62910 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

provide a balanced discussion of the 

issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking 

process. Anyone who wishes to be 

added to the DOE mailing list to receive 

future notices and information about 

this rulemaking should contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945, or 

via email at Brenda.Edwards@

ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24983 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0043] 

RIN 1904–AC36 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for HighIntensity Discharge Lamps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

determination (NOPD). 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, requires DOE to prescribe test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards for high-intensity discharge 

(HID) lamps for which it has determined 

that standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant energy 

savings. In this notice, DOE proposes to 

determine that energy conservation 

standards for high-intensity discharge 

(HID) lamps do not meet these criteria. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this NOPD no 

later than December 22, 2014. Interested 

parties may further request, no later 

than November 5, 2014, a public 

meeting to discuss this NOPD. See 

section VII Public Participation for 

details. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the NOPD for Energy 

Conservation Standards for HighIntensity Discharge Lamps and provide 

docket number EE–2010–BT–STD–0043 

and/or regulatory information number 

(RIN) 1904–AC36. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: HIDLamps-2010-STD0043@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket 

number and/or RIN in the subject line 

of the message. 

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

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section VII of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

framework documents, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

The docket Web page can be found at: 

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

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/

ruleid/23. This Web page contains a link 

to the docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page contains simple instructions 

on how to access all documents, 

including public comments, in the 

docket. See section VII for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or by email: Brenda.

Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email: 

high_intensity_discharge_lamps@ee.

doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7796. Email: 

elizabeth.kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Proposed Determination 

A. Legal Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

High-Intensity Discharge Lamps 

3. Changes From the 2010 Determination 

a. Color 

b. Replacement Options 

c. Shipments 

d. Summary of Changes 

II. Issues Affecting the Lamps Analyzed by 

This Determination 

A. Lamps Analyzed by This Determination 

B. Standby/Off Mode 

C. Metric 

D. Coordination of the Metal Halide Lamp 

Fixture and HID Lamp Rulemakings 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

2. Equipment Classes 

3. Technology Options 

a. Mercury Vapor 

b. High-Pressure Sodium Lamps 

c. Metal Halide 

d. Summary 

B. Screening Analysis 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Representative Equipment Classes 

2. Baseline Lamps and Representative 

Lamp Types 

3. More Efficacious Substitutes 

4. Determine Efficacy Levels 

5. Scaling to Equipment Classes Not 

Directly Analyzed 

6. HID Systems 

D. Equipment Price Determination 

E. Markups Analysis 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

H. Shipments Analysis 

I. National Impact Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Customers 

B. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

1. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

2. Impacts on Employment 

3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

4. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62911 

1The final determination is available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/60. 

5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

C. National Impact Analysis 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

2. Net Present Value of Customer Costs and 

Benefits 

D. Proposed Determination 

1. Technological Feasibility 

2. Significance of Energy Savings 

3. Economic Justification 

4. Conclusions 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

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 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Public Meeting Requests 

B. Submission of Comments 

C. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Proposed 

Determination 

DOE proposes to determine that 

energy conservation standards for HID 

lamps do not meet the EPCA 

requirements described in section I.A, 

that such standards be technologically 

feasible, economically justified, and 

result in a significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) 

Specifically, DOE concludes that 

standards for high-pressure sodium 

(HPS) lamps are not technologically 

feasible, and that standards for mercury 

vapor (MV) and metal halide (MH) 

lamps are not economically justified 

(HPS, MV, and MH lamps are 

subcategories of HID lamps). DOE’s 

proposed determination is based on 

analysis of several efficacy levels (ELs) 

as a means of conserving energy. These 

analyses and DOE’s results are 

described in the following sections of 

this notice and in the notice of proposed 

determination (NOPD) technical support 

document (TSD). 

A. Legal Authority 

Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq), Public Law 94–163, sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part C of title 

III, which for editorial reasons was redesignated as Part A–1 upon 

incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 

U.S.C. 6311–6317), establishes the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment,’’ a 

program covering certain industrial 

equipment, which include the HID 

lamps that are the subject of this 

proposed determination. Pursuant to 

EPCA, DOE must prescribe test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps for which DOE 

has determined that standards would be 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified, and would result in a 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

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

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

There are currently no Federal energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps. 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

High-Intensity Discharge Lamps 

Pursuant to EPCA, in 2010 DOE 

published a final determination 1

(hereafter the ‘‘2010 determination’’) 

that standards for certain HID lamps are 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified, and would result in significant 

energy savings (a positive 

determination). 75 FR 37975 (July 1, 

2010). As a result of the 2010 

determination, DOE initiated a test 

procedure rulemaking for the specified 

lamps (see section III.A). 

DOE also initiated an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking in 

response to the 2010 determination. On 

February 28, 2012, DOE published in 

the Federal Register an announcement 

of the availability of a framework 

document for energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps, as well as a 

notice of a public meeting. DOE held a 

public meeting on March 29, 2012, to 

receive feedback in response to the 

framework document. 

DOE gathered additional information 

and performed interim analyses to 

develop potential energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps. On February 

28, 2013, DOE published in the Federal 

Register an announcement of the 

availability of the interim technical 

support document (the interim TSD) 

and notice of a public meeting 

(hereafter, the ‘‘February 2013 notice’’) 

to discuss and receive comments on the 

following matters: (1) The equipment 

classes DOE planned to analyze; (2) the 

analytical framework, models and tools 

that DOE used to evaluate standards; (3) 

the results of the interim analyses 

performed by DOE; and (4) potential 

standard levels that DOE could 

consider. 78 FR 13566. In the February 

2013 notice, DOE requested comment 

on issues that would affect energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps or 

that DOE should address in the 

following analysis stage. The interim 

TSD is available at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ 

ruleid/23. 

The interim TSD summarized the 

activities DOE undertook in developing 

standards for HID lamps. It also 

described the analytical framework that 

DOE uses in a typical energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

including a description of the 

methodology, the analytical tools, and 

the relationships among the various 

analyses that are part of the rulemaking. 

The interim TSD presented and 

described in detail each analysis DOE 

performed, including descriptions of 

inputs, sources, methodologies, and 

results. 

The public meeting for the interim 

analysis took place on April 2, 2013. At 

this meeting, DOE presented the 

methodologies and results of the 

analyses set forth in the interim TSD. 

Interested parties discussed the 

following major issues at the public 

meeting: the scope of the interim 

analysis, equipment classes, sapphire 

arc tube technology, the engineering 

analysis (including the representative 

units, baselines, and candidate standard 

levels [CSLs]), the life-cycle cost (LCC) 

and payback period (PBP) analysis, and 

the shipment analysis. 

All comments received by DOE in 

response to the framework document 

were considered when performing the 

interim analysis for HID lamps. Chapter 

2 of this NOPD TSD summarizes and 

responds to comments received on the 

framework document and the interim 

analysis. 

After revising the interim analyses 

based on stakeholder comments and 

updated information, DOE proposes in 

this NOPD to determine that standards 

for HID lamps are no longer justified 

based on technological feasibility and 

economic justification. 

3. Changes From the 2010 

Determination 

As discussed previously, DOE 

published a determination in 2010 that 

concluded that standards for certain 

HID lamps would be technologically 

feasible, economically justified, and 

would result in significant energy 

savings. 75 FR 37975 (July 1, 2010) 

Since the publication of the 2010 

determination, DOE held public 

meetings and received written 

comments, conducted interviews with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62912 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturers, and conducted 

additional research. Based upon this 

new information, DOE revised its 

analyses for potential HID lamp energy 

conservation standards. The following 

sections summarize the major changes 

in assumptions and analyses between 

the 2010 determination and this NOPD, 

in which DOE proposes to determine 

that standards for HID lamps would not 

be technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would not 

result in significant energy savings. 

a. Color 

In contrast to the 2010 determination, 

DOE established separate equipment 

classes based on correlated color 

temperature (CCT) in the interim 

analysis and in this NOPD. CCT 

represents the color appearance of a 

light source and is expressed in kelvins 

(K). The higher the CCT, the cooler or 

more blue the light appears, and the 

lower the CCT, the warmer or more red 

the light appears. HID lamps are 

available with a wide range of CCT 

values depending on lamp type and 

design. DOE’s analysis of commercially 

available lamp catalog data concluded 

that CCT is correlated with lamp 

efficacy. DOE determined that higherCCT lamps were less efficacious than 

lower CCT lamps of the same wattage. 

Because CCT is an approximation of the 

color appearance of a lamp, customers 

typically specify different CCTs for 

different applications. Some lamp 

substitutions are not suitable because 

certain applications have specific color 

requirements (typically indoor 

applications that demand white light). 

Because CCT affects HID lamp efficacy 

and impacts consumer utility, DOE has 

established separate equipment classes 

based on CCT. 

DOE established equipment classes 

based on three different ranges of CCT. 

HPS lamps were included in the 1900 

K–2800 K equipment class while MH 

lamps were included in the 2800 K– 

4500 K or 4500 K–7000 K equipment 

classes. DOE investigated higher 

efficacy replacement options for HPS 

lamps such that customers could save 

energy while maintaining the utility 

(e.g., CCT) of the lamp type. As 

discussed in section IV.A.3, DOE 

concluded no technology options exist 

for improving the efficacy of HPS lamps. 

Therefore, DOE tentatively determined 

standards for HPS lamps are not 

technologically feasible in this NOPD. 

b. Replacement Options 

In the 2010 determination, DOE 

assumed that any customer purchasing 

a compliant lamp would choose a 

reduced-wattage lamp more efficacious 

than their existing non-compliant lamp. 

However, DOE received feedback from 

manufacturer interviews that not all 

customers would choose to reduce 

wattage in response to standards for HID 

lamps. Some customers would choose to 

continue using their existing wattage 

(e.g., a more-efficacious, increased 

lumen output lamp that complies with 

standards, but has the same wattage) for 

the convenience and lower cost of not 

purchasing a new fixture and/or ballast 

that may be necessary for use with the 

reduced-wattage lamp. During 

interviews, manufacturers also 

indicated that some customers may not 

understand the metrics used to measure 

light output and would opt to keep 

lamps at their existing wattage because 

wattage is the metric they most 

commonly consider for lighting. The 

result for these customers would be an 

increase in light output, but no energy 

savings. As a result of this information, 

DOE models a percentage of customers 

replacing lamps with more efficacious, 

equal wattage lamps in this NOPD. The 

results of the model indicate a reduced 

potential for energy savings and 

corresponding operating cost savings 

associated with HID lamp standards. 

See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD for more 

details about the engineering analysis 

and chapter 12 of the NOPD TSD for 

more detail about the national impact 

analysis (NIA). 

c. Shipments 

For the 2010 determination, DOE 

calculated the installed base of HID 

lamps using historical shipments data 

provided by the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA). 

DOE projected future lamp shipments 

based on the lamp lifetimes and 

operating scenarios developed for the 

LCC and PBP analysis, as well as 

estimated market and substitution 

trends in the base case and standards 

case. 75 FR 37975, 37981 (July 1, 2010). 

The shipments analysis and NIA for this 

NOPD (see sections IV.H and IV.I) draw 

upon the same historical NEMA lamp 

shipments data in calculating the 

installed base of HID lamps, 

supplemented with additional 

shipments data and manufacturer input 

on HID market trends. DOE’s current 

projections illustrate a sharper decline 

in and lower overall HID lamp 

shipments than projected in the 2010 

determination. 

d. Summary of Changes 

Since the publication of the 2010 

determination, DOE received additional 

information from public meetings, 

written comments, manufacturer 

interviews, and further research. This 

new information led to the following 

major changes presented in this NOPD: 

(1) The determination that equipment 

classes should be separated based on 

CCT; (2) the introduction of a 

percentage of customers replacing lamps 

with more efficacious, equal wattage 

lamps in response to potential 

standards; and (3) the revision 

downward of projected HID lamp 

shipments in the shipments analysis, 

based on supplemental data and 

collected manufacturer input on HID 

market trends. As a result of the update 

regarding separate equipment classes for 

CCT, DOE tentatively determined that 

standards for HPS lamps are not 

technologically feasible in this NOPD. 

Additionally, as a result of the updates 

regarding customers replacing lamps 

with equal wattage lamps and 

supplemental shipment data, the NIA 

yielded negative NPVs in this NOPD 

(see section V.C for a discussion of NIA 

results in the NOPD). As such, DOE 

tentatively proposes to determine that 

standards for MV and MH lamps would 

not be economically justified. 

II. Issues Affecting the Lamps Analyzed 

by This Determination 

A. Lamps Analyzed by This 

Determination 

HID is the generic name for a family 

of lamps including MV, MH, and HPS 

lamps. Although low-pressure sodium 

lamps are often included in the family, 

the definition of HID lamp set forth in 

EPCA requires the arc tube wall loading 

to be greater than three watts per square 

centimeter. (42 U.S.C. 6291(46)) Because 

low-pressure sodium lamps do not 

satisfy this requirement, they are not 

considered HID lamps according to the 

statute, and are therefore not considered 

in this NOPD. Definitions for these 

lamps are discussed in chapter 2 of the 

NOPD TSD. 

DOE first analyzed the potential 

energy savings of the HID lamp types 

that fall within the EPCA definition of 

‘‘HID lamp’’, as well as the 

technological feasibility of more 

efficient lamps for each type. For the 

HID lamps that passed those criteria, 

DOE conducted a full economic analysis 

with the LCC analysis, NIA, and 

manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) (see 

sections IV.G, IV.I, and IV.J) to 

determine whether standards would be 

economically justified. 

After considering the comments on 

the interim analysis, and additional 

feedback from manufacturer interviews, 

DOE determined that there are no 

design options to increase the efficacy of 

HPS lamps, indicating that standards for 

this lamp technology are not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62913 

2A final rule for MHLF energy conservation 

standards was published in February 2014. For 

more information on the MHLF standards 

rulemaking, see http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ 

ruleid/16. 

3The HID lamp test procedure SNOPR is 

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

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/21. 

technologically feasible. Specifically, 

DOE determined that sapphire arc tube 

technology is not a valid technology 

option for increased efficacy in HPS 

lamps (see section IV.B for further 

details). 

Available information indicates that 

energy conservation standards for 

certain MV and MH lamps are both 

technologically feasible and would save 

a significant amount of energy. 

Therefore, DOE conducted the full 

economic analysis for those lamp types 

to determine whether standards would 

be economically justified. Specifically, 

DOE analyzed the economic 

justification of potential energy 

conservation standards for MH lamps 

with a rated wattage of greater than or 

equal to 50 watts (W) and less than or 

equal to 2000 W, and CCTs greater than 

or equal to 2800 K and less than 7000 

K. DOE also analyzed the economic 

justification of energy conservation 

standards for MV lamps with a rated 

wattage greater than or equal to 50 W 

and less than or equal to 1000 W, and 

CCTs greater than or equal to 3200 K 

and less than or equal to 6800 K. Table 

II.1 provides a summary of the HID 

lamps analyzed. 

TABLE II.1—CCT AND WATTAGE

RANGES ANALYZED

Lamp 

type Wattage CCT 

MV .. 50 W–1000 W 3200 K–6800 K. 

MH .. 50 W–2000 W 2800 K–6999 K. 

In summary, DOE excluded the 

following HID lamps from its analysis 

based on those lamps not meeting the 

criteria of potential for significant 

energy savings or technological 

feasibility: 

• HPS lamps; 

• directional HID lamps; 

• self-ballasted HID lamps; 

• lamps designed to operate 

exclusively on electronic ballasts; 

• high-color rendering index (CRI) 

lamps (a CRI greater than or equal to 

95); 

• colored MH lamps (a CRI of less 

than 40); 

• MV lamps that are double-ended, 

have a non-screw base, and have no 

outer bulb; 

• HID lamps that have a CCT of 5000 

K–6999 K, have a non-screw base, and 

have non-T-shaped bulbs; and 

• electrodeless HID lamps. 

See chapter 2 of the NOPD TSD for a 

more detailed discussion of which HID 

lamps did and did not meet the criteria 

for analysis and of the rationale behind 

those selections. 

B. Standby/Off Mode 

EPCA defines active mode as the 

condition in which an energy-using 

piece of equipment is connected to a 

main power source, has been activated, 

and provides one or more main 

functions (42 U.S.C. 6295)(gg)(1)(A)). 

Standby mode is defined as the 

condition in which an energy-using 

piece of equipment is connected to a 

main power source and offers one or 

more of the following user-oriented or 

protective functions: facilitating the 

activation or deactivation of other 

functions (including active mode) by 

remote switch (including remote 

control), internal sensor, or timer; or 

providing continuous functions, 

including information or status displays 

(including clocks) or sensor-based 

functions. Id. Off mode is defined as the 

condition in which an energy-using 

piece of equipment is connected to a 

main power source, and is not providing 

any standby or active mode function. Id. 

DOE conducted an analysis of the 

applicability of standby mode and off 

mode energy use for HID lamps. DOE 

tentatively determined that HID lamps 

that are subject of this NOPD do not 

operate in standby mode or off mode. 

HID lamps do not offer any secondary 

user-oriented or protective functions or 

continuous standby mode functions. 

Because all energy use of HID lamps is 

accounted for in the active mode, DOE 

does not analyze potential standards for 

lamp operation in standby and off mode 

in this NOPD. 

C. Metric 

To analyze energy conservation 

standards related to HID lamps, DOE 

must select a metric for rating the 

performance of the lamps. In the 

framework document and interim 

analysis, DOE considered a number of 

potential metrics for the energy 

conservation standards of HID lamps 

and requested comment. In response to 

comments received and based on DOE’s 

own analysis, DOE used initial efficacy 

for consideration and analysis of energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps. 

For a full description of metrics 

explored and discussion of stakeholder 

comments, see chapter 2 of the NOPD 

TSD. 

D. Coordination of the Metal Halide 

Lamp Fixture and HID Lamp 

Rulemakings 

For this NOPD, DOE continued to use 

shared data sources between the metal 

halide lamp fixture (MHLF) standards 

rulemaking 2 and this HID lamp 

determination. DOE’s analysis of HID 

lamps assumes that MHLFs purchased 

after the compliance date of the MHLF 

final rule use ballasts compliant with 

those standards. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314) 

Manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use these test procedures to certify 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with EPCA energy conservation 

standards and to quantify the efficiency 

of their equipment. Also, these test 

procedures must be used whenever 

testing is required in an enforcement 

action to determine whether covered 

equipment complies with EPCA 

standards. 

Based on comments received on the 

HID lamps test procedures notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and 

subsequent additional research, DOE 

proposed revisions to and clarification 

of the proposed HID lamp test 

procedures. DOE published these 

revisions and clarifications in a test 

procedure supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNOPR).3 79 FR 

29631 (May 22, 2014). The analysis in 

this NOPD is based upon the test 

procedures put forward in the test 

procedure SNOPR. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In this NOPD, DOE conducted a 

screening analysis based on information 

gathered on all current technology 

options and prototype designs that 

could improve the efficacy of HID 

lamps. As the first step in such an 

analysis, DOE developed a list of 

technology options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determined which of those 

means for improving efficacy are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible, pursuant to 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

section 4(a)(4)(i). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62914 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4 In the past DOE presented energy savings results 

for only the 30-year period that begins in the year 

of compliance. In the calculation of economic 

impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost 

savings measured over the entire lifetime of 

equipment purchased in the 30-year period. DOE 

has chosen to modify its presentation of national 

energy savings to be consistent with the approach 

used for its national economic analysis. 

5 ‘‘Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-FuelCycle Measurement Approaches to DOE/EERE 

Building Appliance Energy-Efficiency Standards,’’ 

(Academy report) was completed in May 2009 and 

included five recommendations. A copy of the 

study can be downloaded at: www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=12670. 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(ii)–(iv). For further details on the 

screening analysis, see section IV.B of 

this NOPD and chapters 2 and 4 of the 

NOPD TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE analyzes a new standard 

for a type or class of covered product, 

it must determine the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency or 

maximum reduction in energy use that 

is technologically feasible for that 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 

Accordingly, in the engineering 

analysis, DOE determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficacy for HID 

lamps, using the design parameters for 

the most efficacious products available 

on the market or in working prototypes. 

(See chapter 5 of the NOPD TSD.) The 

max-tech levels that DOE determined 

for this NOPD are described in chapters 

2 and 5 of the NOPD TSD. 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each EL in each equipment class, 

DOE projected energy savings for the 

equipment that is the subject of this 

NOPD purchased in the 30-year period 

that would begin in the expected year of 

compliance with any new standards 

(2017–2046). The savings are measured 

over the entire lifetime of equipment 

purchased in the 30-year analysis 

period.4 DOE quantified the energy 

savings attributable to each EL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the 

base case. The base case represents a 

projection of energy consumption in the 

absence of new mandatory efficacy 

standards, and it considers market 

forces and policies that affect demand 

for more efficient equipment. 

DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model 

to estimate energy savings from 

potential standards for the equipment 

that are the subject of this NOPD. The 

NIA spreadsheet model (described in 

section IV.I of this notice) calculates 

energy savings in site energy, which is 

the energy directly consumed by 

equipment at the locations where they 

are used. DOE reports national energy 

savings on an annual basis in terms of 

the source (primary) energy savings, 

which is the savings in the energy that 

is used to generate and transmit the site 

energy. To convert site energy to source 

energy, DOE derived annual conversion 

factors from the model used to prepare 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA’s) Annual Energy Outlook 2013 

(AEO2013). 

DOE has begun to also estimate fullfuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. 76 FR 

51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended at 

77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). The FFC 

metric includes the energy consumed in 

extracting, processing, and transporting 

primary fuels, and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy efficiency standards. DOE’s 

evaluation of FFC savings is driven in 

part by the National Academy of 

Science’s (NAS) report on FFC 

measurement approaches for DOE’s 

Appliance Standards Program.5 The 

NAS report discusses that FFC was 

primarily intended for energy efficiency 

standards rulemakings where multiple 

fuels may be used by particular 

equipment. In the case of this NOPD 

pertaining to HID lamps, only a single 

fuel—electricity—is consumed by the 

equipment. DOE’s approach is based on 

the calculation of an FFC multiplier for 

each of the energy types used by 

covered equipment. Although the 

addition of FFC energy savings in 

rulemakings is consistent with the 

recommendations, the methodology for 

estimating FFC does not project how 

fuel markets would respond to a 

potential standards rulemaking. The 

FFC methodology simply estimates how 

much additional energy, and in turn 

how many tons of emissions, may be 

displaced if the estimated fuel were not 

consumed by the equipment covered in 

this NOPD. It is also important to note 

that inclusion of FFC savings does not 

affect DOE’s choice of potential 

standards. For more information on FFC 

energy savings, see section IV.I of this 

notice, and chapter 11 and appendix 

11A of the NOPD TSD. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt standards that are more 

stringent for a covered product, DOE 

must determine that such action would 

result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) Although the 

term ‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the 

Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in 

the context of EPCA to be savings that 

were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ DOE 

analyzed the energy savings for each 

potential standard level for each 

equipment class in this NOPD 

(presented in section V.C.1). 

D. Economic Justification 

In determining whether potential 

energy conservation standards for HID 

lamps would be economically justified, 

DOE analyzed the results of the 

following analyses: (1) A market and 

technology assessment that 

characterizes where and how HID lamps 

are used; (2) an engineering analysis 

that estimates the relationship between 

product costs and energy use; (3) an 

LCC and PBP analysis that estimates the 

costs and benefits to users from 

increased efficacy in HID lamps; (4) an 

NIA that estimates potential energy 

savings on a national scale and potential 

economic costs and benefits that would 

result from improving energy efficacy in 

the considered HID lamps; and (5) an 

MIA that determines the potential 

impact new standards for HID lamps 

would have on manufacturers. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. General 

In conducting the market and 

technology assessment for this NOPD, 

DOE developed information that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the equipment concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, and the market 

characteristics. This activity included 

both quantitative and qualitative 

assessments based on publicly available 

information. The subjects addressed in 

the market and technology assessment 

for this NOPD include: Equipment 

classes and manufacturers; historical 

shipments; market trends; regulatory 

and non-regulatory programs; and 

technologies that could improve the 

efficacy of the HID lamps under 

examination. See chapter 3 of the NOPD 

TSD for further discussion of the market 

and technology assessment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62915 

6When writing out the equipment class CCT 

ranges of ≥2800 K and ≤4500 K and of >4500 K and 

<7000 K in text, DOE uses the shorthand 2800 K– 

4500 K and 4501 K–6999 K, respectively. Similarly, 

when writing out the equipment class wattage 

ranges of ≥50 W and ≤400 W, >400 W and ≤1000 

W, and >1000 W and ≤2000 W in text, DOE uses 

the shorthand 50 W–400 W, 401 W–1000 W, and 

1001 W–2000 W, respectively. 

2. Equipment Classes 

For this NOPD, DOE divided 

equipment into classes by: (a) The type 

of energy used, (b) the capacity of the 

equipment, or (c) any other 

performance-related features that 

justifies different standard levels, such 

as features affecting consumer utility. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE then considers 

establishing separate standard levels for 

each equipment class based on the 

criteria set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

In this NOPD, DOE analyzed CCT, 

wattage, bulb finish, and luminaire 

characteristics as the equipment-classsetting factors. DOE analyzed 24 

equipment classes for HID lamps, as 

shown in Table IV.1. See chapters 2 and 

3 of the NOPD TSD for a more detailed 

discussion on equipment classes 

analyzed for HID lamps.6

TABLE IV.1—EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED IN NOPD 

CCT Range 

K 

Wattage 

W Bulb finish * Luminaire characteristic ** 

≥2800 and ≤4500 .................................................. ≥50 and ≤400 ........................................................ Clear ................. Enclosed. 

Open. 

Coated .............. Enclosed. 

Open. 

>400 and ≤1000 .................................................... Clear ................. Enclosed. 

Open. 

Coated .............. Enclosed. 

Open. 

>1000 and ≤2000 .................................................. Clear ................. Enclosed. 

Open. 

Coated .............. Enclosed. 

Open. 

>4500 and <7000 .................................................. ≥50 and ≤400 ........................................................ Clear ................. Enclosed. 

Open. 

Coated .............. Enclosed. 

Open. 

>400 and ≤1000 .................................................... Clear ................. Enclosed. 

Open. 

Coated .............. Enclosed. 

Open. 

>1000 and ≤2000 .................................................. Clear ................. Enclosed. 

Open. 

Coated .............. Enclosed. 

Open. 

* MV lamps regardless of bulb finish are placed in the clear equipment classes for their respective CCT and wattage. 

** MV lamps are placed in the enclosed equipment classes for their respective wattage and CCT. 

3. Technology Options 

The following sections detail the 

technology options that DOE is 

analyzing in this NOPD as viable means 

of increasing the efficacy of HID lamps. 

a. Mercury Vapor 

MV ballasts, other than specialty 

application MV ballasts, have been 

banned from import or production in 

the United States since January 1, 2008. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(ee)) This ban effectively 

limits the installation of new MV 

fixtures and ballasts, meaning the only 

MV lamps currently sold are 

replacement lamps. DOE understands 

there is limited industry design 

emphasis on MV lamps and that there 

are limited methods to improving the 

efficacy of MV lamps. DOE found that 

the only pathway to increase efficacy is 

a change of technology to MH lamps, 

and considers a change of technology as 

the sole technology option for MV 

lamps in this NOPD. 

b. High-Pressure Sodium Lamps 

HPS lamps are already very 

efficacious (up to 150 lumens per watt), 

but have intrinsically poor color quality. 

DOE did not identify any technology 

options currently utilized in 

commercially available HPS lamps. In 

the interim analysis, DOE identified 

academic papers that indicated 

potential increases in efficacy were 

possible by constructing the arc tubes 

out of a sapphire material, or single 

crystal aluminum oxide. Several 

manufacturers produced HPS lamps 

with a sapphire arc tube beginning in 

the late 1970s, but these lamps have 

since been discontinued. 

In the interim analysis, DOE found 

that sapphire had five percent greater 

transmission of light compared to the 

traditionally used polycrystalline 

alumina (PCA) and equated this with a 

potential five percent increase in lamp 

efficacy. However, DOE has since 

received feedback from manufacturers 

that the increase in transmission 

associated with using sapphire material 

instead of PCA does not necessarily 

result in an equal increase in efficacy. 

This is because the material does not 

transmit all wavelengths uniformly, 

which affects the perceived brightness 

of the light. Because these lamps are no 

longer manufactured, DOE cannot 

empirically validate the potential 

increase in efficacy using sapphire arc 

tubes. Additionally, DOE has received 

feedback that HPS lamps using sapphire 

arc tubes are much more susceptible to 

catastrophic failure and would require 

enclosed fixtures for safe operation. 

Currently all HPS lamps that are 

commercially available can be used in 

open fixtures. An enclosed fixture 

would reduce the efficacy of the 

sapphire HPS system (due to absorption 

in the lens used to enclose the fixture) 

and likely negate any small increase in 

efficacy gained from using sapphire arc 

tubes. 

For these reasons, DOE does not 

believe that the use of sapphire arc 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62916 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7There is one example of a CMH lamp in this 

wattage range. It is an 860 W CMH lamp that is 

designed to be used on a 1000 W ballast and can 

operate on both probe-start and pulse-start ballasts. 

Because this lamp employs proprietary technology, 

DOE does not use this lamp as an example of CMH 

lamps being commercially available from 401 W– 

1000 W. 

tubes would increase the efficacy of 

HPS lamps in practice. As such, DOE no 

longer finds sapphire arc tubes to be a 

valid technology option for HPS lamps 

in this NOPD. 

c. Metal Halide 

DOE identified a number of 

technology options that could improve 

MH lamp efficacy. These technology 

options include improving arc tube 

design through the use of ceramic arc 

tubes, optimization of the arc tube, and 

optimization of the arc tube fill gas. 

d. Summary 

Table IV.2 summarizes the technology 

options identified for HID lamps in this 

NOPD. For more detail on the 

technology options that DOE considered 

to improve MV, HPS, and MH lamp 

efficacy, see chapters 2 and 3 of the 

NOPD TSD. 

TABLE IV.2—NOPD HID LAMP TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Lamp type Technology option Description 

MV ................... Change Lamp Type ................................. Use MH technology instead of MV technology. 

MH ................... Ceramic Arc Tubes .................................. Use CMH technology instead of quartz MH lamps. 

Arc Tube Optimization ............................. Design the shape of the arc tube so that it facilitates an increase in MH vapor 

pressure; change the thickness of quartz, optimize electrode positioning, improve the purity of the materials; and improve the manufacturing processes to 

ensure the consistency and quality of the arc tube construction. 

Fill Gas Optimization ................................ Optimize the gas fill pressure and chemistry. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE consults with industry, technical 

experts, and other interested parties to 

develop a list of technology options for 

consideration. In the screening analysis, 

DOE determines which technology 

options to consider further and which to 

screen out. 

Appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR 

part 430, ‘‘Procedures, Interpretations, 

and Policies for Consideration of New or 

Revised Energy Conservation Standards 

for Consumer Products’’ (the Process 

Rule), sets forth procedures to guide 

DOE in its consideration and 

promulgation of new or revised energy 

conservation standards. These 

procedures elaborate on the statutory 

criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) 

and, in part, eliminate problematic 

technologies early in the process of 

prescribing an energy conservation 

standard. In particular, sections 4(b)(4) 

and 5(b) of the Process Rule provide 

guidance to DOE for determining which 

technology options are unsuitable for 

further consideration: Technological 

feasibility, practicability to 

manufacture, install and service, 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

product availability, and adverse 

impacts on health or safety. 

For MH lamps, DOE identified 

ceramic arc tubes as a technology 

option. While CMH lamps are 

commercially available from 50 W–400 

W, they are not manufactured from 401 

W–2000 W.7 DOE learned from 

manufacturers that it is technologically 

possible to create CMH lamps in this 

wattage range on an individual scale in 

laboratory conditions. However, the 

difficulty in mass manufacturing these 

lamps would result in a very costly 

lamp which may not be able to be 

produced at a large enough scale to 

serve the entire market. Because of this, 

DOE determined that ceramic arc tubes 

from 401 W–2000 W do not pass the 

criterion that they be practicable to 

manufacture, install, and service. In this 

NOPD, DOE does not consider ceramic 

arc tubes as design options for MH 

lamps from 401 W–2000 W. 

All other technology options for MV 

and MH lamps meet the screening 

criteria and are considered as design 

options in the engineering analysis. 

These design options are summarized in 

Table IV.3. Chapters 2 and 4 of the 

NOPD TSD provide additional 

information regarding the design 

options considered in the NOPD. 

TABLE IV.3—NOPD HID LAMP DESIGN OPTIONS

Lamp type Technology option Description 

MV ................... Change Lamp Type ................................. Use MH technology instead of MV technology. 

MH ................... Ceramic Arc Tubes .................................. Use CMH technology instead of quartz MH lamps. 

Arc Tube Optimization ............................. Design the shape of the arc tube so that it facilitates an increase in MH vapor 

pressure; change the thickness of quartz, alter the fill gas chemistry; optimize 

electrode positioning; improve the purity of the materials; and improve the manufacturing processes to ensure the consistency and quality of the arc tube construction. 

Fill Gas Optimization ................................ Optimize the gas fill pressure and chemistry. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

For this NOPD, DOE derived ELs in 

the engineering analysis and lamp enduser prices in the equipment price 

determination. The engineering analysis 

focuses on selecting commercially 

available lamps that incorporate design 

options that improve efficacy. The 

following discussion summarizes the 

general steps and results of the 

engineering analysis. 

1. Representative Equipment Classes 

When multiple equipment classes 

exist, to streamline analysis, DOE 

selects certain classes as 

‘‘representative,’’ primarily because of 

their high market volumes and unique 

performance characteristics. DOE then 

adapts the ELs from representative 

equipment classes to those equipment 

classes it does not analyze directly. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62917 

Table IV.4 lists the equipment classes 

that DOE selected as representative. 

TABLE IV.4—REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT CLASSES FOR HID LAMPS

CCT Range 

K 

Wattage 

W Bulb finish * Luminaire characteristic ** 

≥2800 and ≤4500 .................................................. ≥50 and ≤400 ........................................................ Clear ................. Enclosed. 

>400 and ≤1000 .................................................... Clear ................. Enclosed. 

>1000 and ≤2000 .................................................. Clear ................. Enclosed. 

* MV lamps regardless of bulb finish are placed in the clear equipment classes for their respective CCT and wattage. 

** MV lamps are placed in the enclosed equipment classes for their respective wattage and CCT. 

2. Baseline Lamps and Representative 

Lamp Types 

Because no federal energy 

conservation standards exist for HID 

lamps, the baseline lamps represent the 

most common, least efficacious lamps 

sold within the equipment class. For 

each baseline lamp, DOE selected more 

efficacious replacement lamps to 

measure potential energy-saving 

improvements. DOE refers to the 

baseline lamp and its more efficacious 

replacements collectively herein as a 

‘‘representative lamp type.’’ The 

representative lamp type is named by its 

baseline unit. For example, the 400 W 

MV representative lamp type refers to 

the 400 W MV baseline lamp and all of 

its more efficacious replacements. 

DOE uses performance data presented 

in manufacturer catalogs to determine 

lamp efficacy. DOE also considers other 

lamp characteristics in choosing the 

most appropriate baseline for each 

equipment class. These characteristics 

include the wattage and technology type 

(i.e., MH or MV), among others. For 

some of the representative lamp types, 

DOE selects multiple baseline models to 

ensure consideration of different highvolume lamps and their associated 

customer economics. For example, 

although MV lamps are the least 

efficacious products available, the HID 

market has largely shifted away from 

MV lamps and customers of MH lampand-ballast systems incur different costs 

than customers of MV lamp-and-ballast 

systems. For these reasons, DOE selects 

both MV and MH lamps as baselines for 

certain equipment classes. 

Table IV.5 lists the baseline lamps 

and representative lamp types. See 

chapters 2 and 5 of the NOPD TSD for 

additional detail. 

TABLE IV.5—BASELINE LAMPS AND REPRESENTATIVE LAMP TYPES

CCT Range Wattage Bulb finish * Luminaire characteristic ** 

Representative lamp 

type Baseline lamp type Baseline wattage 

2800 K–4500 K .. 50 W–400 W ..... Clear ................. Enclosed .................... 100 W MV ................. MV .............................

MH .............................

100 

70 

175 W MV ................. MV .............................

MH .............................

175 

150 

250 W MV ................. MV .............................

MH .............................

250 

175 

400 W MV ................. MV .............................

MH .............................

400 

250 

400 W MH ................. MH ............................. 400 

401 W–1000 W Clear ................. Enclosed .................... 1000 W MV ...............

1000 W MH ...............

MV .............................

MH .............................

1000 

1000 

1001 W–2000 W Clear ................. Enclosed .................... 2000 W MH ............... MH ............................. 2000 

* MV lamps regardless of bulb finish are placed in the clear equipment classes for their respective CCT and wattage. 

** MV lamps are placed in the enclosed equipment classes for their respective wattage and CCT. 

3. More Efficacious Substitutes 

DOE selects commercially available 

HID lamps with efficacies above the 

baseline as replacements for the 

baseline model(s) in each representative 

equipment class. When selecting more 

efficacious substitute lamps, DOE 

considers only design options that meet 

the criteria outlined in the screening 

analysis (see section IV.B). Depending 

on the equipment class, DOE analyzes 

standard efficacy quartz MH, high 

efficacy quartz MH, and CMH lamps as 

more efficacious substitutes for the 

baseline lamps. 

In this NOPD, DOE considers a 

number of different potential pathways 

a customer might choose when 

identifying replacements that are more 

efficacious. When purchasing a new and 

compliant lamp, a customer can 

purchase just a new lamp, a new lampand-ballast system, or an entirely new 

fixture. For each of these options, a 

customer can also choose between 

keeping the lighting system at the 

wattage they already had or reducing 

the wattage of the lighting system. See 

chapters 2 and 5 of the NOPD TSD for 

additional detail. 

4. Determine Efficacy Levels 

DOE develops ELs based on: (1) The 

design options associated with the 

equipment class studied and (2) the 

max-tech EL for that class. DOE’s ELs 

are based on catalog data. Table IV.6 

summarizes the EL equations for each 

representative equipment class. More 

information on the described ELs can be 

found in chapters 2 and 5 of the NOPD 

TSD. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62918 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8Here, DOE uses the term ‘‘fixture’’ to refer to the 

enclosure that houses the lamp and ballast. 

9For this NOPD, DOE used estimated markups to 

develop MSPs for HID lamps for the MIA (see 

chapter 12 of the NOPD TSD). 

TABLE IV.6—EFFICACY LEVEL EQUATIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Representative equipment class 

Minimum initial efficacy † (lm/W) 

EL1 EL2 EL3 

2800 K–4500 K, 50 W–400 W, clear/enclosed ............... 38.5 × P0.1350 .................... 44.4 × P0.1350 .................... 40.4 × P0.1809

2800 K–4500 K, 401 W–1000 W, clear/enclosed ........... 0.0116 × P + 81.8 ............. 0.0173 × P + 92.8 ............. N/A 

2800 K–4500 K, 1001 W–2000 W, clear/enclosed ......... 93.4 .................................... N/A ..................................... N/A 

* MV lamps are placed in the clear equipment classes for their respective CCT and wattage regardless of bulb finish. 

** MV lamps are placed in the enclosed equipment classes for their respective wattage and CCT. 

† P is defined as the rated wattage of the lamp. 

5. Scaling to Equipment Classes Not 

Directly Analyzed 

For the equipment classes not 

analyzed directly, DOE scaled the ELs 

from the representative to nonrepresentative equipment classes based 

on efficacy ratios observed in catalog 

data. For example, DOE calculated an 

average percentage difference in efficacy 

between lamps in different equipment 

classes (one representative and one nonrepresentative) and used this percentage 

difference to scale the ELs from the 

representative to the non-representative 

equipment classes. Table IV.7 lists the 

scaling factors calculated in the NOPD 

analysis. 

TABLE IV.7—SCALING FACTORS

Bulb finish Luminaire characteristic CCT 

0.945 0.950 0.812 

* To calculate the efficacy requirement for a scaled equipment class, the representative equipment class equation is multiplied by each scaling 

factor of the characteristics of the equipment class that differ from the representative class. 

6. HID Systems 

In this NOPD, DOE is only analyzing 

standards for HID lamps. However, HID 

lamps are just one component of an HID 

lighting system. HID lamps must be 

paired with specific ballasts to regulate 

the current and power supplied to the 

lamp. These lamp-and-ballast systems 

are then housed in an HID lamp fixture 8

to protect the components, enable 

mounting, and direct the light to the 

target area. When considering changes 

to HID lamps, DOE recognizes the 

importance of also analyzing the impact 

on both the ballast and the fixture. 

Additional components may also be 

required if placing a new lamp-andballast system in an existing fixture, 

including an appropriate lamp socket 

and ballast brackets. See chapters 2, 5, 

and appendices 5A and 5B of the NOPD 

TSD for additional detail. 

D. Equipment Price Determination 

The equipment price determination 

describes the methodology followed in 

developing end-user prices for HID 

lamps and manufacturer selling prices 

(MSPs) for ballasts, fixtures, and retrofit 

kit components (brackets and sockets) 

analyzed in this NOPD. DOE developed 

ballast and fixture MSPs in addition to 

lamp MSPs because a change of ballast 

and fixture is often required when 

switching to a more efficacious lamp. In 

addition, DOE developed MSPs for 

brackets and sockets packaged in lampand-ballast retrofit kits because 

customers will sometimes also have the 

option of keeping the fixture housing 

and installing a new lamp-and-ballast 

system. These systems will often require 

a change in the socket and brackets used 

for mounting the ballast. 

For HID lamps, DOE developed three 

sets of discounts from blue-book prices, 

representing low (State procurement), 

medium (electrical distributors), and 

high (Internet retailers) end-user lamp 

prices. For MH ballasts, fixtures, 

sockets, and brackets, DOE performed 

teardown analyses to estimate 

manufacturer production costs (MPCs) 

and a manufacturer markup analysis to 

estimate the MSPs. For additional detail 

on the equipment price determination, 

see chapters 2, 6, and appendix 6A of 

the NOPD TSD. 

E. Markups Analysis 

Markups are multipliers that relate 

MSPs to end-user purchase prices, and 

vary with the distribution channel 

through which purchase the equipment. 

DOE estimated end-user prices for 

representative HID lamp designs 

directly, rather than develop MSPs from 

a bill of materials and manufacturer 

markup analysis (NOPD TSD chapter 

6).9 However, DOE also estimated price 

markups to calculate end-user prices 

from MSPs for HID ballasts and fixtures 

as inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis, 

and the NIA (chapters 9 and 11, 

respectively, of the NOPD TSD). 

Appendix 6A of the NOPD TSD 

describes the process by which DOE 

developed MPCs and MSPs for HID 

ballasts and fixtures. Chapters 2 and 7 

of the NOPD TSD provide additional 

detail on the markups analysis for 

developing end-user prices for HID 

ballasts and fixtures. 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

For the energy use analysis, DOE 

estimated the energy use of HID lampand-ballast systems in actual field 

conditions. The energy use analysis 

provided the basis for other DOE 

analyses, particularly assessments of the 

energy savings and the savings in 

operating costs that could result from 

DOE’s adoption of potential new 

standard levels. DOE multiplied annual 

usage (in hours per year) by the lampand-ballast system input power (in 

watts) to develop annual energy use 

estimates. Chapters 2 and 8 of the NOPD 

TSD provide a more detailed 

description of DOE’s energy use 

analysis. 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP 

analysis to evaluate the economic effects 

of potential energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps on individual 

customers. For any given EL, DOE 

calculated the PBP and the change in 

LCC relative to an estimated baseline 

equipment EL. The LCC is the total 

customer expense over the life of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62919 

10Customers, in the base-case scenario, who buy 

the equipment at or above the EL under 

consideration, would be unaffected (no impact) if 

the potential standard were to be set at that EL. 

equipment, consisting of purchase, 

installation, and operating costs 

(expenses for energy use, maintenance, 

and repair). To compute the operating 

costs, DOE discounted future operating 

costs to the time of purchase and 

summed them over the lifetime of the 

equipment. The PBP is the estimated 

amount of time (in years) it takes 

customers to recover the increased 

purchase cost (including installation) of 

more efficacious equipment through 

lower operating costs. DOE calculates 

the PBP by dividing the change in 

purchase cost (normally higher) by the 

change in average annual operating cost 

(normally lower) that results from the 

more stringent standard. Chapters 2 and 

9, and appendices 9A and 9B, of the 

NOPD TSD provide details on the 

spreadsheet model and all the inputs to 

the LCC and PBP analysis. 

H. Shipments Analysis 

DOE projected equipment shipments 

to calculate the national effects of 

potential standards on energy use, NPV, 

and future manufacturer cash flows. 

DOE developed shipment projections 

based on an analysis of key market 

drivers for each considered HID lamp 

type. In DOE’s shipments model, 

shipments of equipment are driven by 

new construction, stock replacements, 

and other types of purchases. The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each equipment class and the vintage of 

units in the existing stock. Stock 

accounting uses equipment shipments 

as inputs to estimate the age distribution 

of in-service equipment stocks for all 

years. The age distribution of in-service 

equipment stocks is a key input to 

calculations of both the NES and the 

NPV, because operating costs for any 

year depend on the age distribution of 

the stock. Chapters 2 and 10 of the 

NOPD TSD provide a more detailed 

description of DOE’s shipments 

analysis. 

I. National Impact Analysis 

DOE’s NIA assessed the cumulative 

NES and the cumulative national 

economic impacts of ELs (i.e., potential 

standards cases) considered for the 

equipment classes analyzed. The 

analysis measures economic impacts 

using the NPV metric, which presents 

total customer costs and savings 

expected to result from potential 

standards at specific ELs, discounted to 

their present value. For a given EL, DOE 

calculates the NPV, as well as the NES, 

as the difference between a baseline 

projection and the standards-case 

projections. Chapters 2 and 11, and 

appendices 11A and 11B, of the NOPD 

TSD provide details on the spreadsheet 

model and all the inputs to the NIA. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE conducted an MIA for HID lamps 

to estimate the financial impact of 

potential energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers. The MIA has both 

quantitative and qualitative aspects. The 

quantitative part of the MIA relies on 

the Government Regulatory Impact 

Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow 

model customized for HID lamps 

covered in this NOPD. The key GRIM 

inputs are industry cost structure data, 

shipment data, equipment costs, and 

assumptions about markups and 

conversion costs. The key MIA output is 

INPV. DOE used the GRIM to calculate 

cash flows using standard accounting 

principles and to compare changes in 

INPV between a base case and various 

ELs at each equipment class (the 

standards case). The difference in INPV 

between the base and standards cases 

represents the financial impact of 

potential energy conservation standards 

on HID lamp manufacturers. Different 

sets of assumptions (scenarios) produce 

different INPV results. The qualitative 

part of the MIA addresses how potential 

standards could impact manufacturing 

capacity and industry competition, as 

well as any differential impact the 

potential standard could have on any 

particular subgroup of manufacturers. 

See chapter 12 of this NOPD TSD for 

additional details on DOE’s MIA. 

V. Analytical Results 

A. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Customers 

To evaluate the net economic impact 

of standards on customers, DOE 

conducted an LCC and PBP analysis for 

each EL. In general, a higher efficacy 

product would affect customers in two 

ways: (1) Annual operating expenses 

would decrease; and (2) purchase prices 

would increase. Section IV.G of this 

notice discusses the inputs DOE used 

for calculating the LCC and PBP. 

The key outputs of the LCC analysis 

are mean LCC savings relative to the 

baseline case, as well as a probability 

distribution or likelihood of LCC 

reduction or increase, for each efficacy 

level and equipment class.10 In its LCC 

analysis, DOE traditionally assumes that 

the customer purchases a covered 

design upon the effective date of 

potential standards (in this case, 2017). 

The resulting values then necessarily 

reflect the projected market for HID 

equipment in 2017, and are reported by 

equipment class in Table V.1, Table V.2, 

and Table V.3. The LCC analysis also 

estimates the fraction of customers for 

which the LCC will decrease (net 

benefit), remain unchanged (no impact), 

or increase (net cost) relative to the 

baseline case. The last column in each 

table contains the median PBPs for the 

customers purchasing a design 

compliant with the efficacy level. 

In evaluating these results relative to 

cumulative NPV, it is important to note 

that the LCC and PBP analysis does not 

reflect the long-term dynamics of the 

declining market for HID equipment, 

which are captured in the NIA 

shipments period (2017–2046). As a 

result, the average LCC savings—based 

on the projected 2017 market—may be 

positive in some cases (e.g., EL2 and 

EL3 for the >2800 K and ≤4500 K and 

≥50 W to ≤400 W equipment class), 

whereas the cumulative NPV results for 

these ELs are negative (see Table V.16). 

DOE explored the effects of the 

declining HID market on average LCC 

savings by conducting a sensitivity 

analysis based on the projected market 

in 2022, with results reported by 

equipment class in Table V.4, Table V.5, 

and Table V.6. These results show a 

general erosion of average LCC savings, 

and demonstrate increasing consistency 

with the cumulative NPV results. For 

the >2800 K and ≤4500 K and ≥50 W to 

≤400 W equipment class, average LCC 

savings for EL2 become negative, with a 

majority of affected customers 

remaining negatively impacted. Average 

LCC savings for EL3 in this equipment 

class—while still positive—are 

significantly diminished, with a 

majority of affected customers 

experiencing a net cost. Following this 

trend, DOE would expect LCC savings 

for EL3 to become increasingly negative 

for an increasing proportion of affected 

customers over the NIA analysis period. 

Based on this sensitivity analysis, 

DOE believes its main LCC and PBP 

analysis results (including some cases of 

positive average LCC savings) are 

consistent with negative cumulative 

NPV results in the NIA, given the 

declining market for HID equipment. 

Chapter 9 of the NOPD TSD examines 

the relationship of the LCC and PBP 

analysis and projected HID market in 

further detail. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62920 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.1—HID LAMPS >2800 K AND ≤4500 K AND ≥50 W TO ≤400 W—LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Efficacy level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of customers that 

experience * 

Net cost No impact Net benefit 

Baseline ........................... 309.16 1671.22 1980.38 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ....................................... 316.37 1667.70 1984.07 ¥3.69 2 98 0 100 

2 ....................................... 368.59 1602.68 1971.27 9.11 53 35 12 100 

3 ....................................... 520.38 1374.17 1894.55 85.83 35 23 42 11.3 

* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding. 

TABLE V.2—HID LAMPS >2800 K AND ≤4500 K AND >400 AND ≤1000 W—LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Efficacy level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of customers that 

experience * 

Net cost No impact Net benefit 

Baseline ........................... 444.54 5755.21 6199.75 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ....................................... 445.65 5754.56 6200.22 ¥0.47 0 100 0 100 

2 ....................................... 486.34 5792.61 6278.94 ¥79.19 91 7 1 100 

* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding, including cases where the percentage of customers experiencing a net cost or net benefit are greater than zero, but round to zero. 

TABLE V.3—HID LAMPS >2800 K AND ≤4500 K AND >1000 W TO ≤2000 W—LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Efficacy level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of customers that 

experience * 

Net cost No impact Net benefit 

Baseline ........................... 534.23 596.88 1131.11 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ....................................... 592.96 554.33 1147.29 ¥16.18 6 91 2 39.1 

* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding. 

TABLE V.4—HID LAMPS >2800 K AND ≤4500 K AND ≥50 W TO ≤400 W—LCC AND PBP RESULTS

[2022 Projected market basis] 

Efficacy level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of customers that 

experience * 

Net cost No impact Net benefit 

Baseline ........................... 303.01 1626.38 1929.39 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1 ....................................... 303.41 1626.17 1929.58 ¥0.19 0 100 0 100 

2 ....................................... 508.38 1479.10 1987.48 ¥58.09 52 37 11 41.3 

3 ....................................... 569.12 1337.34 1906.45 22.94 42 23 35 16.1 

* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding, including cases where the percentage of customers experiencing a net cost or net benefit are greater than zero, but round to zero. 

TABLE V.5—HID LAMPS >2800 K AND ≤4500 K AND >400 AND ≤1000 W—LCC AND PBP RESULTS

[2022 Projected market basis] 

Efficacy level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of customers that 

experience * 

Net cost No impact Net benefit 

Baseline ........................... 442.66 5772.61 6215.27 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1 ....................................... 442.66 5772.61 6215.27 0.00 0 100 0 N/A** 

2 ....................................... 695.12 5718.91 6414.03 ¥198.76 91 8 0 100 

* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding. 

** Zero impacted customers (median PBP calculated for affected customers only). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62921 

TABLE V.6—HID LAMPS >2800 K AND ≤4500 K AND >1000 W TO ≤2000 W—LCC AND PBP RESULTS

[2022 Projected market basis] 

Efficacy level 

Life-cycle cost 2012$ Life-cycle cost savings 

Median 

payback 

period 

years 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2012$ 

Percentage of customers that 

experience * 

Net cost No impact Net benefit 

Baseline ........................... 581.65 611.01 1192.67 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ....................................... 649.70 562.86 1212.57 ¥19.90 9 88 3 30.6 

* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding. 

B. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed the MIA to estimate 

the impact of potential energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of HID lamps. The 

section below describes the expected 

impacts on HID lamp manufacturers at 

each EL for each equipment class. 

Chapter 12 of the NOPD TSD explains 

the MIA in further detail. 

1. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

The tables in the following sections 

depict the financial impacts 

(represented by changes in INPV) of 

potential energy conservation standards 

on HID lamp manufacturers as well as 

the conversion costs that DOE estimates 

HID lamp manufacturers would incur at 

each EL for each equipment class. To 

evaluate the range of cash-flow impacts 

on the HID lamp industry, DOE 

modeled two markup scenarios that 

correspond to the range of anticipated 

market responses to potential standards. 

Each scenario results in a unique set of 

cash flows and corresponding industry 

values at each EL for each equipment 

class. In the following discussion, the 

INPV results refer to the difference in 

industry value between the base case 

and the standards case that result from 

the sum of discounted cash flows from 

the base year (2014) through the end of 

the analysis period. 

To assess the upper (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts on HID 

lamp manufacturers, DOE modeled a 

flat, or preservation of gross margin, 

markup scenario. This scenario assumes 

that in the standards case, 

manufacturers would be able to pass 

along all the higher production costs 

required for more efficacious equipment 

to their customers. To assess the lower 

(more severe) end of the range of 

potential impacts, DOE modeled a 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario. The preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario assumes that in 

the standards case, manufacturers 

would be able to earn the same 

operating margin in absolute dollars as 

they would in the base case. This 

represents the lower bound of industry 

profitability in the standards case. 

Table V.7 and Table V.8 present the 

projected results of the 50 W–400 W 

equipment class under the flat and 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenarios. 

TABLE V.7—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE 50 W–400 W EQUIPMENT CLASS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base Case 

EL 

1 2 3 

INPV .................................................. (2012$ millions) ................................ 351.0 346.6 327.8 335.9 

Change in INPV ................................ (2012$ millions) ................................ ........................ (4.5) (23.3) (15.2) 

(%) .................................................... ........................ ¥1.3% ¥6.6% ¥4.3% 

Product Conversion Costs ................ (2012$ millions) ................................ ........................ 7.4 31.4 55.0 

Capital Conversion Costs ................. (2012$ millions) ................................ ........................ 0.0 6.0 54.5 

Total Conversion Costs ............. (2012$ millions) ................................ ........................ 7.4 37.4 109.5 

TABLE V.8—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE 50 W–400 W EQUIPMENT CLASS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base Case 

EL 

1 2 3 

INPV .................................................. (2012$ millions) ................................ 351.0 345.9 300.2 268.9 

Change in INPV ................................ (2012$ millions) ................................ ........................ (5.1) (50.9) (82.1) 

(%) .................................................... ........................ ¥1.5% ¥14.5% ¥23.4% 

Product Conversion Costs ................ (2012$ millions) ................................ ........................ 7.4 31.4 55.0 

Capital Conversion Costs ................. (2012$ millions) ................................ ........................ 0.0 6.0 54.5 

Total Conversion Costs ............. (2012$ millions) ................................ ........................ 7.4 37.4 109.5 

Table V.9 and Table V.10 present the 

projected results of the 401 W–1000 W 

equipment class under the flat and 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenarios. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62922 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE V.9—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE 401 W–1000 W EQUIPMENT CLASS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

EL 

1 2 

INPV ................................................................ (2012$ millions) .............................................. 55.3 55.0 56.1 

Change in INPV .............................................. (2012$ millions) .............................................. ........................ (0.3) 0.8 

(%) .................................................................. ........................ ¥0.6% 1.4% 

Product Conversion Costs .............................. (2012$ millions) .............................................. ........................ 0.5 4.9 

Capital Conversion Costs ............................... (2012$ millions) .............................................. ........................ 0.0 0.8 

Total Conversion Costs .................................. (2012$ millions) .............................................. ........................ 0.5 5.7 

TABLE V.10—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE 401 W–1000 W EQUIPMENT CLASS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

EL 

1 2 

INPV ................................................................ (2012$ millions) .............................................. 55.3 55.0 51.5 

Change in INPV .............................................. (2012$ millions) .............................................. ........................ (0.3) (3.9) 

(%) .................................................................. ........................ ¥0.6% ¥7.0% 

Product Conversion Costs .............................. (2012$ millions) .............................................. ........................ 0.5 4.9 

Capital Conversion Costs ............................... (2012$ millions) .............................................. ........................ 0.0 0.8 

Total Conversion Costs .................................. (2012$ millions) .............................................. ........................ 0.5 5.7 

Table V.11 and Table V.12 present the 

projected results of the 1001 W–2000 W 

equipment class under the flat and 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenarios. 

TABLE V.11—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE 1001 W–2000 W EQUIPMENT CLASS—FLAT MARKUP

SCENARIO

Units Base case 

EL 

1 

INPV ............................................................................. (2012$ millions) ............................................................ 4.7 4.0 

Change in INPV ............................................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ (0.8) 

(%) ................................................................................ ........................ ¥15.9% 

Product Conversion Costs ............................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 0.6 

Capital Conversion Costs ............................................. (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 0.4 

Total Conversion Costs ................................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 0.9 

TABLE V.12—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE 1001 W–2000 W EQUIPMENT CLASS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

EL 

1 

INPV ............................................................................. (2012$ millions) ............................................................ 4.7 4.0 

Change in INPV ............................................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ (0.7) 

(%) ................................................................................ ........................ ¥15.4% 

Product Conversion Costs ............................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 0.6 

Capital Conversion Costs ............................................. (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 0.4 

Total Conversion Costs ................................................ (2012$ millions) ............................................................ ........................ 0.9 

2. Impacts on Employment 

DOE quantitatively assessed the 

impacts of potential energy conservation 

standards on direct employment. DOE 

used the GRIM to estimate the domestic 

labor expenditures and number of 

domestic production workers in the 

base case and at each EL for the 50 W– 

400 W equipment class, since the 50 W– 

400 W equipment class represents over 

90 percent of all covered HID lamp 

shipments in 2017. Furthermore, 

manufacturers stated that most domestic 

employment decisions would be based 

on the standards set for the 50 W–400 

W equipment class. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table V.13 represent the potential 

production employment that could 

result following potential energy 

conservation standards. The upper 

bound of the results estimates the 

maximum change in the number of 

production workers that could occur 

after compliance with any potential 

energy conservation standards assuming 

that manufacturers continue to produce 

the same scope of covered equipment in 

the same domestic production facilities. 

It also assumes that domestic 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62923 

production does not shift to lower laborcost countries. Because there is a real 

risk of manufacturers evaluating 

sourcing decisions in response to 

potential energy conservation standards, 

the lower bound of the employment 

results includes the estimated total 

number of U.S. production workers in 

the industry who could lose their jobs 

if some or all existing production were 

moved outside of the United States. 

DOE estimates that approximately one 

third of the HID lamps sold in the 

United States are manufactured 

domestically. With this assumption, 

DOE estimates that in the absence of 

potential energy conservation standards, 

there would be approximately 292 

domestic production workers involved 

in manufacturing HID lamps in 2017. 

The table below shows the range of the 

impacts of potential standards on U.S. 

production workers in the HID lamp 

industry. 

TABLE V.13—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC HIGH-INTENSITY DISCHARGE LAMP PRODUCTION

WORKERS IN 2017 

Base case 

50 W–400 W Equipment class EL 

1 2 3 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2017 (without changes in 

production locations) .................................................................................... 292 294 317 388 

Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2017 * ....................... ........................ 2–0 25–(146) 96–(292) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

3. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

HID lamp manufacturers stated that 

they did not anticipate any significant 

capacity constraints unless all lamps in 

the 50 W–400 W equipment class had to 

be converted to CMH technology. Most 

manufacturers stated that they do not 

have the equipment to produce the 

volume of CMH lamps that would be 

necessary to satisfy demand. 

Manufacturers would have to expend 

significant capital resources to obtain 

additional equipment that is specific to 

CMH lamp production. Manufacturers 

also pointed out that thousands of manhours would be necessary to redesign 

specific lamps and lamp production 

lines at ELs requiring CMH. The 

combination of obtaining new 

equipment and the engineering effort 

that manufacturers would have to 

undergo could cause significant 

downtime for manufacturers. Most 

manufacturers agreed that there would 

not be any significant capacity 

constraints at any ELs that did not 

require CMH technology. 

4. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop an industry cash-flow estimate 

may not be adequate for assessing 

differential impacts among 

manufacturer subgroups. Small 

manufacturers, niche equipment 

manufacturers, and manufacturers 

exhibiting cost structures substantially 

different from the industry average 

could be affected disproportionately. 

DOE did not identify any adversely 

impacted subgroups for HID lamps for 

this NOPD based on the results of the 

industry characterization. DOE analyzed 

the impacts on small manufacturers as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et. seq. 

5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

recent or impending regulations may 

have serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial operations. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and lead 

companies to abandon product lines or 

markets with lower expected future 

returns than competing equipment. For 

these reasons, DOE conducts a 

cumulative regulatory burden analysis 

as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 

lighting efficacy to make sure that this 

proposed standard does not create a 

cumulative regulatory burden that is 

unacceptable to the overall lighting 

industry. 

C. National Impact Analysis 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

For each efficacy level, DOE projected 

energy savings for HID lamps purchased 

in the 30-year period that begins in the 

year 2017, ending in the year 2046. The 

savings are measured over the entire 

lifetime of equipment purchased in the 

30-year period. DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each 

efficacy level as the difference in energy 

consumption between each standards 

case and the base case. Table V.14 

presents the estimated primary energy 

savings for each efficacy level analyzed. 

Table V.15 presents the estimated FFC 

energy savings for each efficacy level. 

Chapter 11 of the NOPD TSD describes 

these estimates in more detail. 

TABLE V.14—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL PRIMARY ENERGY SAVINGS FOR HID LAMP EFFICACY LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN

2017–2046 

Equipment class Efficacy level 

National 

primary 

energy 

savings 

quads 

>2800 K and ≤4500 K and ≥50 W to ≤400 W ........................................................................................................ 1 

2 

3 

0.01 

0.1 

1.55 

>2800 K and ≤4500 K and >400 and ≤1000 W ...................................................................................................... 1 

2 

0.0001 

0.003 

>2800 K and ≤4500 K and >1000 W to ≤2000 W .................................................................................................. 1 0.001 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62924 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). 

Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4. 

TABLE V.15—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL FULL-FUEL-CYCLE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR HID LAMP EFFICACY LEVELS FOR UNITS

SOLD IN 2017–2046 

Equipment class Efficacy level 

National 

primary 

energy 

savings 

quads 

>2800 K and ≤4500 K and ≥50 W to ≤400 W ........................................................................................................ 1 

2 

3 

0.01 

0.17 

1.57 

>2800 K and ≤4500 K and >400 and ≤1000 W ...................................................................................................... 1 

2 

0.0001 

0.003 

>2800 K and ≤4500 K and >1000 W to ≤2000 W .................................................................................................. 1 0.001 

2. Net Present Value of Customer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for customers 

that would result from the efficacy 

levels considered for HID lamps. In 

accordance with the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) 

guidelines on regulatory analysis,11

DOE calculated the NPV using both a 7- 

percent and a 3-percent real discount 

rate. The 7-percent rate is an estimate of 

the average before-tax rate of return on 

private capital in the U.S. economy, and 

reflects the returns on real estate and 

small business capital as well as 

corporate capital. This discount rate 

approximates the opportunity cost of 

capital in the private sector (OMB 

analysis has found the average rate of 

return on capital to be near this rate). 

The 3-percent rate reflects the potential 

effects of standards on private 

consumption (e.g., through higher prices 

for products and reduced purchases of 

energy). This rate represents the rate at 

which society discounts future 

consumption flows to their present 

value. It can be approximated by the 

real rate of return on long-term 

government debt (i.e., yield on U.S. 

Treasury notes), which has averaged 

about 3 percent for the past 30 years. 

Table V.16 shows the customer NPV 

results for each efficacy level DOE 

considered for HID lamps, using both 7- 

percent and 3-percent discount rates. In 

each case, the impacts cover the lifetime 

of equipment purchased in 2017 

through 2046. See chapter 11 of the 

NOPD TSD for more detailed NPV 

results. 

TABLE V.16—NET PRESENT VALUE OF CUSTOMER BENEFITS FOR HID LAMP EFFICACY LEVELS FOR UNITS SOLD IN

2017–2046 

Equipment class Efficacy 

level 

Net present value 

billion 2012$ 

7-Percent 

discount 

rate 

3-Percent 

discount 

rate 

>2800 K and ≤4500 K and ≥50 W to ≤400 W ........................................................................................ 1 

2 

3 

¥0.06 

¥2.00 

¥4.98 

¥0.03 

¥3.42 

¥6.37 

>2800 K and ≤4500 K and >400 and ≤1000 W ...................................................................................... 1 

2 

¥0.0001 

¥0.49 

0.0002 

¥0.90 

>2800 K and ≤4500 K and >1000 W to ≤2000 W .................................................................................. 1 ¥0.02 ¥0.03 

D. Proposed Determination 

As required by EPCA, this NOPD 

analyzes whether standards for HID 

lamps would be technological feasible, 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 

6317(b)(1)) Each of these criteria is 

discussed below. 

1. Technological Feasibility 

EPCA mandates that DOE determine 

whether energy conservation standards 

for HID lamps would be 

‘‘technologically feasible.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6317(a)(1)) DOE proposes to determine 

that standards for HPS lamps would not 

be technologically feasible due to the 

lack of technology options discussed in 

section IV.A.3. DOE proposes to 

determine that energy conservation 

standards for other HID lamps (MV and 

MH lamps) would be technologically 

feasible because they can be satisfied 

with HID lighting systems currently 

available on the market. 

2. Significance of Energy Savings 

EPCA also 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 proposed determination 

estimates that a standard for HID lamps 

would result in energy savings of up to 

1.6 quads over a 30-year analysis period 

(2017–2046). Therefore, DOE proposes 

to determine that potential energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

would result in significant energy 

savings. 

3. Economic Justification 

EPCA requires DOE to determine 

whether energy conservation standards 

for HID lamps would be economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6317(b)(1)) Using 

the methods and data described in 

section IV.G, DOE conducted an LCC 

analysis to estimate the net costs/

benefits to users from increased efficacy 

in the considered HID lamps. DOE then 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62925 

aggregated the results from the LCC 

analysis to estimate national energy 

savings and national economic impacts 

in section V.A. DOE also conducted an 

MIA to estimate the financial impact of 

potential energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers. 

DOE first considered the most 

efficacious level, EL 3, which is 

applicable only to the 50 W–400 W 

equipment class. As listed in Table 

V.16, EL3 would have a negative NPV 

at both a 7-percent and 3-percent 

discount rate. EL3 could result in HID 

lamp manufacturers experiencing a loss 

in INPV. On the basis of the negative 

NPV and decrease in industry value for 

HID lamp manufacturers, DOE 

determined that the EL3 standard was 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered the next most 

efficacious level, EL2, which applies to 

the 50 W–400 W and 401 W–1000 W 

equipment classes. As listed in Table 

V.16, EL2 results in a negative NPV for 

all applicable equipment classes at both 

a 7-percent and 3-percent discount rate. 

As listed in section V.A, available 

designs result in positive mean LCC 

savings for the 50 W–400 W equipment 

class and negative mean LCC savings for 

the 401 W–1000 W equipment class. 

However, a majority of customers 

affected by the standard experience a 

net cost at EL2 in all applicable 

equipment classes. EL2 could result in 

HID lamp manufacturers experiencing a 

loss in INPV for the applicable 

equipment classes. On the basis of the 

negative NPV, majority of customers 

affected by the standard experiencing a 

net cost, and potential decrease in 

industry value for HID lamp 

manufacturers, DOE determined that an 

EL2 standard was not economically 

justified. 

DOE finally considered EL1, which 

would apply to all equipment classes. 

DOE’s NPV analysis (results listed in 

Table V.16) indicates that all equipment 

classes have a negative or negligible 

NPV at a 7-percent and 3-percent 

discount rate for EL1. As listed in 

section V.A, available designs result in 

negative mean LCC savings for all three 

of the representative equipment classes 

at EL 1, with a majority of customers 

affected by the standard experiencing a 

net cost. EL1 could result in HID lamp 

manufacturers experiencing a loss in 

INPV for all equipment classes. On the 

basis of the negative NPV, negative 

mean LCC savings, majority of 

customers affected by the standard 

experiencing a net cost, and decrease in 

industry value for HID lamp 

manufacturers, DOE determined that an 

EL1 standard was not economically 

justified. 

4. Conclusions 

DOE tentatively determines that 

potential standards for HID lamps are 

either not technologically feasible or not 

economically justified. DOE will 

consider all comments received on this 

proposed determination in issuing any 

final determination of whether 

standards for HID lamps would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. If DOE 

determines that all of these criteria are 

met, DOE must prescribe test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps. If DOE 

determines that one or more of the 

criteria are not met, DOE will not 

consider establishing test procedures 

and standards for these lamps. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

This proposed determination is not 

subject to review under Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 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 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site (http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. In the proposed 

determination, DOE finds that standards 

for HID lamps would not meet all of the 

required criteria of technologically 

feasibility, economic justification, and 

significant energy savings. If adopted, 

the determination would not establish 

any energy conservation standards for 

HID lamps, and DOE would not 

consider prescribing test procedures and 

standards for HID lamps. On the basis 

of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the 

proposed determination, if adopted, 

would have no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared an IRFA for this proposed 

determination. DOE will transmit this 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 

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

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This proposed determination, which 

proposes to determine that energy 

conservation standards for HID lamps 

would not meet all of the required 

criteria of technologically feasibility, 

economic justification, and significant 

energy savings, would impose no new 

information or record keeping 

requirements. Accordingly, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

clearance is not required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this NOPD, DOE tentatively 

determines that energy conservation 

standards for HID lamps would not meet 

all of the required criteria of 

technologically feasibility, economic 

justification, and significant energy 

savings. DOE has determined that 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), Pub. L. 91–190, codified at 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq. is not required at this 

time because standards are not being 

proposed. NEPA review can only be 

initiated ‘‘as soon as environmental 

impacts can be meaningfully 

evaluated.’’ Because this final 

determination concludes only that 

future standards are unlikely to be 

warranted, and 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 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62926 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the policymaking discretion of states 

and to carefully assess 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 the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. As this 

NOPD determines that standards are not 

likely to be warranted for HID lamps, 

there is no impact on the policymaking 

discretion of the states. Therefore, no 

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,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

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 section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed 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) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 

(codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure 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), (b)) 

The UMRA also 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,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

This proposed determination contains 

neither an intergovernmental mandate 

nor a mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these UMRA requirements 

do not apply. 

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 

proposed determination would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(Mar. 18, 1988), that this proposed 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under guidelines established 

by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

this proposed determination under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

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 OIRA at 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 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 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Because the NOPD finds that 

standards for HID lamps are unlikely to 

be warranted, it is not a significant 

energy action, nor has it been 

designated as such by the Administrator 

at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 62927 

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,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines 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. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Public Meeting Requests 

Interested parties may submit 

comments requesting that a public 

meeting discussing this NOPD be held 

at DOE Headquarters. DOE will accept 

such requests no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this notice. As with other 

comments regarding this determination, 

interested parties may submit requests 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice. 

B. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this NOPD no 

later than the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this determination. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

[CBI]). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to 

submit printed copies. No facsimiles 

(faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

62928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

C. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposed 

determination, DOE is particularly 

interested in receiving comments and 

views of interested parties concerning 

the following issues: 

1. The HID lamps selected for and 

excluded from analysis of economic 

justification for standards; 

2. The technology options analyzed 

and in particular the elimination of 

sapphire arc tubes and starting method 

as technology option(s); 

3. The equipment classes analyzed in 

this NOPD; 

4. The design options identified in the 

screening analysis; 

5. The representative equipment 

classes analyzed in this NOPD; 

6. The baseline lamps selected, 

including the inclusion of a 150 W MH 

lamp; 

7. The selection of more efficacious 

substitute lamps analyzed in this NOPD; 

8. The decision to analyze equal 

wattage replacement lamps, as well as 

the methodology used to select the 

equal wattage replacement lamps; 

9. The methodology used to 

determine ELs, as well as the resulting 

ELs analyzed in this NOPD; 

10. The factors used in this NOPD to 

scale to equipment classes not directly 

analyzed; 

11. The decision to include 

replacement pathways other than full 

fixture replacement in this NOPD; 

12. The results and methodology from 

the equipment price determination; 

13. Methods to improve DOE’s energy 

use analysis, as well as any data 

supporting alternate operating hour 

estimates or assumptions regarding 

dimming of HID lamp-and-ballast 

systems; 

14. The assumptions and 

methodology for estimating annual 

operating hours, which were based on 

data from the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market 

Characterization; 

15. Methods to improve DOE’s 

equipment price projections beyond the 

assumption of constant real prices, as 

well as any data supporting alternate 

methods; 

16. The reasonableness of assuming a 

zero percent rebound effect (the 

potential tendency for customers to 

increase HID lamp usage in response to 

more efficient lamp-and-ballast 

systems); 

17. Whether the shipment scenarios 

under various policy scenarios are 

reasonable and likely to occur; 

18. The impediments that prevent 

users of HID lamps from switching to 

LED lighting to garner further energy 

savings; 

19. The expected impact of potential 

standards on the rate at which HID lamp 

customers transition to non-HID 

technology; 

20. The methodology used in the MIA 

and the results of the MIA; 

21. The proposal of a negative 

determination stating that standards for 

HID lamps are not justified. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this NOPD. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24971 Filed 10–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0753; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–128–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011–19– 

04, for all Airbus Model A318, A319, 

A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 

2011–19–04 currently requires 

repetitive inspections of the left-hand 

and right-hand inboard and outboard 

elevator servo-control rod eye-ends for 

cracking, and corrective actions if 

necessary. Since we issued AD 2011– 

19–04, we have determined that certain 

elevator servo-control parts that do not 

conform to the approved type design 

have been installed and may have the 

potential of cracks in the rod eye-end. 

This proposed AD would also require an 

inspection to determine if certain 

elevator servo-control parts are 

installed, and replacement if necessary. 

We are proposing this AD to detect and 

correct rod eye-end cracking, which 

could result in an uncontrolled elevator 

surface and consequent reduced control 

of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by December 5, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Airbus, 

Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond 

Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac 

Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 

96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email 

account.airworth-eas@airbus.com; 

Internet http://www.airbus.com. You 

may view this referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, WA. For information on 

the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0753; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS