the Process Rule) sets forth procedures to guide DOE in its consideration and 

promulgation of new or revised efficiency standards. These procedures elaborate on the statutory 

criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and, in part, eliminate problematic technologies early in 

the process of prescribing or amending an energy efficiency standard. In particular, sections 

4(b)(4) and 5(b) of the Process Rule provide guidance to DOE for determining which technology 

options are unsuitable for further consideration: 

1. Technological feasibility. DOE will consider technologies incorporated in commercial 

products or in working prototypes to be technologically feasible. 

2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a technology in commercial products could be achieved on 

the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time the standard comes into effect, 

then DOE will consider that technology practicable to manufacture, install, and service. 

3. Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability. If DOE determines a 

technology would have significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to 

significant subgroups of consumers, or would result in the unavailability of any covered 

product type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in 

the United States at the time, it will not consider this technology further. 

4. Adverse impacts on health or safety. If DOE determines that a technology will have 

significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not consider this technology 

further. 

Section 4.2 discusses the technology options DOE screened out from further 

consideration. Section 4.3 lists the remaining design options DOE considered in its analyses. 
4-2 

4.2 SCREENED-OUT TECHNOLOGIES 

This section addresses the technologies that DOE screened out, having considered the 

following four factors: (1) technological feasibility; (2) practicability to manufacture, install, and 

service; (3) adverse impacts on product utility to consumers; and (4) adverse impacts on health 

or safety. 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart C, Appendix A, (4)(a)(4). 

DOE has not screened out any of the technology options at this stage of the rulemaking. 

However, because DOE has thus far been unable to ascertain the reason for the discontinuance of 

the use of sapphire arc tubes in commercially-available HPS lamps, DOE currently cannot 

conclude that this technology option meets all four screening criteria. For this reason, sapphire 

arc tubes are still under consideration as a potential design option.a DOE determined that all 

remaining technology options meet the four screening criteria. 

4.3 REMAINING TECHNOLOGIES 

DOE is considering the design options in Table 4.3.1 as viable means for improving HID 

lamp efficacy. DOE determined that all these technologies (except for sapphire arc tubes) are in 

commercial use today, and are therefore technologically feasible and practicable to manufacture, 

install, and service. Additionally, DOE is not aware of any adverse impacts on consumer utility, 

reliability, health, or safety associated with these technologies. Having met the policies set forth 

in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart C, Appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and 5(b), DOE considered these design 

options in the engineering analysis (chapter 5). Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the 

design options shown below. 

Table 4.3.1 HID Lamp Design Options 

Lamp Type Design Option Description

Mercury Vapor (MV) Change Lamp Type Use HPS or MH technology instead of MV 

technology

High-Pressure Sodium (HPS) Sapphire Arc Tubes*

Manufacture the arc tube of HPS lamps out of 

sapphire instead of polycrystalline alumina

Metal Halide (MH)

Arc Tube 

Design

Ceramic Arc 

Tubes

Use ceramic metal halide (CMH) technology 

instead of quartz MH lamps

Arc Tube 

Shape

Design the shape of the arc tube so that it 

facilitates an increase in MH vapor pressure 

Starting Method Use pulse-start technology instead of probestart technology

*Pending determination whether sapphire arc tubes meet all screening criteria, this technology option may be 

considered as a design option for improving HPS lamp efficacy in the engineering analysis for later stages of the 

rulemaking.

 

a

 In the interim TSD, DOE analyzes the potential CSL and analytical results that would correspond to the sapphire 

arc tube if DOE determined in a later stage of the rulemaking that sapphire arc tubes met the screening criteria and 

are a design option.