This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

37975 

Vol. 75, No. 126 

Thursday, July 1, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EE–DET–03–001] 

RIN 1904–AA86 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products and Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Final Determination Concerning the 

Potential for Energy Conservation 

Standards for High-Intensity Discharge 

(HID) Lamps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final determination. 

SUMMARY: Based on the best available 

information, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has determined that 

energy conservation standards for 

certain high-intensity discharge (HID) 

lamps are technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would likely 

result in significant energy savings. By 

notice and comment rulemaking, this 

final determination initiates the process 

of establishing test procedures and 

potential energy conservation standards 

for this equipment. Pursuant to court 

order, this final determination must be 

made by June 30, 2010. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 2, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket 

(EE–DET–03–001) to reach background 

documents, the technical support 

document (TSD), or comments received, 

go to the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at the above telephone 

number for additional information about 

visiting the Resource Room. Copies of 

certain documents in this proceeding 

may be obtained from the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy’s Web site at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

high_intensity_discharge_lamps.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Linda Graves, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–1851. E-mail: 

Linda.Graves@ee.doe.gov; or Ms. 

Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6111. E-mail: mail 

to: Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Determination 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Background 

1. Scope of Coverage 

2. Definitions 

3. Effects on Small Businesses 

II. Discussion of the Analysis of 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. Analytical Results 

1. Engineering Analysis 

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

3. National Energy Savings and Consumer 

Impacts 

D. Discussion 

1. Technological Feasibility 

2. Significance of Energy Savings 

3. Economic Justification 

III. Conclusion 

A. Final Determination 

B. Future Proceedings 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

V. Approval of the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary 

I. Summary of the Determination 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA or the Act; 42 U.S.C. 6291 et 

seq.) requires DOE to issue a final 

determination regarding whether energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

would be technologically feasible, 

economically justified, and would likely 

result in significant energy savings. DOE 

has determined that such standards are 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified, and would likely result in 

significant energy savings. Thus, DOE 

issues a positive final determination 

today. 

In its analysis for this final 

determination, DOE evaluated potential 

standards for HID that would lead to a 

migration from less efficient probe-start 

metal halide (MH) lamps to more 

efficient pulse-start MH (PMH) lamps 

and high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamps. 

Both PMH and HPS lamps are existing 

HID technologies that are technically 

feasible. Further, based on this analysis, 

DOE has determined that a potential 

standard setting a level that eliminates 

inefficient probe-start MH lamps likely 

would be economically justified and 

likely would result in significant energy 

savings. DOE received comments from 

three different interested parties 

regarding the April 27, 2010, notice of 

proposed determination (NOPD). 

Without exception, the commenters 

were supportive of the proposed 

positive determination and of 

establishing energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps. 

DOE has determined that standards 

for HID lamps would be expected to be 

economically justified from the 

perspective of an individual consumer. 

According to DOE’s analysis, there is at 

least one set of standard levels for HID 

lamps that would reduce the life-cycle 

cost (LCC) of ownership for the typical 

consumer (i.e., the increase in 

equipment cost resulting from a 

standard would be more than offset by 

energy cost savings over the life of the 

lamp-and-ballast system). In response to 

the NOPD, DOE received comments 

regarding the LCC analysis, with two of 

the commenters stating that cost inputs 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1A notation in the form ‘‘ACEE, No. 22 at p. 2’’ 

refers to (1) a statement that was submitted by the 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

and is recorded in the docket ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

High-Intensity Discharge (HID) Lamps,’’ Docket 

Number EERE–2006–DET–0112 as comment 

number 22; and (2) a passage that appears on page 

2 of that document. 

2 Discounting is an economic and financial 

concept that reflects the fact that often the value of 

a quantity in the future is less than the value today. 

For financial estimates, DOE highlights discounted 

values to reflect the time value of money, while for 

non-financial physical quantities, DOE highlights 

undiscounted sums and calculates the discounted 

sums as a sensitivity. 

3For editorial reasons, Part C, Certain Industrial 

Equipment, was redesignated as Part A–1 in the 

U.S. Code. 

4 In June of 2003, DOE published the Draft 

Framework for Determination Analysis of Energy 

Conservation Standards for High-Intensity 

Discharge Lamps. This report can be found at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity

_discharge_lamps.html. 

5 In December of 2004, DOE published the HighIntensity Discharge Lamps Analysis of Potential 

Energy Savings. This report can be found at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

high_intensity_discharge_lamps.html. 

and resulting LCC values for baseline 

and substitute HID lighting systems 

were too high. (ACEE, No. 22 at p. 2; 

SDG&E No. 23 at p. 3) 1 DOE examined 

a large set of cost data in estimating HID 

lighting system costs for the proposed 

determination, and did not collect 

additional data as a result of these 

comments. If DOE had collected more 

data and found that its cost estimates 

were, in fact, too high, this finding 

would not have changed DOE’s 

conclusion that energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps would 

potentially be economically justified. 

However, DOE will conduct a more indepth evaluation of equipment cost 

inputs for the LCC analysis in an 

upcoming energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 

DOE also concludes that standards 

would be cost-effective from a national 

perspective. The national net present 

value (NPV) from standards could be as 

much as $30.0 billion in 2010$ for 

products purchased during the 30-year 

analysis period (2017 to 2046), 

assuming an annual real discount rate of 

3 percent. This forecast considers only 

the direct financial costs and benefits of 

standards to consumers, specifically the 

increased equipment costs of HID lamps 

and the associated energy cost savings. 

In its determination analysis, DOE did 

not monetize or otherwise characterize 

any other potential costs and benefits of 

standards, such as manufacturer 

impacts or power plant emission 

reductions. Additional effects will be 

examined in a future analysis of the 

economic justification of particular 

standard levels in the context of a 

standards rulemaking that would set 

specific energy conservation 

requirements. 

DOE’s analysis also indicates that 

standards would likely result in 

significant cumulative energy savings 

over the 30-year analysis period (2017– 

2046) of at least 11.4 quads. These 

savings are equivalent to the electricity 

consumption of approximately 57 

million U.S. homes during 1 year. This 

is a much higher estimate than that 

announced by DOE in the NOPD. For 

the NOPD analysis, DOE presented a 

full range of potential energy savings in 

chapter 6 of the TSD (section 6.2), and 

reported the lowest of these results in 

the notice, which was the initial 2.8 

quads estimate that represented the 

physical energy savings discounted at a 

7-percent discount rate. 75 FR 22031, 

22032 (April 27, 2010). However, DOE 

refined its analyses during the comment 

period—which included a correction to 

a technical error in the spreadsheet 

calculation—and is now highlighting 

the undiscounted physical energy 

savings of 11.4 quads, in an effort to be 

more consistent with other DOE 

determinations 2. (See, e.g., the nonclass A external power supplies rule, 75 

FR 27179 (May 14, 2010).) Further 

documentation supporting the analyses 

described in this notice is contained in 

a separate TSD, available from the 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy’s Web site at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/high_

intensity_discharge_lamps.html. 

A. Legal Authority 

The National Energy Conservation 

Policy Act of 1978 amended EPCA to 

add a Part C to Title III of EPCA,3 which 

established an energy conservation 

program for certain industrial 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) The 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 

1992), Public Law 102–486, 106 Stat. 

2776, also amended EPCA and 

expanded Title III to include HID lamps. 

Specifically, EPACT 1992 amended 

section 346 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6317) to 

provide that the Secretary of Energy (the 

Secretary) must prescribe testing 

requirements and energy conservation 

standards for those HID lamps for which 

the Secretary determines that energy 

conservation standards ‘‘would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would likely 

result in significant energy savings.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6317(a)(1).) 

Pursuant to these requirements of 

EPCA, because DOE has made a positive 

final determination, DOE must proceed 

to establish testing requirements for 

those HID lamps to which today’s final 

determination applies. (42 U.S.C. 

6317(a)(1).) Subsequently, DOE will 

conduct a rulemaking to establish 

appropriate energy conservation 

standards. During the standards 

rulemaking, DOE will decide whether 

and at what level(s) to promulgate 

energy conservation standards. The 

decision will be based on an in-depth 

consideration, with the assistance of 

public participation, of the 

technological feasibility, economic 

justification, and energy savings of 

specific potential standard levels in the 

context of the criteria and procedures 

for prescribing new or amended 

standards established by section 325(o) 

and (p) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(p).) 

B. Background 

DOE conducted previous analyses 

estimating the likely range of energy 

savings and economic benefits that 

would result from energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps, and published 

draft reports describing its analyses in 

2003 4 and 2004.5 The draft reports and 

their corresponding technical support 

documents (referred to as the 2003 TSD 

and 2004 TSD in today’s notice) were 

made available for public comment on 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy’s Web site at http;// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

high_intensity_discharge_lamps.html. 

The reports made no recommendation 

concerning the determination that DOE 

should make. Parties that submitted 

comments after the 2003 draft report 

included the American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), the 

California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), Delta Power Supply (Delta), 

Edison Electric Institute, National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA), the Pennsylvania Department 

of Transportation (PennDOT), and Ms. 

Lucinda Seigel. DOE received comments 

after the 2004 draft report from ACEEE, 

Benya Lighting Design (Benya), and 

NEMA. Those comments were 

discussed where applicable in the 

NOPD. 

In advance of today’s final 

determination, DOE published a TSD on 

the aforementioned web site in 

conjunction with the NOPD, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 27, 2010 (75 FR 22031). In 

response to the NOPD, DOE received 

comments from ACEEE, NEMA, and San 

Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). 

All three interested parties were 

supportive of the proposed positive 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 37977 

6 ‘‘Efficacy,’’ expressed in units of lumens per 

watt, is used here to characterize the efficiency with 

which a lamp or lamp-and-ballast system produces 

light. ‘‘Efficiency’’ is unitless, and is used as a 

general term (e.g., ‘‘energy efficiency’’) or to 

characterize lamp ballasts, which do not produce 

light (e.g., ‘‘higher efficiency ballast designs’’). 

determination and of the establishment 

of energy conservation standards for 

HID lamps. Where specific comments 

were received, they are addressed 

below. 

1. Scope of Coverage 

For purposes of today’s final 

determination, DOE limited its analyses 

to HID technologies. DOE received 

comments in response to its previous 

draft reports regarding alternative nonHID technologies including induction 

and fluorescent lamps. 75 FR 22031, 

22033 (April 27, 2010). In comments 

submitted in response to the NOPD, 

both ACEEE and SDG&E recommended 

considering non-HID sources that 

compete with HID lighting systems. 

(ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2) SDG&E 

specifically identified light-emitting 

diodes (LEDs) and electronic HID 

ballasts. (SDG&E, No. 23 at p. 3) 

However, as stated in the NOPD, nonHID lamp technologies (including 

electronic HID ballasts) are outside the 

scope of the determination process 75 

FR 22031, 22033 (April 27, 2010). DOE 

will consider the effects of non-HID 

lamp technologies (e.g., the penetration 

of LED products in the HID lighting 

market, and their effects on future HID 

lamp shipments) as part of the future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 

2. Definitions 

In the NOPD, DOE listed the already 

codified definitions applicable to the 

determination, including those for ‘‘HID 

lamp,’’ ‘‘mercury vapor (MV) lamp,’’ and 

‘‘MH lamp.’’ DOE also proposed a 

definition for HPS lamp, to be inserted 

into Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) 431.452, and 

included the definition in the list of 

items for comment. 75 FR 22031, 22033 

(April 27, 2010) In comments on the 

NOPD, NEMA recommended a 

definition for ‘‘HPS lamps’’ from 

American National Standard Institute 

(ANSI) C82.9–1996, ‘‘American National 

Standard for High-Intensity Discharge 

and Low-Pressure Sodium Lamps, 

Ballasts and Transformers.’’ (NEMA, No. 

21 at p. 3) Under subsection 3.27, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ ANSIC82.9–1996 defines 

‘‘HPS lamp’’ as ‘‘[a] high-intensity 

discharge (HID) lamp in which the 

major portion of the light is produced 

from radiation from sodium vapor 

operating at a partial pressure of about 

6.67 × 103 pascals (50 torr) or greater.’’ 

DOE will consider this proposed 

definition when developing test 

procedures and potential energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps. 

3. Effects on Small Businesses 

In the NOPD, DOE requested 

comment on the possible effect of 

energy conservation standards for HID 

lamps on small businesses. NEMA 

commented that the full cost of all the 

components involved (e.g., lamp, 

ballast, or new fixture) would need to be 

cost effective for large and small 

businesses alike. Further, NEMA 

indicated that the energy savings from a 

required replacement HID system under 

new standards should pay for the new 

equipment in less than 3 years, and that 

payback periods (PBPs) exceeding 3 

years would have negative effects on 

small businesses. NEMA also noted that 

the color quality of replacement HID 

systems must be appropriate for their 

intended lighting applications, and that 

eliminating cost-effective lamp types 

with desired color qualities would also 

negatively affect small businesses. 

(NEMA, No. 21 at p. 3) In the upcoming 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE will consider the 

comments from NEMA in developing 

both HID lamp equipment classes and 

detailed inputs for its LCC analysis, and 

in identifying potentially affected 

consumer types for its LCC subgroup 

analysis. 

II. Discussion of the Analysis of HighIntensity Discharge Lamps 

A. Purpose and Content 

DOE analyzed the feasibility of 

achieving significant energy savings 

from energy conservation standards for 

HID lamps, and presents the results of 

the related market and technology 

assessments, engineering analysis, and 

economic analyses in a TSD for this 

final determination. In subsequent 

analyses for the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking, DOE will perform 

the analyses required by EPCA. These 

analyses will involve more precise and 

detailed information that DOE will 

develop during the standards 

rulemaking process and will detail the 

effects of proposed energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps. 

B. Methodology 

To address EPCA requirements that 

DOE determine whether energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

would be technologically feasible, 

economically justified, and would likely 

result in significant energy savings (42 

U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)), DOE’s analysis 

consisted of five component analyses: 

(1) A market and technology assessment 

to characterize where and how HID 

lamps are used; (2) an engineering 

analysis to estimate the relationship 

between product costs and energy use; 

(3) an LCC analysis to estimate the costs 

and benefits to users from increased 

efficacy 6 in HID lamps; (4) a national 

energy savings analysis to estimate the 

potential energy savings on a national 

scale; and (5) a national consumer 

impacts analysis to estimate potential 

economic costs and benefits that would 

result from improving energy efficacy in 

the considered HID lamps. These 

separate analyses are briefly addressed 

below. 

1. Market and Technology Assessment 

In support of today’s final 

determination, DOE conducted research 

into the market for considered HID 

lamps, including national annual 

shipments, the current range of lamp 

efficacies, lamp applications and 

utilization, market structure, and 

distribution channels. In the NOPD, 

DOE requested data and comments on 

several analysis inputs. 75 FR 22031, 

22042 (April, 27, 2010). NEMA 

responded that it would work with DOE 

during the rulemaking process for an 

energy conservation standard to provide 

additional data for the following 

analysis inputs: 

• Equipment (including lamp, ballast, 

and fixture) lifetimes; 

• Present-year shipments estimates; 

• Present-year efficiency 

distributions; 

• Market-growth forecasts; and 

• Usage profiles. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 

3) 

NEMA also provided specific 

comments regarding a single efficacy 

metric (i.e., lumens per watt) for HID 

lamps, and technology options for 

increasing HID lighting system 

efficiency. NEMA commented that 

factors such as lamp operating position, 

arc tube shielding for open-fixture 

operation, and directional (i.e., reflector) 

lamp designs will affect lamp efficacies 

and should be considered in an energy 

conservation standard. In particular, 

NEMA suggested that lumens per watt 

is not an appropriate efficacy metric for 

directional lamps, and that an 

appropriate metric has not yet been 

developed. DOE will consider these 

factors in developing test procedures 

and equipment classes in the upcoming 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. With respect to HID lampand-ballast system efficacy, NEMA 

referenced its whitepaper LSD 54–2010, 

‘‘The Strengths and Potentials of Metal 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

7CAL. CODE REGS title 20, § 1605.3(n)(2) (2010). 

Halide Lighting Systems,’’ as a possible 

resource for information about HID 

system efficacy improvements. (NEMA, 

No. 21 at pp. 2–4) DOE evaluated the 

whitepaper and found that it does not 

contain additional data that would 

substantially affect the analytical results 

of the preliminary determination 

analysis. 

For today’s final determination, in 

response to DOE’s request, NEMA 

provided data on HID lamp shipments, 

subcategorized by HPS, MV, and MH 

lamp data from its member 

manufacturers, for the 5-year period 

from 2003 to 2008. NEMA provided data 

for 1990 to 2002 to DOE in previous 

efforts related to today’s final 

determination. Based on its market 

research, DOE found that HID lamps are 

typically used in commercial, 

industrial, and municipal applications 

with differing electricity tariffs. DOE 

estimates that, on average, HID lamps 

are used in applications (e.g., municipal 

(exterior) and industrial) that typically 

operate 12 hours per day or more. 

DOE has concluded, as stated in the 

NOPD, that dimming of HID lamps is 

not common. 75 FR 22031, 22034 (April 

27, 2010). DOE examined NEMA’s 

Lighting Systems Division Document 

LSD 14–2002, ‘‘Guidelines on the 

Application of Dimming High Intensity 

Discharge Lamps,’’ to evaluate typical 

practices for HID dimming. LSD 14– 

2002 notes the four applicable dimming 

issues related to this final 

determination: (1) That that dimming 

ballasts are relatively new to the HID 

lighting market (having only been 

commercially available since the 1990s); 

(2) that HID lamps should not be 

dimmed below 50 percent of the rated 

lamp wattage; (3) that color, life and 

efficacy are negatively affected by 

dimming; and (4) that few standards 

exist for dimming of HID lamp-andballast systems (NEMA recommends 

that users evaluate dimming systems in 

the field to ensure adequate 

performance.) Given these barriers to 

the dimming of HID lamps in typical 

applications, DOE has assumed that HID 

lamps are operating at full power for the 

purpose of the analysis supporting this 

final determination. NEMA commented 

that these statements about dimming are 

true, but that dimming is becoming 

increasingly important and that 

legislation (both adopted and pending) 

features HID dimming. (NEMA, No. 21 

at p. 2) As addressed in chapter 2 of the 

TSD (section 2.4), California requires 

that indoor metal halide luminaires 

manufactured after January 1, 2010 

comply with at least one enhanced 

efficiency option (including more 

efficient ballasts or a dimming ballast) 7; 

and draft legislation before Congress 

would require that certain outdoor 

luminaires (including those using HID 

sources) manufactured after January 1, 

2016 be dimmable. DOE acknowledges 

that dimming is becoming more 

prevalent with HID systems, but has 

decided that consideration of dimming 

at this time would not substantially alter 

the results of the determination analysis 

because of its currently small market 

share. DOE will consider relevant 

aspects of dimming in the test 

procedure and energy conservation 

standards rulemaking process. 

Several comments provided in 

response to the 2004 draft report 

addressed elements of the HID lamp 

market and how standards promulgated 

by DOE might affect the market. 

Specifically, Benya commented that 

standards that effectively banned MV 

lamps could be warranted and 

beneficial. (Benya, No. 14 at p. 1) 

ACEEE commented that DOE should 

focus on replacing probe-start MH with 

pulse-start MH, in addition to possibly 

introducing standards for MV lamps. 

(ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 1) 

Pursuant to EPCA, MV ballasts, 

except for those with specialty 

applications (e.g., reprographics), can no 

longer be manufactured or imported as 

of January 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ee); 

10 CFR 431.286) Consequently, the 

analysis for this final determination 

assumes that any MV lamp shipments 

will service existing MV ballasts only, 

and that MV lamp shipments will 

decline as a result. 

Moreover, regulations currently in 

effect in six states (Arizona, California, 

New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and 

Washington) limit the use of probe-start 

MH technologies by banning fixtures in 

the wattage range of 150–500 from 

having probe-start ballasts. DOE’s 

analysis for today’s final determination 

includes information regarding the 

impact of State regulations, and 

considers market trends in both MV and 

probe-start MH technologies. In light of 

this background, DOE agrees with 

ACEEE’s comment that pulse-start MH 

lamps should be considered as a 

substitute for both MV and probe-start 

MH lamps, and addressed this option in 

its analysis. 

A key factor in the relative 

performance of different HID lamp 

technologies is the lamp lifetime. 

Manufacturers publish the life rating for 

HID lamps known as B50 (i.e., the point 

at which 50 percent of a population of 

lamps is still operating). DOE received 

information regarding lamp and ballast 

lifetimes in comments received in 

response to the 2003 draft report. 

Specifically, DOE received comments 

that MV and HPS lamps were typically 

relamped (i.e., replaced) every 4 years, 

and MH lamps typically every 2 years. 

Allegheny further suggested that the 

lamp life is generally the rated lamp life 

by the manufacturer. (Caltrans, No. 8 at 

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

life of HID lamps varies with lamp type 

and wattage, and ranges from 8,000 to 

greater than 24,000 hours, according to 

the manufacturer catalog data surveyed 

and included in chapter 3 of the TSD 

(sections 3.3–3.5). In determining 

annual maintenance costs, DOE used 

median rated lamp lifetime as the basis 

for relamping schedules. 

DOE used the industry-accepted, 

widely-cited life of magnetic ballasts of 

50,000 hours. After the 2003 draft 

report, Allegheny noted that MV ballast 

lifetimes are 12 years or greater. 

(Allegheny, No. 12 at p. 1) Allegheny 

did not provide the corresponding 

typical annual operating hours for the 

MV ballast, however. In the 2003 draft 

report, DOE assumed that MV lamps 

were used primarily for fixed 

(stationary) outdoor lighting (see 

chapter 2 of the 2003 TSD). DOE retains 

this assumption for today’s final 

determination, and assumes an average 

daily operation of 12 hours (a typical 

‘‘dusk to dawn’’ operating scenario), or 

annual operation of 4,380 hours for MV 

systems (see TSD chapter 2, section 2.2). 

By extension, 12 years of dusk-to-dawn 

operation would total 52,560 hours; 

therefore, Allegheny’s 12-year ballast 

lifetime is consistent with DOE’s 

assumed lifetime of 50,000 hours. 

The life of the light fixture (also 

known as a luminaire) varies but 

generally lasts as long as the ballast. 

After reviewing the NOPD, ACEEE 

recommended additional research on 

the frequency of ballast replacement 

versus fixture replacement to inform the 

analysis. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2) During 

the MH lamp fixture public meeting on 

January 26, 2010, interested parties 

commented that, for an exterior fixture 

the ballast would routinely be replaced 

many times before the fixture would be 

replaced. (Philips, Metal Halide Lamp 

Fixture Energy Conservation Standard 

(EERE–2009–BT–STD–0018, RIN 1904– 

AC00), Framework Document Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 1.2.005 at p. 92) 

DOE agrees with the commenters that 

the collection of more lifetime data will 

be useful for the evaluation of relevant 

standards, and DOE will more fully 

evaluate replacement frequencies for 

lamps, ballasts, and fixtures in the test 

procedure and energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 37979 

Another factor that can affect the 

energy usage of an HID lighting system 

is the energy usage of the ballast. DOE 

analyzed the system (lamp and ballast) 

power since particular lamp 

technologies are usually associated with 

a technology-specific ballast design. 

DOE evaluated manufacturer data, 

across multiple manufacturers, on 

ballast performance for multiple HID 

ballast designs, including constantwattage autotransformer, constantwattage isolated, high-reactance 

autotransformer, and magnetically 

regulated electronic ballasts. Based on 

its evaluation, DOE determined that the 

variation in ballast input power across 

ballast designs for a given lamp wattage 

is relatively small when compared to 

the variation in energy use among 

different HID lighting system 

technologies. 

For this final determination, DOE 

analyzed a range of lamp capacities. At 

least two conventions exist for 

characterizing HID lamp capacity: (1) 

Input power and (2) lumen (i.e., light) 

output. DOE categorized representative 

HID lamps based on the lumen output 

(measured in mean lumens) of the 

analyzed baseline lamp types because as 

lamps become more efficient, the input 

power should decrease as the user 

service (i.e., lumen output) stays the 

same or increases. Lamp lumen output 

directly correlates with illumination 

levels produced by lighting equipment 

and is, therefore, a more relevant 

measure for lighting applications than 

wattage, which does not predict 

illumination levels. The analyzed 

equipment classes correspond with 

medium-wattage HID lamps (defined as 

between 150 and 500 watts (W)), which 

was the primary wattage range 

considered in the 2004 draft report. 

However, because DOE considers lumen 

output instead of wattage as a more 

appropriate measure of lamp utility 

from a consumer perspective, it uses 

lumen output as the basis for 

categorization in today’s final 

determination as shown in Table II.1 of 

this notice, which provides the 

engineering analysis results. 

2. Engineering Analysis 

In the engineering analysis, DOE 

identified representative baseline HID 

lighting systems and energy-efficient 

substitutes within each lumen output 

category. Both the baseline system and 

the energy-efficient substitutes have 

different input power ratings (i.e., the 

wattage required by the lamp-andballast system), with the input power 

rating decreasing with the increased 

efficacy of the substitute. The 

engineering analysis outputs of cost and 

energy consumption are critical inputs 

to subsequent financial cost-benefit 

calculations for individual consumers, 

performed in the LCC and the national 

impacts analysis. DOE developed enduser prices, including a contractor markup rate and average national sales tax 

for analyzed lamp, lamp-and-ballast, 

and luminaire designs. 

DOE did not include MV lamps in the 

engineering analysis for today’s final 

determination. DOE forecasts that MV 

lamp shipments will decline to zero by 

the compliance date of a potential HID 

lamps standard, assumed as 2017, 

because of the statutory ban on the 

importation and manufacture of MV 

ballasts after January 1, 2008. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ee)) Consequently, DOE did not 

analyze MV baseline lamps in its LCC 

analysis because MV fixtures are no 

longer a viable purchase option. 

However, DOE did consider the existing 

MV fixtures in the existing HID installed 

base when it performed its national 

energy savings/national consumer 

benefits analysis. This installed base of 

MV systems will age and is expected to 

be replaced with other HID technologies 

over time. 

DOE has examined other currently 

available commercial equipment for 

replacing the least efficacious (baseline) 

HID sources—MV and probe-start MH 

lamps. ACEEE noted, in response to the 

2003 draft report, that any potential 

standard should address the 

replacement of probe-start MH lamps 

with pulse-start MH lamps. (ACEEE, No. 

11 at p. 2) Typical substitutes used to 

replace both MV or probe-start MH 

technologies include HPS and pulsestart MH lamps. HPS lamps are among 

the most efficacious electric light 

sources, and are a viable substitute in 

applications where energy efficiency 

and/or lower first cost is considered 

more important than color quality. 

Pulse-start MH is the most efficient 

broad spectrum (‘‘white light’’) HID 

technology and has a higher first cost 

than both MV and HPS. In response to 

the NOPD, ACEEE commented that 

further analysis should include 

accounting for savings gained from 

eliminating the least efficacious pulsestart MH and HPS lamps. (ACEEE, No. 

22 at p. 2) DOE acknowledges that 

elimination of these lamp types may 

provide additional energy savings, but 

notes that an exhaustive exploration of 

all possible standards is not required for 

a positive final determination today. 

During an energy conservation 

standards analysis, DOE will examine 

equipment classes for all HID lamps, not 

just the representative set of lamps 

considered in today’s notice. NEMA 

commented that DOE should not 

assume that HPS is a suitable substitute 

for MH in all applications due to color 

quality. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 2) DOE 

agrees with NEMA and does not assume 

that HPS lamps are suitable for all 

applications. When evaluating potential 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered equipment into classes 

by the energy used, capacity, or other 

performance-related features that impact 

efficiency, and other factors such as the 

utility of the product to users. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) DOE typically establishes 

different energy conservation standards 

for different equipment classes, and will 

evaluate the efficacy and utility of 

different MH and HPS lamp designs in 

developing proposed equipment classes. 

For the determination analysis, DOE 

assumed that lower efficacy MH lamps 

are replaced by a combination of higher 

efficiency MH and HPS lighting 

systems. 

DOE assumes in the analysis 

supporting the final determination that 

changes in lamp technology will lead to 

changes in the entire lamp system. DOE 

therefore used a systems approach in 

analyzing the representative equipment 

types because both lamps and ballasts 

determine a system’s energy use and 

lumen output. Accordingly, the analysis 

paired lamps with corresponding 

ballasts to develop representative lampand-ballast systems, in order to estimate 

the actual energy usage and lumen 

output of operating lamps. In response 

to the NOPD, NEMA commented that 

they agreed with this approach. (NEMA, 

No. 21 at p. 4) 

In the engineering analysis, DOE 

considered only magnetic ballasts 

because they are the most common 

ballast used in HID lighting systems. 

DOE estimated that magnetic ballasts 

constitute over 90 percent of HID 

ballasts currently sold, and an even 

higher percentage of the installed HID 

ballast stock. Electronic ballasts entered 

the market at the end of the 1990s and 

still occupy less than a 10-percent 

market share because of a variety of 

technical and operational barriers that 

are discussed in some detail in chapter 

3 of the TSD (section 3.7). In its 

comments, NEMA stated that greater 

savings will result from the application 

of electronic HID ballasts and/or 

intelligent controls rather than from 

increasing lamp efficacies. (NEMA, No. 

21 at p. 4) While DOE appreciates 

NEMA’s comment, EPCA specifically 

directs DOE to prescribe energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps, 

and does not provide DOE with the 

authority to regulate HID ballasts. (42 

U.S.C. 6317(a)(2).) DOE notes that it is 

currently developing energy 

conservation standards for MH lamp 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37980 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

8All AEO publications are available online at 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. 

fixtures that focus on MH lamp ballast 

efficiency and other performance 

elements in the context of a separate 

rulemaking. (EERE–2009–BT–STD– 

0018, RIN 1904–AC00) Additionally, the 

Energy Independence Security Act of 

2007 (EISA 2007) mandates minimum 

ballast efficiencies for MH fixtures sold 

after January 1, 2009. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(hh)(1).) Further, as noted above, 

MV ballasts can no longer be 

manufactured or imported. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ee); 10 CFR 431.286) 

In summary, DOE acknowledges that 

HID lamp efficacy is in part a function 

of lamp-and-ballast system design, and 

identified representative HID systems 

for its analysis. DOE specifically 

excluded MV systems from its analysis 

due to the aforementioned existing 

EPCA ban on MV ballasts and the 

anticipated resulting disappearance of 

MV lamps from the market. Although 

DOE acknowledges the effects of HID 

ballast design on overall system 

efficacy, DOE is only required by EPCA 

to address potential HID lamp efficacy 

standards. DOE will consider relevant 

aspects of ballast design (e.g., electrical 

characteristics, magnetic versus 

electronic design, dimming capability) 

and their impacts on HID lamps in the 

test procedure and energy conservation 

rulemaking process. 

3. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

DOE conducted an initial LCC 

analysis to estimate the net financial 

benefit to users from potential energy 

conservation standards that would 

increase the efficacy of HID lamps. The 

LCC analysis compared the additional 

initial cost of a more efficacious lamp 

and related fixture to the discounted 

value of electricity savings over the life 

of the fixture ballast. DOE’s LCC 

analysis used the following five inputs: 

(1) Estimated average annual operating 

hours and lamp lifetimes, (2) estimated 

average prices for lamps and fixtures, (3) 

representative maintenance costs, (4) 

electricity prices paid by users of HID 

lamps, and (5) the discount rate. For the 

purpose of today’s final determination, 

DOE used current national average 

electricity prices for commercial and 

industrial applications, obtained from 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 AEO 

2010)’’ 8 to calculate impacts on the 

average HID lamp user. The LCC 

analysis does not include MV lamps 

because MV ballasts can no longer be 

imported or manufactured after January 

1, 2008 (see TSD chapter 2, section 2.4 

and chapter 5, section 5.2). Accordingly, 

DOE assumed that when MV ballasts 

fail, consumers will have to switch to 

another HID technology. 

The LCC analysis not only evaluated 

the replacement of the HID lamp but 

also those cases in which the whole 

system would need to be replaced. 

Given the specificity of HID lamp-andballast 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 considered 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 assumed annual 

operating hours, which equals 

approximately 9 years and 12 years for 

interior and exterior applications, 

respectively). This approach is 

consistent with the LCC methodology 

that DOE used in the 2003 draft report 

(see 2003 TSD chapter 5, section 5.4). 

DOE assigned annual operating hours 

to representative equipment based on 

two alternative operating scenarios. 

Exterior lighting applications (e.g., 

parking lot lighting) were assumed for 

the commercial operating scenario, 

where HID lamps with poorer color 

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

for lamps with better color quality, 

depending on energy efficiency and/or 

first cost requirements. Interior lighting 

applications were assumed for the 

industrial operating scenario, where 

‘‘white light’’ substitutes with higher 

color quality (e.g., pulse-start MH) are 

assumed to be mandatory. 

DOE obtained information on hours of 

operation for the different scenarios 

from industry publications that provide 

guidance for installers and lighting 

engineers. Based upon these sources, 

DOE estimated 4,200 hours per year of 

operation for exterior applications and 

5,840 hours per year for interior 

applications. A more detailed 

discussion of the data sources and the 

derivation of these estimates are 

provided in chapter 5 of the TSD 

(section 5.1). 

In the LCC analysis, DOE also 

included maintenance costs in the 

estimation of the LCC of HID lighting 

systems. DOE assumed $225 for each 

exterior relamping and $74 for each 

interior relamping, and requested 

comment on these values in the NOPD. 

Chapter 5 of the TSD provides the 

rationale for how both the exterior and 

interior maintenance costs were 

derived. No substantive comments were 

received; therefore, DOE will consider 

using these maintenance values in the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 

For the LCC analysis, DOE estimated 

average commercial and industrial 

electricity prices using the 2017 to 2030 

forecasts set forth in EIA’s AEO 2010. 

DOE used the average price for the 

relevant end-use sector (i.e., commercial 

or industrial) over the course of the 30- 

year analysis period (2017–2046). In the 

NOPD, DOE requested comment as to 

whether, in the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analysis, DOE’s 

analysis should include the minimum, 

mean, and maximum energy tariffs for 

the relevant end use sectors. DOE did 

not receive any comments relating to 

this issue, and will consider evaluating 

minimum, mean, and maximum energy 

tariffs in the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. 

In the LCC analysis, the discount rate 

determines the relative value of future 

energy savings compared to increases in 

first costs that may arise from a 

potential energy conservation standard. 

DOE estimates the cost of capital for 

commercial and industrial companies 

by examining both debt and equity 

capital, and develops an appropriately 

weighted average of the cost to the 

company of equity and debt financing. 

The resulting average discounted 

industrial and commercial discount 

rates used in the LCC analysis are 7.6 

percent and 7.0 percent, respectively 

(see TSD chapter 5, section 5.1). DOE 

did not receive any comments on the 

use of the discount rates in response to 

the NOPD. DOE notes that these 

commercial and industrial sector 

discount rates are the same as those 

used in the final rule for general service 

fluorescent and incandescent reflector 

lamps. 74 FR 34080, 34113 (July 14, 

2009). In the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking for HID lamps, 

DOE will review current economic data 

in developing updated discount rates, as 

applicable. 

In the 2003 draft report, DOE used 

available retail catalog pricing for HID 

lamp and fixture prices. In response, 

NEMA commented that retail price 

catalogs are not a good source of actual 

cost information, and recommended 

hiring an energy service company to 

solicit bids on prices. (NEMA, No. 6 at 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 37981 

9http://www.grainger.com (last accessed April 16, 

2010). 10http://www.goodmart.com (last accessed April 

16, 2010). 

11Shipment projections presented in National 

Energy Savings/Net Present Value spreadsheet at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance

_standards/commercial/hid_analytical

_spreadsheet_tools.html. 

p. 4) DOE considered this comment, but 

concludes that although that there may 

be inaccuracies in list prices, there is a 

greater risk that there may be distortions 

in bid prices that would create data that 

are unrepresentative of future costs. 

Currently, the country is experiencing a 

deep recession in which bid prices are 

likely to be deflated substantially when 

compared to average economic 

conditions. This situation is likely to 

distort any bid price data that DOE 

would solicit. For the purposes of 

today’s final determination, DOE 

therefore assumes that catalog price data 

are more representative than bid price 

data, and used recent catalog data 

(accessed online between August 2009 

and April 2010) for its LCC analysis (see 

TSD chapter 5, section 5.1). In a future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE will consider multiple 

sources for pricing data. For today’s final determination, DOE 

estimated the base purchase price of 

representative HID lamps, ballasts, and 

fixtures using current prices available 

on both the W.W. Grainger, Inc. and 

Goodmart Web sites 9 10. DOE notes that 

it also used this approach for estimating 

base pricing in the Small Electric Motor 

Determination. 71 FR 38799, 38803 (July 

10, 2006). These online retailer price 

catalogs were selected because they 

offer a wide range of products (i.e., 

lamps, ballasts, and fixtures) for 

multiple types of HID lamps and 

wattages. The referenced Web sites are 

also publicly available (requiring no 

special log in to access the data) and 

offer product information that can be 

applied to the full range of HID lighting 

system technologies and components. 

DOE considered using both municipal 

and State procurement contracts as 

sources of pricing data, but eliminated 

these data from consideration in the 

determination analysis. Specifically, 

municipal procurement contracts for 

HID lamps can provide price data, but 

do not contain price data for other 

components of the lamp system needed 

for the analysis. DOE also evaluated 

State procurement contracts for fixtures 

but found them to be too highly variable 

to be useful. Chapter 5 of the TSD 

(section 5.1) presents the price data that 

DOE obtained from all sources, 

including RS–Means, State procurement 

contracts, Grainger, and Goodmart. In its analysis, DOE observed that HID 

prices vary by region, manufacturer, 

quantity, type, and quality (and that end 

users pay different prices). Therefore, 

DOE attempted to select price data for 

different lighting system options that 

were directly comparable. DOE also 

added a contractor mark-up of 13 

percent and a sales tax of 7 percent in 

calculating equipment prices (see TSD 

chapter 5, section 5.1). As stated in the 

NOPD, the contractor markup value was 

recommended by ACEEE in response to 

the 2003 draft report, and DOE found 

the value consistent with other lighting 

rules. 75 FR 22031, 22037 (April 27, 

2010). DOE proposed using an average 

national sales tax of 7 percent in the 

NOPD. 75 FR 22031, 22037 (April 27, 

2010) DOE received no comments 

regarding this proposal. A 7-percent 

sales tax is consistent with the rate used 

in the recent non-class A external power 

supplies final determination. 75 FR 

27170, 271741 (May 14, 2010). In the 

NOPD, DOE invited comment on its 

selection and analysis of the available 

HID lighting system price data. ACEEE 

and SDG&E recommended that DOE 

revisit the product price assumptions in 

the LCC because the prices presented in 

chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD (section 5.1) 

were high. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2; 

SDG&E No. 23 at p. 3) DOE will conduct 

a more in-depth evaluation of 

equipment pricing in an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, as a 

refined analysis would not change the 

outcome of today’s positive final 

determination. 

Depending on when different parts of 

an HID lighting system are replaced, the 

costs of switching to improved efficacy 

lamps can involve lamp-and-ballast 

replacement, or replacement of the 

entire fixture. For example, an original 

fixture may not physically 

accommodate the new ballast required 

by an improved efficacy lamp, thereby 

necessitating fixture replacement. The 

analysis underlying today’s final 

determination includes lamp-andballast and fixture replacement costs 

when calculating the LCC for HID 

lamps. In the NOPD, DOE also requested 

comment regarding equipment costs 

related to increasing lamp efficacy. 

NEMA responded that the lighting 

industry anticipates higher lamp costs 

with increasing efficacy. (NEMA, No. 21 

at p. 4) DOE acknowledges this general 

cost-efficacy relationship, as illustrated 

in chapter 5 of the TSD, with higher 

prices for pulse-start MH lamps 

compared with probe-start MH lamps. 

4. National Energy Savings Analysis 

To estimate national energy savings 

for HID lamps sold from 2017 through 

2046, DOE calculated the estimated 

energy usage of the analyzed lamp-andballast systems in a base case (absent a 

standard) and a standards case. As 

discussed in chapter 6 of the TSD 

(section 6.1), DOE calculated the 

installed base of HID lamps using 

historical lamp shipments data provided 

by NEMA. Projected shipments were 

based on the lamp lifetimes, system 

energy use, and operating scenarios 

developed for the LCC analysis, as well 

as estimated market and substitution 

trends in the base case and standards 

case. For this initial analysis, DOE did 

not address the effects of emerging, nonHID lighting technologies (e.g., LEDs) on 

HID lamp shipments, but notes that an 

exhaustive shipments analysis is not 

required for a positive determination. 

DOE intends to address emerging 

technologies in its more robust 

shipments analysis as part of the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

process. In response to the NOPD, DOE 

received a comment from SDG&E 

regarding shipment projections starting 

in 2017. SDG&E recommended that DOE 

‘‘revise the assumption that new MH 

fixtures sold in 2017 will contain probestart ballasts.’’ (SDG&E, No. 23 at p. 2) 

ACEEE also recommended that DOE 

revise its assumptions for MH lamp 

shipments. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 2) DOE 

acknowledges that both existing Federal 

and State legislation, as discussed in the 

TSD, will affect the installation of 

probe-start MH fixtures (see NOPD TSD 

chapter 2, section 2.4). The State bans 

on ballasts for probe-start MH lamps, as 

well as more stringent Federal ballast 

efficiency requirements for probe-start 

MH lamps, will affect shipments of 

fixtures containing probe-start MH 

lamps. However, DOE’s shipment 

projections were not based on new 

probe-start MH fixtures being sold in 

2017. As discussed in chapter 2 of the 

NOPD TSD (section 2.1), the majority of 

existing installed MH fixtures 

(estimated at 35 million as of 2002) 

contain probe-start ballasts. These 

legacy fixtures will require replacement 

lamps even without replacement of the 

ballast. Such replacement shipments are 

reflected in DOE’s shipment projections 

in the analysis for this determination.11

DOE will further refine the lamp 

shipment projections as part of the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking process, consulting fixture 

shipments data gathered in the MH 

lamp fixture rulemaking as appropriate. To estimate potential energy savings 

from the proposed energy conservation 

standards case, DOE used a spreadsheet 

model that calculated total end-use 

electricity savings in each year of the 

30-year analysis period (2017–2046). 

The model features an equipmentretirement function to calculate the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37982 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

number of units sold in a given year, or 

vintage, which would still be in 

operation in future years. For example, 

some of the HID lamps sold in 2030 will 

operate through 2035. DOE calculated 

primary energy (i.e., energy used by the 

power plant) savings associated with 

end-use electricity (i.e., site energy used 

by the lamp-and-ballast system) savings 

using data from EIA’s AEO 2010. These 

data provided a factor, or an average 

multiplier, for relating end-use 

electricity to primary energy use for 

each year from 2017 to 2030. DOE 

extrapolated the trend in these years to 

derive factors for 2031 to 2046. Energy 

use in both the potential standards case 

and base case are calculated for all 

equipment categories and converted to 

quads. The difference in energy use 

between every equipment category in 

these two cases is summed across all 

years of the analysis period. A more 

detailed discussion of the national 

energy savings model, data sources, and 

results is provided in chapter 6 of the 

TSD (section 6.1). 

5. National Consumer Impacts Analysis 

DOE estimated the national economic 

effect on end-users in terms of the NPV 

of cumulative benefits during the 30- 

year analysis period (2017–2046). It 

considered the effects under the same 

range of scenarios as it did for 

estimating national energy savings. It 

also used the new equipment costs and 

energy savings for each energy 

efficiency level that it applied in the 

LCC analysis. To simplify the analysis, 

DOE estimated the value of energy 

savings using the average AEO 2010 

forecast electricity price from 2017 to 

2030. To estimate the trend in electricity 

prices after 2030, DOE extrapolated its 

forecasted electricity prices for 2031 to 

2046 by applying the average rate of 

price change during 2020–2030. As 

discussed in chapter 6 of the TSD 

(section 6.1), DOE discounted future 

costs and benefits by using a 3-percent 

and 7-percent discount rate, 

respectively, according to the 

‘‘Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit Analysis of Federal Programs’’ 

issued by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). (Circular No. A–94, 

September 2003). 

C. Analytical Results 

1. Engineering Analysis 

As described above, DOE conducted 

separate analyses examining ten 

representative HID lamp types: Probestart MH (175, 250, 360, and 400-watt), 

PMH (150, 175, and 320-watt), and HPS 

(100, 150, and 250-watt). These lamp 

types are categorized by mean lumen 

output in Table II.1, with some PMH 

and HPS lamp types appearing in more 

than one lumen output category. 

TABLE II.1—REPRESENTATIVE SUBSTITUTES FOR BASELINE PROBE-START METAL HALIDE LAMPS

Approximate lumen output 

mean lumens* 

Baseline 

probe-start MH 

W 

Energy efficient 

option 1, PMH 

W 

Energy efficient 

option 2, HPS 

W 

8,800 175 150 100 

13,700 250 175 150 

23,500 360 320 250 

25,200 400 320 250 

In the engineering analysis, for a lamp 

to be considered a suitable option, its 

replacement had to produce at least 90 

percent of the mean lumen output of the 

baseline system and draw less power 

than the baseline lamp-and-ballast 

system. As detailed in chapter 4 of the 

TSD (section 4.3), power was 

determined by the lamp-and-ballast 

input, based in part on the 

representative ballast type chosen for 

each option. 

2. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

Table II.2 to Table II.5 present the 

results for medium wattage probe-start 

MH lamps and higher-efficiency 

substitute HID lamps in a lamp-only 

replacement scenario. In this scenario, a 

failed baseline lamp is replaced either 

with an identical baseline lamp, or with 

a substitute lamp-and-ballast system. 

These analyses were based on 

representative, incremental lamp and 

fixture prices as well as maintenance 

costs. The upcoming energy 

conservation standards rulemaking will 

yield more detailed results than did the 

representative analyses conducted. 

Generally, the LCC of a high-efficiency 

lamp and ballast replacement is higher 

than the LCC of an inefficient lamp-only 

replacement. 

TABLE II.2 175-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

175 W 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 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,234.57 1,436.01 2,537.89 2,420.47 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ¥201.43 117.42 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... 24.94 6.87 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 37983 

TABLE II.3 250-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE 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 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,445.34 1,421.98 2,795.06 2,655.59 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... 23.36 139.4 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... 7.22 6.39 

TABLE II.4 360-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

360 W 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 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,598.68 1,827.86 3,021.94 2,968.38 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ¥229.18 53.56 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... 22.08 5.64 

TABLE II.5 400-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

400 W 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 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,733.03 1,827.86 3,188.30 2,968.38 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ¥94.83 219.92 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... 8.15 3.66 

Table II.6 through Table II.9 present 

the results for medium wattage probestart MH lamps and higher-efficiency 

substitute HID lamps in a new 

construction or fixture replacement 

scenario. In this scenario, a consumer 

selects either a baseline or substitute 

fixture and lamp. In the exterior lighting 

cases, the HPS substitutes have a lower 

LCC. These analyses were based on 

representative and incremental lamp 

and fixture prices as well as 

maintenance costs. 

TABLE II.6 175-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

175 W 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37984 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE II.6 175-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE—Continued 

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

175 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

150 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

175 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

100 W HPS 

$ 

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

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,495.08 1,555.89 2,894.40 2,562.72 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥60.80 ........................ 331.69 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... ........................ 7.81 ........................ 0.57 

TABLE II.7 250-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

250 W 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 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,552.07 1,743.11 3,188.83 2,777.42 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ 191.05 ........................ 411.40 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... ........................ 1.49 ........................ ¥0.09 

TABLE II.8 360-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

360 W 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 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,951.11 2,017.12 3,470.37 3,150.20 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥66.01 ........................ 320.17 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... ........................ 8.23 ........................ ¥0.78 

TABLE II.9 400-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

400 W 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 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 2,105.34 2,017.12 3,656.61 3,150.20 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ 88.22 ........................ 506.40 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... ........................ 2.39 ........................ ¥0.84 

NEMA requested a third set of tables 

showing the LCC when a lamp in an 

existing fixture must be replaced, but 

the more efficacious lamp (with ballast) 

cannot be installed in the existing 

fixture. This scenario requires purchase 

of an entirely new fixture, not just a 

lamp and ballast. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 

4) DOE acknowledges that, in some 

cases, the ballast for a more efficacious 

lamp might not fit either mechanically 

or electrically in the existing fixture, 

and that a new fixture containing the 

more efficacious lamp be installed. DOE 

refers the reader to the tables below. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 37985 

Table II.10 through II.13 present the 

results for medium wattage probe-start 

MH lamps and higher-efficiency 

substitute HID lamps where the lamp 

has failed and a lamp and ballast cannot 

be retrofitted into the existing fixture. In 

this scenario, a consumer either replaces 

the baseline lamp in the fixture or 

replaces the fixture with a new 

substitute fixture and lamp. In this case, 

the LCC savings is less than in the 

alternative scenarios presented in 

previous tables. DOE gave this 

replacement scenario its proportional 

weight in the national impact analysis, 

which aggregated consumer impacts 

from all cases into national cost and 

benefit estimates. 

TABLE II.10 175-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

175 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

150 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

175 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

100 W HPS 

$ 

Fixture Price (incl. ballast) ............................................................................... ........................ 310.10 ........................ 376.34 

Lamp Price ....................................................................................................... 49.58 64.09 49.58 49.23 

Total First Cost ................................................................................................ 49.58 374.19 49.58 425.57 

Incremental First Cost ..................................................................................... ........................ 324.61 ........................ 375.99 

Annual Operating Cost .................................................................................... 149.23 141.02 297.28 263.26 

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

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,234.57 1,555.89 2,537.89 2,562.72 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥321.32 ........................ ¥24.82 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... ........................ 39.55 ........................ 11.05 

TABLE II.11 250-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

250 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

150 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

250 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

150 W HPS 

$ 

Fixture Price (incl. ballast) ............................................................................... ........................ 325.63 ........................ 382.01 

Lamp Price ....................................................................................................... 53.08 68.76 53.08 60.91 

Total First Cost ................................................................................................ 53.08 394.39 53.08 442.92 

Incremental First Cost ..................................................................................... ........................ 341.31 ........................ 389.84 

Annual Operating Cost .................................................................................... 178.85 149.59 330.11 288.18 

Annual Operating Cost Differential .................................................................. ........................ 29.26 ........................ 41.93 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,445.34 1,552.07 2,795.06 2,777.42 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥106.72 ........................ 17.63 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... ........................ 11.66 ........................ 9.30 

TABLE II.12 360-W PROBE-START METAL HALIDE BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

360 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

320 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

360 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

250 W HPS 

$ 

Fixture Price (incl. ballast) ............................................................................... ........................ 415.69 ........................ 393.34 

Lamp Price ....................................................................................................... 56.92 90.54 56.92 79.64 

Total First Cost ................................................................................................ 56.92 506.23 56.92 472.98 

Incremental First Cost ..................................................................................... ........................ 409.35 ........................ 416.06 

Annual Operating Cost .................................................................................... 217.75 205.97 373.22 331.69 

Annual Operating Cost Differential .................................................................. ........................ 11.78 ........................ 41.53 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,598.68 2,017.12 3,021.94 3,150.20 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥418.44 ........................ ¥128.26 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... ........................ 38.15 ........................ 10.02 

TABLE II.13 400-W PROBE-START MH BASELINE

Industrial/interior Commercial/exterior 

Baseline 

400 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 1 

320 W PMH 

$ 

Baseline 

400 W MH 

$ 

Substitute 2 

250 W HPS 

$ 

Fixture Price (incl. ballast) ............................................................................... ........................ 415.69 ........................ 393.34 

Lamp Price ....................................................................................................... 58.08 90.54 58.08 79.64 

Total First Cost ................................................................................................ 58.08 506.23 58.08 472.98 

Incremental First Cost ..................................................................................... ........................ 448.15 ........................ 414.90 

Annual Operating Cost .................................................................................... 237.74 205.97 395.37 331.69 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37986 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE II.13 400-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 

$ 

Annual Operating Cost Differential .................................................................. ........................ 31.77 ........................ 63.68 

LCC (7% Discount Rate) ................................................................................. 1,733.03 2,017.12 3,188.30 3,150.20 

LCC Savings .................................................................................................... ........................ ¥284.09 ........................ 38.09 

PBP (years) ..................................................................................................... ........................ 14.11 ........................ 6.51 

DOE concluded that whether or not 

there are net LCC savings from a 

potential HID lamp standard depends 

on the details of the lamp capacity and 

the installation scenario. Given the 

widely varying results that depend on 

specific installation details, DOE 

evaluated the total net consumer impact 

of the standard based on the national 

impact analysis which proportionally 

weighed the different installation cases 

based on two factors: (1) The fraction of 

lamp sales subject to each type of 

installation and (2) the relative 

frequency of each specific lamp 

substitution scenario. Although some 

replacements would have negative LCC, 

today’s final determination indicates 

that standards for HID lamps would 

likely result in positive total net 

consumer impacts and cumulative 

energy savings. 

3. National Energy Savings and 

Consumer Impacts 

DOE estimated national energy 

savings and consumer effects of energy 

conservation standards for the 

considered HID lamps using its own 

initial engineering analysis data. DOE 

assumed that energy conservation 

standards would take effect in 2017, and 

estimated the cumulative energy savings 

and NPV impacts relative to a base case 

and a standards case. 

As summarized in chapter 6 of the 

TSD (section 6.2), the results using 

DOE’s analysis of design options 

indicate cumulative energy savings for 

medium-wattage HID lamps of 11.4 

quads (undiscounted), and a 

corresponding NPV of $30.0 billion 

(2010$) at a 3-percent discount rate, and 

$13.7 billion at a 7-percent discount rate 

over the 30-year analysis period (2017– 

2046). 

In estimating the NPV, DOE estimated 

the fractions of replacements that would 

employ the different technologies and 

would be either a lamp-only or a total 

fixture replacement. While some 

replacements would have negative LCC, 

on a national scale these replacements 

are outweighed by those lamp and 

fixture replacements that would have 

positive economic impacts on 

consumers. 

In response to the NOPD, SDG&E 

commented that the magnitude of the 

savings of 2.8 quads seemed large in 

relation to the two other determinations 

(Small Electric Motors 71 FR 38799, 

38806 (July 10, 2006) and Non-Class A 

External Power Supplies 74 FR 56928, 

56929 (November 3, 2009)) mentioned 

in the NOPD. (SDG&E, No. 23 at p. 3; 

75 FR 22031, 22040 (April 27, 2010)). 

DOE agrees that the potential savings 

from an HID lamps rulemaking is large 

in comparison with the Small Electric 

Motors and External Power Supplies 

determinations. Yet, as previously 

indicated, the potential energy savings 

could be as great as 11.4 quads when 

not factoring in a discount rate, as 

opposed to the 2.8 quads originally 

published. DOE has carefully 

considered publishing this higher 

revised number and, based upon the 

data available, DOE believes that, over 

30 years, 11.4 quads is a reasonable 

initial (undiscounted) estimate. For 

purposes of comparison, the general 

service fluorescent and incandescent 

reflector lamp final rule found 

undiscounted energy savings of as much 

as 12 quads over a 30 year analysis 

period. 74 FR 34080, 34083 (July 14, 

2009). Neither ACEEE nor NEMA 

commented on the magnitude of 

potential energy savings for today’s final 

determination. 

D. Discussion 

1. Technological Feasibility 

Section 346(a)(1) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6317(a)(1)) mandates that DOE 

determine whether energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps would be 

‘‘technologically feasible.’’ DOE 

determines that energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps are 

technologically feasible because they 

can be satisfied with HID lighting 

systems that are currently available on 

the market. 

2. Significance of Energy Savings 

Section 346(a)(1) of EPCA mandates 

that DOE determine whether energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

would result in ‘‘significant energy 

savings.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) The term 

‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the Act. 

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC 

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings to 

be interpreted in a manner consistent 

with section 325 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) as savings that were not 

‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ Applying this test, 

DOE found in its 2010 final 

determination for Non-Class A External 

Power Supplies that an energy 

conservation standard for the product 

that would save as much as 0.14 quad 

of energy over a 30-year period (2013– 

2042) amounted to ‘‘significant energy 

savings’’ within the meaning of EPCA. In 

this previous determination, DOE noted 

that these savings were equivalent to the 

annual electricity needs of 1.1 million 

U.S. homes. 75 FR 27170, 27179 (May 

14, 2010). In today’s final 

determination, DOE finds that the 

estimated energy savings of 11.4 quads 

over 30 years for the considered HID 

lamps are equivalent to the annual 

electricity needs of 57 million U.S. 

homes. As a result, DOE concludes that 

the potential savings are not ‘‘genuinely 

trivial,’’ and thus determines that 

potential energy conservation standards 

for HID lamps would result in 

significant energy savings under EPCA. 

3. Economic Justification 

Section 346(b)(1) of EPCA requires 

that energy conservation standards for 

HID lamps be economically justified. 

(42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) In the NOPD, DOE 

aggregated the results from the LCC 

analyses to estimate national energy 

savings and national economic impacts. 

DOE estimated that the NPV of the 

consumer costs and benefits from a 

potential standard are $30.0 billion and 

$13.7 billion at 3-percent and 7-percent 

discount rates, respectively. As noted 

above, both ACEEE and SDG&E 

commented that the prices used in the 

LCC analyses seemed high. (ACEEE, No. 

22 at p. 2; SDG&E, No. 23 at p. 3) 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 37987 

However, this does not negate the fact 

that potential energy conservation 

standards would be economically 

justified. If lower prices were used in 

the LCC analyses, NPV savings would 

only be expected to be greater. DOE will 

review component prices in the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking; 

however, the use of prices that may be 

at the high end of the range of possible 

price estimates is prudent for a 

determination analysis, and helps 

ensure that the conclusion regarding the 

positive economic justification has a 

high degree of certainty. Therefore, DOE 

has determined that potential energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

would be expected to be economically 

justified. 

III. Conclusion 

A. Final Determination 

Based on its analysis of the available 

information, DOE has determined that 

energy conservation standards for 

certain HID lamps appear to be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would likely 

result in significant energy savings. 

Consequently, DOE will initiate the 

development of energy efficiency test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards for certain HID lamps. 

All of the design options addressed in 

this final determination document are 

technologically feasible. DOE’s data and 

available manufacturer data show that 

the considered HID lamp technologies 

are available to all manufacturers. These 

technologies include different methods 

of starting the lamps (e.g., pulse versus 

probe-start) and different lamp 

components (e.g., arc tube composition 

and design for HPS versus MH). The 

lamp manufacturers that DOE consulted 

produce at least one or more types of 

these higher efficacy lamps. DOE’s 

review of available HID lamps from 

manufacturers (including EYE, GE, 

OSRAM SYLVANIA, Philips, Venture, 

and Ushio) is presented in spreadsheet 

format on the DOE’s Web site at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

hid_analytical_spreadsheet_tools.html. 

DOE has determined that potential 

energy conservation standards for HID 

lamps are expected to be economically 

justified. The estimated aggregate NPV 

of consumer costs and benefits from a 

potential standard are expected to be 

$30.0 billion (2010$) at a 3-percent 

discount rate and $13.7 billion at a 7- 

percent discount rate over the 30-year 

analysis period (2017–2046). DOE has 

not produced detailed estimates of the 

potential adverse effects of a national 

standard on manufacturers or on 

individual categories of users. Instead, 

DOE is relying on the presence of 

existing, more efficacious products in 

the market today as an indicator of the 

probable economic feasibility for 

manufacturers of producing more 

efficacious lamps if required by 

standards. 

Finally, the scenarios examined in 

DOE’s analysis show the potential for 

significant energy savings, with the 

combined savings for medium-wattage 

HID lamps over the 30-year analysis 

period (2017–2046) of at least 11.4 

quads. The 11.4 quads estimated in this 

final determination is an undiscounted 

value, and is substantially higher than 

the discounted value of 2.8 quads 

estimated in the NOPD, although both 

values represent the same physical 

quantity and would constitute 

significant energy savings. 75 FR 22031, 

22040 (April 27, 2010). 

During the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking process, DOE will 

perform a detailed analysis of the effect 

of possible standards on manufacturers 

as well as a more disaggregated 

assessment of their possible impacts on 

user subgroups. 

B. Future Proceedings 

In terms of the three responses to the 

NOPD, all commenters encouraged DOE 

to establish an energy conservation 

standard for HID lamps. ACEEE offered 

support for the proposed positive 

determination and encouraged DOE to 

move forward with a rulemaking to 

establish standards for HID lamps. 

(ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 1) NEMA stated 

that ‘‘industry supports cost-effective 

HID lamp standards that conserve 

energy.’’ (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 2) SDG&E 

encouraged DOE to issue a positive final 

determination and open a new 

rulemaking to consider energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps. 

(SDG&E No. 23 at p. 1) Each of the 

commenters also included suggestions 

regarding the efficacy metric for HID 

lamps of lumens per watt. NEMA 

recommended that standards be based 

on initial lumens per watt, but 

suggested that DOE consider lumen 

maintenance factors and reliability, as 

different ballasts can affect the lumen 

maintenance of the system. Finally, 

NEMA commented that lumens per watt 

is not an appropriate metric for 

directional lamps and a different unit of 

measure will be needed. (NEMA, No. 21 

at p. 2) ACEEE reiterated its comments 

related to the 2003 and 2004 draft 

reports, that ACEEE supports minimum 

efficiency standards for HID lamps. 

(ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 1) As stated in the 

NOPD, ACEEE referenced a 60 lumens 

per watt minimum efficacy requirement 

in response to the 2003 draft report. 75 

FR 22031, 22033 (April 27, 2010). 

NEMA indicated that industry would 

expect conservation standards at the 

very least to eliminate MV lamps. 

(NEMA, No. 21 at p. 2) Further, SDG&E 

commented that substantial savings 

would be realized with efficiency 

standards that eliminate less efficient 

HID lamps, such as probe-start MH and 

MV lamps. (SDG&E No. 23 at p. 1) 

Moving forward, SDG&E encouraged 

DOE to consider combining future HID 

lamp rulemaking with the current MH 

lamp fixture rulemaking. (SDG&E, No. 

23 at p. 2) ACEEE suggested that DOE 

explore the potential of combining the 

rulemaking related to HID lighting 

systems into a single rulemaking with 

MH lamp fixtures. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 

1) Finally, NEMA commented that the 

industry believes that DOE will achieve 

much greater energy savings from HID 

systems with electronic ballasts and/or 

intelligent controls as compared to 

savings gained through potential 

standards that increase HID lamp 

efficacies. (NEMA, No. 21 at p. 4) 

In response to the suggestion of a 

combined rulemaking, DOE, in fact, has 

considered a combined rule, but a 

combination of the HID lamps rule with 

the MH lamp fixture rule would be 

problematic for the reasons that follow. 

First, the MH lamp fixture rule covers 

only metal halide fixtures and, thus, 

does not overlap entirely with an HID 

lamp rule because neither HPS nor MV 

lamps would be covered. Second, the 

MH lamp fixture rule also applies only 

to new fixtures. Both ACEEE and 

SDG&E in their comments noted that 

probe-start MH ballast technology has 

been banned effectively in new fixtures 

by EISA 2007 due to the high efficiency 

levels mandated for those types of 

ballasts and banned outright in multiple 

State regulations. (ACEEE, No. 22 at p. 

2; SDG&E, No. 23 at p. 2) However, DOE 

notes that probe-start MH lamps can 

still be shipped for replacement 

applications. A potential HID lamps rule 

that were to set an efficacy level higher 

than probe-start MH would likely yield 

significant energy savings (see TSD 

chapter 6, section 6.2). The MH lamp 

fixture rule would limit inefficient 

technologies in new fixtures, and the 

lamps rule would be expected to hasten 

the transition away from inefficient 

technologies in existing equipment. As 

DOE moves forward with a possible HID 

energy conservation standard, the 

analysis will be compared and 

combined with the MH lamp fixture 

rule where possible. 

Given today’s positive final 

determination, DOE will begin the 

process of establishing test procedure 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37988 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements for HID lamps, which is 

expected to result in the publication of 

a proposed rule. During the test 

procedure rulemaking process, DOE will 

consider the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) document 

ANSI C78.389–2004, ‘‘American 

National Standard for Electric Lamps— 

High Intensity Discharge—Methods of 

Measuring Characteristics,’’ and the 

following Illuminating Engineering 

Society of North America (IESNA) 

Lighting Measurement (LM) documents: 

LM–47–01, ‘‘IESNA Approved Method 

for Life-Testing of HID Lamps,’’ and 

LM–51–00, ‘‘IESNA Approved Method 

for the Electrical and Photometric 

Measurements of High Intensity 

Discharge Lamps.’’ 

DOE will also begin a proceeding to 

consider establishment of energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps. 

DOE will collect information about 

design options, inputs on the 

engineering and LCC analyses, and 

potential impacts on the manufacturers 

and consumers of HID lamps. DOE will 

evaluate whether potential energy 

conservation standards are 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified, and would likely result in 

significant energy savings in accordance 

with the requirements of EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)) Depending on the 

outcome of these analyses, as well as on 

other factors set forth in EPCA, DOE 

will determine which, if any, standards 

would be appropriate for this 

equipment. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

This final determination is not subject 

to review under Executive Order 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ 58 

FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996), requires 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis for any rule that, by 

law, must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the proposed rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 

examines the impact of the rule on 

small entities and considers alternative 

ways of reducing negative effects. Also, 

as required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003 to ensure that the potential impact 

of its rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the DOE rulemaking 

process. 68 FR 7990 (February 19, 2003). 

DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site at http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed today’s final 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. 

When adopted, today’s final 

determination will set no standards; it 

will only positively determine that 

future standards may be warranted and 

should be explored in an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

Economic impacts on small entities 

would be considered in the context of 

such a future rulemaking. On the basis 

of the foregoing, DOE certifies that this 

final determination has no significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for this proceeding. 

DOE will transmit this certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration for 

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

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

This proceeding determines that the 

development of energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps may be 

warranted and, accordingly, will impose 

no new information or recordkeeping 

requirements on the public. Therefore, 

OMB clearance is not required under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this notice, DOE positively 

determines that future standards may be 

warranted, and environmental impacts, 

if any, will be explored in a subsequent 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. DOE has determined that 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), Public Law 91–190, codified at 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., is not required 

at this time. NEPA review can only be 

initiated ‘‘as soon as environmental 

impacts can be meaningfully evaluated.’’ 

(10 CFR 1021.213(b)) Because this final 

determination only concludes that 

future standards may be warranted, but 

does not propose or set any standard, 

DOE has determined that there are no 

environmental impacts to be evaluated 

at this time. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to assess carefully the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in developing 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process that it will follow 

in developing such regulations. 65 FR 

13735 (March 14, 2000). DOE has 

examined today’s final determination 

and concludes that it would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation 

standards for the equipment that is the 

subject of today’s final determination. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent 

permitted and based on criteria set forth 

in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the duty to: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard; and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive 

Order 12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation specifies the following: (1) 

The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any 

effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 37989 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

definitions of key terms; and (6) other 

important issues affecting clarity and 

general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether these standards are 

met, or whether it is unreasonable to 

meet one or more of them. DOE 

completed the required review and 

determined that to the extent permitted 

by law, this determination meets the 

relevant standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

requires each Federal agency to assess 

the effects of Federal regulatory actions 

on State, local, and Tribal governments 

and the private sector. For regulatory 

actions likely to result in a rule that may 

cause expenditures by State, local, and 

Tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector of $100 million or 

more in any one year (adjusted annually 

for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 

requires a Federal agency to publish a 

written statement that estimates the 

resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)) UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by 

elected officers of State, local, and 

Tribal governments on a proposed 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate.’’ UMRA also requires an 

agency plan for giving notice and 

opportunity for timely input to small 

governments that may be potentially 

affected before establishing any 

requirement that might significantly or 

uniquely affect them. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (March 18, 1997). 

This policy is also available online at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

Today’s final determination will not 

result in the expenditure of $100 

million or more in a given year by the 

HID lamp manufacturers affected by this 

rulemaking. This is because today’s 

final determination sets no standards; it 

only positively determines that future 

standards may be warranted and should 

be explored in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. The final 

determination also does not contain a 

Federal intergovernmental mandate. 

Thus, DOE is not required by UMRA to 

prepare a written statement assessing 

the costs, benefits, and other effects of 

the determination on the national 

economy. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

determination does not have any impact 

on the autonomy or integrity of the 

family as an institution. Accordingly, 

DOE has concluded that it is not 

necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 15, 1988), that this 

determination does not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriation Act, 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies 

to review most disseminations of 

information they make to the public 

under guidelines established by each 

agency pursuant to OMB general 

guidelines. The OMB’s guidelines were 

published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 

2002), and DOE’s guidelines were 

published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 

2002). DOE has reviewed today’s notice 

under the OMB and DOE guidelines and 

has concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any proposed 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates a final 

rule or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866 or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs as a significant energy action. 

For any proposed significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

proposal is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action determines 

that development of energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

may be warranted and would not have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action is also not a significant 

regulatory action for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 or any successor 

order, and it has not been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, this 

final determination is not a significant 

energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004 in consultation 

with the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy, the OMB issued its 

Final Information Quality Bulletin for 

Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 

(January 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information.’’ The 

Bulletin defines ‘‘influential scientific 

information’’ as ‘‘scientific information 

the agency reasonably can determine 

will have, or does have, a clear and 

substantial impact on important public 

policies or private sector decisions.’’ 70 

FR 2667 (January 14, 2005). 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and prepared a Peer Review 

Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available online at 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

37990 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary 

The Assistant Secretary of DOE’s 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy has approved 

publication of this final determination. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 16, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–16041 Filed 6–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0102; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NE–09–AD; Amendment 39– 

16341; AD 2010–13–10] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Ontic 

Engineering and Manufacturing, Inc. 

Propeller Governors, Part Numbers 

C210776, T210761, D210760, and 

J210761 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

serial numbers (S/Ns) of Ontic 

Engineering and Manufacturing, Inc. 

propeller governors, part numbers (P/ 

Ns) C210776, T210761, D210760, and 

J210761. This AD requires removal of 

the affected propeller governors from 

service. This AD results from three 

reports received of failed propeller 

governors. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent loss of propeller pitch control, 

damage to the propeller governor, and 

internal damage to the engine, which 

could prevent continued safe flight or 

safe landing. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

August 5, 2010. The Director of the 

Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the regulations as 

of August 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: 

You can get the service information 

identified in this AD from Ontic 

Engineering and Manufacturing, Inc., 

20400 Plummer Sreet, Chatsworth, CA 

91311, e-mail: Bill.nolan@ontic.com; 

telephone (818) 725–2323; fax (818) 

725–2535; or e-mail: 

Susan.hunt@ontic.com; telephone (818) 

725–2121; fax (818) 725–2535, or on the 

Web at http://www.ontic.com/pdf/SBDES-353_Rev_A.pdf. 

The Docket Operations office is 

located at Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roger Pesuit, Aerospace Engineer, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 

90712; e-mail: roger.pesuit@faa.gov; 

telephone (562) 627–5251, fax (562) 

627–5210. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with 

a proposed AD. The proposed AD 

applies to certain S/Ns of Ontic 

Engineering and Manufacturing, Inc. 

propeller governors, P/Ns C210776, 

T210761, D210760, and J210761. We 

published the proposed AD in the 

Federal Register on March 15, 2010 (75 

FR 12148). That action proposed to 

require removal of the affected propeller 

governors from service. 

Examining the AD 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 AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone 

(800) 647–5527) is provided in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We received no 

comments on the proposal or on the 

determination of the cost to the public. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data and determined that air 

safety and the public interest require 

adopting the AD as proposed. 

Costs of Compliance 

We estimate that this AD will affect 

45 propeller governors installed on 

airplanes of U.S. registry. We also 

estimate that it will take about four 

work-hours per airplane to perform the 

actions, and that the average labor rate 

is $85 per work-hour. Required repair 

parts will cost about $842 per propeller 

governor. Based on these figures, we 

estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. 

operators to be $83,790. Our cost 

estimate is exclusive of possible 

warranty coverage. 

Authority for this Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866; 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 

(3) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a summary of the costs 

to comply with this AD and placed it in 

the AD Docket. You may get a copy of 

this summary at the address listed 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES