Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for High-Intensity Discharge Lamps, 76355-76374 [2015-30992]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76355-76374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30992]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0043]
RIN 1904-AC36


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
High-Intensity Discharge Lamps

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

ACTION: Final determination.

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

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 final determination, DOE determines that energy 
conservation standards for high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps do not 
meet these criteria.

DATES: This final determination is effective December 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, 
framework documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for 
review at regulations.gov. 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: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/23. This Web page 
contains a link to the docket for this final determination on the 
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page contains

[[Page 76356]]

simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public 
comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review 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. Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7432. Email: francine.pinto@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Determination
II. Introduction
    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
III. 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
IV. 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
V. 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
VI. Analytical Results
    A. Economic Impacts on Individual Commercial Consumers
    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
    5. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    C. National Impact Analysis
    1. Significance of Energy Savings
    2. Net Present Value of Commercial Consumer Costs and Benefits
    D. Determination
    1. Technological Feasibility
    2. Significance of Energy Savings
    3. Economic Justification
    4. Conclusions
VII. 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
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Determination

    DOE determines that energy conservation standards for HID lamps do 
not meet the EPCA requirements described in section II.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 
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 final determination and in 
the final determination technical support document (TSD).

II. Introduction

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 re-designated 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 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 IV.A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The final determination is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2006-DET-0112-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 77 FR 11785. 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)

[[Page 76357]]

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: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0043-0016.
    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 representative units, baselines, and 
candidate standard levels [CSLs]), the life-cycle cost (LCC) and 
payback period (PBP) analysis, and the shipment analysis.
    On October 21, 2014, DOE published a notice of proposed 
determination (NOPD) in the Federal Register which proposed that energy 
conservations standards for HID lamps were not justified. 79 FR 62910. 
In conjunction with the NOPD, DOE also published on its Web site the 
complete TSD for the NOPD, which incorporated the analyses DOE 
conducted and technical documentation for each analysis. The NOPD TSD 
was accompanied by the LCC spreadsheet, the national impact analysis 
(NIA) spreadsheet, and the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) 
spreadsheet--all of which are available in the rulemaking docket EERE-
2010-BT-STD-0043 at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2010-BT-STD-0043.
    In the NOPD, DOE invited comment, particularly on the following 
issues: (1) The HID lamps selected for and excluded from analysis of 
economic justification for standards, (2) the decision to analyze equal 
wattage replacement lamps, as well as the methodology used to select 
the equal wattage replacement lamps, (3) the decision to include 
replacement pathways other than full fixture replacement, and (4) the 
proposal of a negative determination stating that standards for HID 
lamps were not justified. 79 FR 62910 (October 21, 2014).
    The NOPD detailed that there would not be a public meeting unless 
one was requested by stakeholders. Because a public meeting was not 
requested, DOE did not hold a public meeting for the NOPD.
    All comments received by DOE in response to the NOPD were 
considered in this final determination, including those received during 
the reopened comment period. 80 FR 6016 (February 4, 2015). Chapter 2 
of this TSD summarizes and responds to comments received on the NOPD.
    DOE concludes in this final determination that standards for HID 
lamps do not meet the statutory requirements for the establishment of 
standards, based either upon lack of technological feasibility, 
economic justification, or significant energy savings.
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, received written 
comments, conducted interviews with 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 final determination, 
in which DOE concludes that standards for HID lamps are either not 
technologically feasible or not economically justified.
a. Color
    In contrast to the 2010 determination, DOE established separate 
equipment classes based on correlated color temperature (CCT) in this 
final determination. CCT represents the color appearance of a light 
source and is expressed in kelvin (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 manufacturer catalog data concluded that 
CCT is correlated with lamp efficacy. DOE determined that higher-CCT 
lamps are less efficacious than lower CCT lamps of the same wattage. 
Because CCT is an approximation of the color appearance of a lamp, 
commercial consumers 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 established separate 
equipment classes based on CCT.
    DOE established two different equipment classes based on CCT for MH 
and MV lamps, >=2800 K to <=4500 K range (hereafter referred to as the 
2800-4500 K CCT range) and >4500 and <7000 K (hereafter referred to as 
the 4501-6999 K CCT range). HPS lamps are the only HID lamps available 
below 2800 K. DOE investigated higher efficacy replacement options for 
HPS lamps such that commercial consumers could save energy while 
maintaining the utility (e.g., CCT) of the lamp type. As discussed in 
section V.A.3, DOE concluded no technology options exist for improving 
the efficacy of HPS lamps. Therefore, DOE determined standards for HPS 
lamps are not technologically feasible and did not conduct a full 
economic analysis on standards for HID lamps below 2800 K in this final 
determination.
b. Replacement Options
    In the 2010 determination, DOE assumed that any commercial consumer 
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 commercial 
consumers would choose to reduce wattage in response to standards for 
HID lamps. Some commercial consumers would choose to continue using 
their

[[Page 76358]]

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 commercial 
consumers 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. These 
commercial consumers would experience an increase in light output, but 
no energy savings. As a result of this information, DOE modeled a 
portion of commercial consumers replacing lamps with more efficacious, 
equal wattage lamps in addition to commercial consumers replacing lamps 
with reduced wattage lamps in this final determination. This change 
reduced potential energy savings and corresponding operating cost 
savings associated with HID lamp standards. See chapter 5 of the final 
determination TSD for more details about the engineering analysis and 
chapter 11 of the final determination TSD for more detail about the 
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 no-new-standards case and standards case. 75 
FR 37975, 37981 (July 1, 2010). The shipments analysis and NIA for this 
final determination (see sections V.H and V.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 shipments of HID 
lamps 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 final determination: 
(1) The determination that equipment classes should be separated based 
on CCT; (2) the introduction of a percentage of commercial consumers 
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 manufacturer input collected on HID market trends. By creating 
separate equipment classes for CCT, DOE determined that standards for 
HPS lamps are not technologically feasible. Additionally, in modeling 
some commercial consumers replacing lamps with more efficacious, equal 
wattage lamps and revising downward projected shipments of HID lamps, 
the NIA yielded negative NPVs for all analyzed levels in this final 
determination (see section VI.C for a discussion of NIA results in the 
final determination). As such, DOE determined that standards for MV and 
MH lamps would not be economically justified.

III. 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 final determination. 
Definitions for these lamps are discussed in chapter 2 of the final 
determination 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 lamp 
type. For the HID lamps that met these ladder EPCA criteria, DOE 
conducted a full economic analysis with the LCC analysis, NIA, and MIA 
(see sections V.G, V.I, and V.J below) to determine whether standards 
would be economically justified.
    After considering the comments on the NOPD, DOE determined that 
there are no design options to increase the efficacy of HPS lamps, 
indicating that standards for this lamp technology are not 
technologically feasible. Specifically, DOE determined that sapphire 
arc tube technology is not a valid technology option for increased 
efficacy in HPS lamps (see section V.A.3.b below for further details).
    Regarding MV and MH lamps, available information indicated that 
energy conservation standards for certain MV and MH lamps were 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 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 III.1 provides a summary of the 
HID lamps analyzed.

              Table III.1--CCT and Wattage Ranges Analyzed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Lamp Type                     Wattage           CCT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MV......................................       50-1000 W     3200-6800 K
MH......................................       50-2000 W     2800-6999 K
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, DOE excluded the following HID lamps from analysis of 
economic justification based on these lamps not meeting the criteria of 
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) MH 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 5000-6999 K, have a non-screw 
base, and have non-T-shaped bulbs; and
     electrodeless HID lamps.
    See chapter 2 of the final determination 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

[[Page 76359]]

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 determined that HID lamps that 
are subject of this final determination 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 did 
not analyze potential standards for lamp operation in standby and off 
mode in this final determination.

C. Metric

    To analyze energy conservation standards related to HID lamps, DOE 
must select a metric for rating the performance of the lamps. DOE used 
initial efficacy for consideration and analysis of energy conservation 
standards for HID lamps. Additionally, because dimming is uncommon for 
HID lamps, DOE assessed initial efficacy of all lamps while operating 
at full light output.

D. Coordination of the Metal Halide Lamp Fixture and HID Lamp 
Rulemakings

    For this final determination, DOE used shared data sources between 
the metal halide lamp fixture (MHLF) standards rulemaking (Docket No. 
EERE-2009-BT-STD-0018) \2\ and this HID lamp determination. DOE's 
analysis of HID lamps assumed that MHLFs purchased after the compliance 
date of the MHLF final rule use ballasts compliant with those 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A final rule for MHLF energy conservation standards was 
published in February 2014. For more information on the MHLF 
standards rulemaking, see https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2009-BT-STD-0018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. 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 a HID lamps test procedure notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) published on December 15, 2011 (76 FR 77914) 
and subsequent additional research, DOE proposed revisions to and 
clarification of the proposed HID lamp test procedures. DOE published 
these proposed revisions and clarifications in a test procedure 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR).\3\ 79 FR 29631 (May 
22, 2014). The analysis in this final determination is based upon the 
test procedures put forward in the test procedure SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The HID lamp test procedure SNOPR is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-TP-0044-0013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In the final determination, 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 
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 V.B of this final determination and chapters 2 and 4 of the 
final determination 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 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 final determination TSD.) 
The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this final determination 
are described in chapters 2 and 5 of the final determination 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 final determination 
purchased in the 30-year period that would begin in the expected year 
of compliance with any new standards (2018-2047). 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 no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings from 
potential standards for the equipment that are the subject of this 
final determination. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section 
V.I of this final determination) calculates energy

[[Page 76360]]

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 2015 (AEO2015).
    DOE estimated full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy savings. 76 FR 51281 
(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 final determination 
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 may be displaced if the estimated fuel were not 
consumed by the equipment covered in this final determination. 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 V.I of this determination, and chapter 11 and 
appendix 11A of the final determination TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Review of Site (Point-of-Use) and Full-Fuel-Cycle 
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: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12670/review-of-site-point-of-use-and-full-fuel-cycle-measurement-approaches-to-doeeere-building-appliance-energy-efficiency-standards-letter-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 final 
determination (presented below in section VI.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) The market and technology assessment that 
characterizes where and how HID lamps are used; (2) an engineering 
analysis that estimates the relationship between equipment 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 efficacy 
in the considered HID lamps; and (5) an MIA that determines the 
potential impact new standards for HID lamps would have on 
manufacturers.

V. Methodology and Discussion

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. General
    In conducting the market and technology assessment for this final 
determination, 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 
final determination 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 final determination TSD 
for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
2. Equipment Classes
    For this final determination, 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 considered establishing separate standard 
levels for each equipment class based on the criteria set forth in 42 
U.S.C. 6317(a).
    In this final determination, DOE analyzed CCT, wattage, bulb 
finish, and luminaire characteristic as the equipment-class-setting 
factors. DOE analyzed 24 equipment classes for HID lamps, as shown in 
Table V.1. See chapters 2 and 3 of the final determination TSD for a 
more detailed discussion on equipment classes analyzed for HID 
lamps.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ When delineating 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.

                          Table V.1--Equipment Classes Analyzed in Final Determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           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.

[[Page 76361]]

 
                                                                                 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 
analyzed in this final determination 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 using MV technology. In this 
final determination, DOE found that change of technology is the sole 
method by which commercial consumers of MV lamps can obtain higher lamp 
efficacies.
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 that increase lamp efficacy. 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 material had five 
percent greater transmission of light compared to the traditionally 
used polycrystalline alumina (PCA) material and equated this with a 
potential five percent increase in lamp efficacy. 78 FR 13566 (Feb. 28, 
2013). However, during manufacturer interviews held between the interim 
analysis and NOPD, DOE 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 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 tubes would increase the efficacy of HPS lamps in practice. As 
such, DOE concluded sapphire arc tubes are not a valid technology 
option for HPS lamps. Further, DOE found no other viable technology 
options to improve the efficacy of HPS lamps. Therefore, DOE determined 
standards for HPS lamps are not technologically feasible and did not 
analyze standards for HPS lamps in the final determination.
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 V.2 summarizes the technology options identified for HID 
lamps in this final determination. For more detail on the technology 
options that DOE analyzed to improve MV, HPS, and MH lamp efficacy, see 
chapters 2 and 3 of the final determination TSD.

[[Page 76362]]



       Table V.2--Final Determination HID Lamp Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Lamp type            Technology option       Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HPS...........................  None.............  No technology options
                                                    available.
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           Design the shape of
                                 optimization.      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           Optimize the gas fill
                                 optimization.      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). 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 that can improve lamp efficacy relative to quartz arc tubes. 
Ceramic arc tubes are a technology option used in all CMH lamps. 
Although CMH lamps are commercially available from 50-400 W, they are 
not manufactured from 401-2000 W.\7\ DOE learned from manufacturers 
that it is technologically possible to create 401-1000 W CMH lamps on 
an individual scale in laboratory conditions. However, manufacturers 
may have difficulty producing these lamps on a scale large enough to 
serve the entire market. Because of this, DOE determined that ceramic 
arc tubes for 401-2000 W MH lamps do not pass the criterion that they 
be practicable to manufacture, install, and service. In this final 
determination, DOE did not consider ceramic arc tubes as design options 
for MH lamps from 401-2000 W.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ There 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 401-1000 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 include changing from a MV lamp to a MH 
lamp, using ceramic arc tubes instead of quartz arc tubes, optimizing 
the arc tube shape and design, and optimizing the fill gas pressure and 
chemistry. These design options are summarized in Table V.3. Chapters 2 
and 4 of the final determination TSD provide additional information 
regarding the design options considered in the final determination.

         Table V.3--Final Determination HID Lamp Design Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Lamp type              Design option         Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HPS...........................  None.............  No design options
                                                    available.
MV............................  Change lamp type.  Use MH technology
                                                    instead of MV
                                                    technology.
MH............................  Ceramic arc tubes  Use CMH technology
                                 (50-400 W).        instead of quartz MH
                                                    lamps.
                                Arc tube           Design the shape of
                                 optimization.      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           Optimize the gas fill
                                 optimization.      pressure and
                                                    chemistry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Engineering Analysis

    For this final determination, DOE derived ELs in the engineering 
analysis and lamp end-user 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 scales the ELs from representative equipment classes to those 
equipment classes it does not analyze directly. Table V.4 lists the 
equipment classes that DOE selected as representative.

[[Page 76363]]



                            Table V.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 used performance data presented in manufacturer catalogs to 
determine lamp efficacy. DOE also considered 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 
selected multiple baseline models to ensure consideration of different 
high-volume lamps and their associated commercial consumer economics. 
For example, although MV lamps are the least efficacious products 
available, the HID market has largely shifted away from MV lamps and 
commercial consumers of MH lamp-and-ballast systems incur different 
costs than commercial consumers of MV lamp-and-ballast systems. For 
these reasons, DOE selected both MV and MH lamps as baselines for 
certain equipment classes.
    Table V.5 lists the baseline lamps and representative lamp types. 
See chapters 2 and 5 of the final determination TSD for additional 
detail.

                                                 Table V.5--Baseline Lamps and Representative Lamp Types
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Luminaire          Representative                           Baseline
            CCT Range                     Wattage           Bulb finish *      characteristic **        lamp type       Baseline  lamp type    wattage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2800-4500 K......................  50-400 W............  Clear..............  Enclosed...........  100 W MV...........  MV.................          100
                                                                                                                        MH.................           70
                                                                                                   175 W MV...........  MV.................          175
                                                                                                                        MH.................          150
                                                                                                   250 W MV...........  MV.................          250
                                                                                                                        MH.................          175
                                                                                                   400 W MV...........  MV.................          400
                                                                                                                        MH.................          250
                                                                                                   400 W MH...........  MH.................          400
                                   401-1000 W..........  Clear..............  Enclosed...........  1000 W MV..........  MV.................         1000
                                                                                                                        MH.................          750
                                                                                                   1000 W MH..........  MH.................         1000
                                   1001-2000 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 selected 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 considered only design options that meet the 
criteria outlined in the screening analysis (see section V.B). 
Depending on the equipment class (see Table V.6), DOE analyzed standard 
efficacy quartz MH, high efficacy quartz MH, and CMH lamps as more 
efficacious substitutes for the baseline lamps.

            Table V.6--More Efficacious Substitute Lamp Types
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      More efficacious substitute lamps
          Equipment class                         analyzed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50-400 W..........................  Standard efficacy quartz MH, high
                                     efficacy quartz MH, and CMH lamps.
401-1000 W........................  Standard efficacy quartz MH and high
                                     efficacy quartz MH lamps.
1001-2000 W.......................  High efficacy quartz MH lamps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final determination, DOE considered a number of different 
potential pathways a commercial consumer might choose when identifying 
replacements that are more efficacious. When purchasing a new and 
compliant lamp, a commercial consumer can purchase just a new lamp, a 
new lamp-and-ballast system, or an entirely new fixture. For each of 
these options, a commercial consumer can also choose between a 
replacement that

[[Page 76364]]

maintains the wattage of the existing system or a reduced wattage 
replacement. See chapters 2 and 5 of the final determination TSD for 
additional detail.
4. Determine Efficacy Levels
    DOE developed 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 for this final determination are based on manufacturer 
catalog data. Table V.7 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 final determination TSD.

                  Table V.7--Efficacy Level Equations for the Representative Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Minimum initial efficacy [dagger] (lm/W)
Representative equipment class ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           EL 1                        EL 2                       EL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2800-4500 K, 50-400 W, clear */ 38.5xP\0.1350\............  44.4xP\0.1350\...........  40.4xP\0.1809\.
 enclosed **.
2800-4500 K, 401-1000 W, clear/ 0.0116xP + 81.8...........  0.0173xP + 92.8..........  N/A.
 enclosed.
2800-4500 K, 1001-2000 W,       93.4......................  N/A......................  N/A.
 clear/enclosed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.
[dagger] 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 non-representative equipment classes based 
on efficacy ratios observed in manufacturer catalog data. For example, 
DOE calculated an average percentage difference in efficacy between 
lamps in different equipment classes (one representative and one non-
representative) and used this percentage difference to scale the ELs 
from the representative to the non-representative equipment classes. 
Table V.8 lists the scaling factors calculated in the final 
determination analysis.

                       Table V.8--Scaling Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Luminaire
              Bulb finish                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 final determination, DOE only analyzed 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-and-ballast 
system in an existing fixture, including an appropriate lamp socket and 
ballast brackets. See chapter 2, chapter 5, appendix 5A, and appendix 
5B of the final determination TSD for additional detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Here, DOE uses the term ``fixture'' to refer to the 
enclosure that houses the lamp and ballast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 final determination. 
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 lamp-and-ballast retrofit kits because commercial 
consumers 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 final determination TSD.

E. Markups Analysis

    Markups are multipliers that relate MSPs to end-user purchase 
prices, and vary with the distribution channel through which commercial 
consumers 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 (final 
determination TSD chapter 6).\9\ However, DOE 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 final determination TSD). Appendix 6A of the final 
determination TSD describes the process by which DOE developed MPCs and 
MSPs for HID ballasts and fixtures. Chapters 2 and 7 of the final 
determination TSD provides additional detail on the markup analysis for 
developing end-user prices for HID ballasts and fixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For this final determination, DOE used estimated markups to 
develop MSPs for HID lamps for the MIA (see chapter 12 of the final 
determination TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Energy Use Analysis

    For the energy use analysis, DOE estimated the energy use of HID 
lamp-and-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 lamp-and-ballast 
system input power (in watts) to develop annual energy use estimates. 
Chapters 2 and 8 of the final determination TSD provide a more detailed 
description of DOE's energy use analysis.

[[Page 76365]]

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 commercial consumers. 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 commercial consumer expense over the life of 
the 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 commercial 
consumers 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 final determination 
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 final determination 
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 commercial consumer 
costs and savings expected to result from potential standards at 
specific ELs, discounted to their present value. For a given EL, DOE 
calculated the NPV, as well as the NES, as the difference between a no-
new-standards case projection and the standards-case projections. 
Chapters 2 and 11, and appendices 11A and 11B, of the final 
determination 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 final 
determination. 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 industry net present value 
(INPV). DOE used the GRIM to calculate cash flows using standard 
accounting principles and to compare changes in INPV between a no-new-
standards case and various ELs at each equipment class (the standards 
cases). The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards case 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 final determination 
TSD for additional details on DOE's MIA.

VI. Analytical Results

A. Economic Impacts on Individual Commercial Consumers

    To evaluate the net economic impact of standards on commercial 
consumers, DOE conducted an LCC and PBP analysis for each EL. In 
general, higher efficacy equipment would affect commercial consumers in 
two ways: (1) Annual operating expenses would decrease; and (2) 
purchase prices would increase. Section V.G of this determination 
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 equipment, 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 commercial consumer purchases a covered design upon the 
compliance date of potential standards (in this case, 2018). The 
resulting values then necessarily reflect the projected market for HID 
equipment in 2018, and are reported by equipment class in Table VI.1, 
Table VI.2, and Table VI.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Commercial consumers, in the no-new-standards 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LCC analysis also estimates the fraction of commercial 
consumers 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 
commercial consumers 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 (2018--2047). As a result, the 
average LCC savings--based on the projected 2018 market--may be 
positive in some cases (e.g., EL 2 and EL 3 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 VI.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 VI.4, Table 
VI.5, and Table VI.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 EL 2 become negative, with a 
majority of affected commercial consumers remaining negatively 
impacted. Average LCC savings for EL 3 in this equipment class--while 
still positive--are significantly diminished, with a majority of 
affected commercial consumers experiencing a net cost. Following this 
trend, DOE would expect LCC savings for EL 3 to become increasingly 
negative for an increasing

[[Page 76366]]

proportion of affected commercial consumers 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 
final determination TSD examines the relationship of the LCC and PBP 
analysis and projected HID market in further detail.

                             Table VI.1--HID Lamps >2800 K and <=4500 K and =50 W to <=400 W--LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Life-cycle cost (2014$)                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Percentage of commercial        Median
                    Efficacy level                                   Discounted                  Average      consumers that experience *      payback
                                                        Installed    operating       LCC         savings   ---------------------------------    period
                                                           cost         cost                     (2014$)                             Net       (years)
                                                                                                             Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................................       335.60      1726.95      2062.55  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........
1....................................................       340.72      1724.33      2065.05        (2.50)          1         99          0       100.00
2....................................................       393.94      1662.25      2056.20         6.35          52         36         12       100.00
3....................................................       533.97      1437.77      1971.74        90.81          36         23         42        11.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding.


                             Table VI.2--HID Lamps >2800 K and <=4500 K and 400 and <=1000 W--LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Life-cycle cost (2014$)                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Percentage of commercial        Median
                    Efficacy level                                   Discounted                  Average      consumers that experience *      payback
                                                        Installed    operating       LCC         savings   ---------------------------------    period
                                                           cost         cost                     (2014$)                             Net       (years)
                                                                                                             Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................................       484.68      6065.71      6550.39  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........
1....................................................       484.68      6065.71      6550.39         0.00           0        100          0       ** N/A
2....................................................       526.13      6100.06      6626.19       (75.80)         90          9          2       100.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding.
** Zero impacted commercial consumers (median PBP calculated for affected commercial consumers only).


                            Table VI.3--HID Lamps >2800 K and <=4500 K and 1000 W to <=2000 W--LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Life-cycle cost (2014$)                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Percentage of commercial        Median
                    Efficacy level                                   Discounted                  Average      consumers that experience *      payback
                                                        Installed    operating       LCC         savings   ---------------------------------    period
                                                           cost         cost                     (2014$)                             Net       (years)
                                                                                                             Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................................       579.09       680.88      1259.97  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........
1....................................................       634.99       639.31      1274.30       (14.33)          7         90          3        29.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding.


                             Table VI.4--HID Lamps >2800 K and <=4500 K and =50 W to <=400 W--LCC and PBP Results
                                                              [2023 Projected market basis]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Life-cycle cost (2014$)                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Percentage of commercial        Median
                    Efficacy level                                   Discounted                  Average      consumers that experience *      payback
                                                        Installed    operating       LCC         savings   ---------------------------------    period
                                                           cost         cost                     (2014$)                             Net       (years)
                                                                                                             Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................................       326.84      1688.79      2015.63  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........
1....................................................       327.03      1688.69      2015.72        (0.08)          0        100          0       100.00
2....................................................       521.25      1555.77      2077.02       (61.39)         52         37         10        44.38
3....................................................       583.73      1401.66      1985.39        30.24          42         23         35        15.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding, including cases where the percentage of commercial consumers
  experiencing a net cost or net benefit are greater than zero, but round to zero.


[[Page 76367]]


                             Table VI.5--HID Lamps >2800 K and <=4500 K and 400 and <=1000 W--LCC and PBP Results
                                                              [2023 Projected market basis]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Life-cycle cost (2014$)                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Percentage of commercial        Median
                    Efficacy level                                   Discounted                  Average      consumers that experience *      payback
                                                        Installed    operating       LCC         savings   ---------------------------------    period
                                                           cost         cost                     (2014$)                             Net       (years)
                                                                                                             Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................................       478.73      6031.96      6510.69  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........
1....................................................       478.73      6031.96      6510.69         0.00           0        100          0       ** N/A
2....................................................       735.66      5980.27      6715.93      (205.25)         91          9          0       100.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Any minor incongruities among various reported metrics are the result of rounding.
** Zero impacted commercial consumers (median PBP calculated for affected commercial consumers only).


                            Table VI.6--HID Lamps >2800 K and <=4500 K and 1000 W to <=2000 W--LCC and PBP Results
                                                              [2023 Projected market basis]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Life-cycle cost (2014$)                    Life-cycle cost savings
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Percentage of commercial        Median
                    Efficacy level                                   Discounted                  Average      consumers that experience *      payback
                                                        Installed    operating       LCC         savings   ---------------------------------    period
                                                           cost         cost                     (2014$)                             Net       (years)
                                                                                                             Net cost  No impact   benefit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.............................................       639.90       687.87      1327.78  ............  .........  .........  .........  ...........
1....................................................       716.39       633.18      1349.57       (21.80)         10         86          4        29.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 analyzed energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of HID lamps. The following 
sections describe the expected impacts on HID lamp manufacturers at 
each EL for each equipment class. Chapter 12 of the final determination 
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 analyzed 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 analyzed 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 no-new-standards case and the standards cases that result 
from the sum of discounted cash flows from the reference year (2015) 
through the end of the analysis period (2047).
    To assess the upper (less severe) end of the range of analyzed 
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 commercial consumers. 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 no-new-standards case. This represents the lower bound of 
industry profitability in the standards case.
    Table VI.7 and Table VI.8 present the projected results of the 50-
400 W equipment class under the flat and preservation of operating 
profit markup scenarios.

    Table VI.7--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for the >=50 W to >=400 W Equipment Class--Flat Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No-new-                       EL
                                             Units           standards  ----------------------------------------
                                                                case           1             2            3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV...............................  2014$ millions.......        290.0        285.3         256.6         311.8
Change in INPV.....................  2014$ millions.......  ...........         (4.7)        (33.3)         21.8
                                     %....................  ...........         (1.6)        (11.5)          7.5
Product Conversion Costs...........  2014$ millions.......  ...........          7.4          31.4          55.0
Capital Conversion Costs...........  2014$ millions.......  ...........  ............          6.0          54.5
Total Conversion Costs.............  2014$ millions.......  ...........          7.4          37.4         109.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76368]]


  Table VI.8--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for the >=50 W to >=400 W Equipment Class--Preservation of Operating
                                             Profit Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No-new-                       EL
                                             Units           standards  ----------------------------------------
                                                                case           1             2            3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV...............................  2014$ millions.......        290.0        284.9         239.8         214.1
Change in INPV.....................  2014$ millions.......  ...........         (5.1)        (50.1)       (75.9)
                                     %....................  ...........         (1.7)        (17.3)       (26.2)
Product Conversion Costs...........  2014$ millions.......  ...........          7.4          31.4          55.0
Capital Conversion Costs...........  2014$ millions.......  ...........  ............          6.0          54.5
Total Conversion Costs.............  2014$ millions.......  ...........          7.4          37.4         109.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VI.9 and Table VI.10 present the projected results of the 
401-1000 W equipment class under the flat and preservation of operating 
profit markup scenarios.

   Table VI.9--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for the >=400 W to >=1000 W Equipment Class--Flat Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            No-new-                EL
                                                        Units              standards  --------------------------
                                                                              case           1            2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2014$ millions..............         44.6         44.2          44.8
Change in INPV............................  2014$ millions..............  ...........         (0.3)          0.2
                                            %...........................  ...........         (0.8)          0.6
Product Conversion Costs..................  2014$ millions..............  ...........          0.5           4.9
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2014$ millions..............  ...........  ............          0.8
Total Conversion Costs....................  2014$ millions..............  ...........          0.5           5.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table VI.10--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for the >=400 W to >=1000 W Equipment Class--Preservation of Operating
                                             Profit Markup Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            No-new-                EL
                                                        Units              standards  --------------------------
                                                                              case           1            2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV......................................  2014$ millions..............         44.6         44.2          40.7
Change in INPV............................  2014$ millions..............  ...........         (0.3)        (3.9)
                                            %...........................  ...........         (0.8)        (8.7)
Product Conversion Costs..................  2014$ millions..............  ...........          0.5           4.9
Capital Conversion Costs..................  2014$ millions..............  ...........  ............          0.8
Total Conversion Costs....................  2014$ millions..............  ...........          0.5           5.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VI.11 and Table VI.12 present the projected results of the 
1001-2000 W equipment class under the flat and preservation of 
operating profit markup scenarios.

 Table VI.11--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for the >=1000 W to >=2000 W
                  Equipment Class--Flat Markup Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 No-new-         EL
                                   Units        standards  -------------
                                                   case           1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV........................  2014$ millions.          3.0          2.2
Change in INPV..............  2014$ millions.  ...........         (0.8)
                              %..............  ...........        (25.2)
Product Conversion Costs....  2014$ millions.  ...........          0.6
Capital Conversion Costs....  2014$ millions.  ...........          0.4
Total Conversion Costs......  2014$ millions.  ...........          0.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76369]]


 Table VI.12--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for the >=1000 W to >=2000 W
    Equipment Class--Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 No-new-         EL
                                   Units        standards  -------------
                                                   case           1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV........................  2014$ millions.          3.0          2.3
Change in INPV..............  2014$ millions.  ...........         (0.7)
                              %..............  ...........        (24.4)
Product Conversion Costs....  2014$ millions.  ...........          0.6
Capital Conversion Costs....  2014$ millions.  ...........          0.4
Total Conversion Costs......  2014$ millions.  ...........          0.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Impacts on Employment
    DOE quantitatively assessed the impacts of analyzed energy 
conservation standards on direct employment. DOE used the GRIM to 
estimate the domestic labor expenditures and number of domestic 
production workers in the no-new-standards case and at each EL for the 
50-400 W equipment class, since the 50-400 W equipment class represents 
over 90 percent of all covered HID lamp shipments in 2018. Furthermore, 
manufacturers stated that most domestic employment decisions would be 
based on the standards set for the 50-400 W equipment class.
    The employment impacts shown in Table VI.13 represent the potential 
production employment that could result following analyzed 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 the analyzed 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 production does not shift to lower labor-cost 
countries. Because there is a real risk of manufacturers evaluating 
sourcing decisions in response to analyzed 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 219 domestic production workers 
involved in manufacturing HID lamps in 2018. The table below shows the 
range of the impacts of analyzed standards on U.S. production workers 
in the HID lamp industry.

 Table VI.13--Potential Changes in the Total Number of Domestic High-Intensity Discharge Lamp Production Workers
                                                     in 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No-new-               50-400 W Equipment Class EL
                                                     standards   -----------------------------------------------
                                                       case              1               2               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in               219             220             228             357
 2018 (without changes in production locations).
Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers  ..............          0 to 1      (110) to 9    (219) to 138
 in 2018 *......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 50-400 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 man-hours 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 final determination 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

[[Page 76370]]

these reasons, DOE conducted a cumulative regulatory burden analysis to 
make sure that the standards considered in this determination do 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 2018, ending in 
the year 2047. 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 no-new-standards case. 
Table VI.14 presents the estimated primary energy savings for each 
efficacy level analyzed. Table VI.15 presents the estimated FFC energy 
savings for each efficacy level. Chapter 11 of the final determination 
TSD describes these estimates in more detail.

  Table VI.14--Cumulative National Primary Energy Savings for HID Lamp
               Efficacy Levels for Units Sold in 2018-2047
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               National
                                                                primary
                 Equipment class                    Efficacy    energy
                                                     level      savings
                                                                (quads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=2800 K and <=4500 K and >=50 W to <=400 W......          1       0.003
                                                           2       0.14
                                                           3       1.34
>=2800 K and <=4500 K and >400 and <=1000 W......          1       0.00
                                                           2       0.002
>=2800 K and <=4500 K and >1000 W to <=2000 W....          1       0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table VI.15--Cumulative National Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Savings for HID
            Lamp Efficacy Levels for Units Sold in 2018-2047
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               National
                                                                  FFC
                 Equipment class                    Efficacy    energy
                                                     level      savings
                                                                (quads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=2800 K and <=4500 K and >=50 W to <=400 W......          1       0.003
                                                           2       0.15
                                                           3       1.40
>=2800 K and <=4500 K and >400 and <=1000 W......          1       0.00
                                                           2       0.002
>=2800 K and <=4500 K and >1000 W to <=2000 W....          1       0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Net Present Value of Commercial Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
commercial consumers 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OMB Circular A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). Available at: 
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table VI.16 shows the commercial consumer 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 2018 through 2047. See chapter 11 of the 
final determination TSD for more detailed NPV results.

  Table VI.16--Net Present Value of Commercial Consumer Benefits for HID Lamp Efficacy Levels for Units Sold in
                                                    2018-2047
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Net present value  (billion 2014$)
                                                                            ------------------------------------
                      Equipment class                        Efficacy level      7-Percent         3-Percent
                                                                               discount rate     discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=2800 K and <=4500 K and >=50 W to <=400 W................               1           (0.03)*             (0.01)
                                                                          2           (1.21)              (2.20)
                                                                          3           (1.69)              (1.14)
>=2800 K and <=4500 K and >400 and <=1000 W................               1            0.00                0.00
                                                                          2           (0.25)              (0.49)
>=2800 K and <=4500 K and >1000 W to <=2000 W..............               1           (0.012)             (0.02)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Values in parenthesis are negative values.

D. Determination

    As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzed whether 
standards for HID lamps would be technologically feasible, economically 
justified, and would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 
6317(a)(1)) Each of these criteria is discussed below.

[[Page 76371]]

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 determines that standards for HPS lamps would 
not be technologically feasible due to the lack of technology options 
discussed in section V.A.3. DOE determines that standards for MV lamps 
for specialty applications are not technologically feasible because MH 
lamps do not provide adequate ultraviolet light output to act as a 
direct substitute for specialty application MV lamp (see chapter 2 of 
the final determination TSD for additional detail). DOE determines that 
energy conservation standards for certain 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. However, 
DOE has some concern regarding the limited market availability of MH 
lamps that meet EL 3 at 250 W. Currently, only one manufacturer 
produces a lamp subject to standards that meets EL 3 at 250 W, though 
some lamps not subject to standards (i.e., lamps operated by electronic 
ballasts only) may also be available as an energy saving replacement.
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)) DOE determines that standards for certain 
categories of HID lamps (MH and MV lamps less than 50 W, MH lamps 
greater than 2000 W, MV lamps greater than 1000 W, directional lamps, 
self-ballasted lamps, lamps designed to operate exclusively on 
electronic ballasts, high-CRI MH lamps, colored MH lamps, and 
electrodeless lamps) would not result in significant energy savings due 
to low shipment market share (see chapter 2 of the final determination 
TSD for additional detail). However, DOE estimates that a standard for 
all other HID lamps would result in maximum energy savings of up to 1.4 
quads over a 30-year analysis period (2018-2047). Therefore, DOE 
determines that potential energy conservation standards for certain 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(a)(1)) Using the methods and data described in section V.G, DOE 
conducted an LCC analysis to estimate the net costs/benefits to users 
from increased efficacy in the considered HID lamps. DOE then 
aggregated the results from the LCC analysis to estimate national 
energy savings and national economic impacts in section VI.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. Regarding economic 
impacts to commercial consumers, DOE notes that regulation of the 400 W 
MH representative lamp type (a subset of the 50-400 W equipment class) 
does not allow commercial consumers to purchase only a new lamp at EL 
3. In this case, all commercial consumers would need to purchase a new 
ballast and fixture in addition to a new lamp in order to achieve 
energy and cost savings. Purchasing a new lamp, ballast, and fixture 
rather than only a lamp represents a large first cost difference (about 
a 400 percent increase). All other lamp types and equipment classes 
offer a direct lamp replacement (a more efficacious, but equal wattage 
replacement). The 50-400 W equipment class at EL 3 has an estimated 
negative NPV of commercial consumer benefit of -$1.69 billion using a 
7-percent discount rate, and a negative NPV of commercial consumer 
benefit of -$1.14-billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Regarding economic impacts to manufacturers, at EL 3 for the 50-400 
W equipment class, DOE estimates industry will need to invest 
approximately $109.5 million in conversion costs. New investment would 
be necessary to produce EL 3 CMH lamps at a mass market scale for the 
50-400 W equipment class. As a result, EL 3 has large conversion costs. 
At EL 3 for the 50-400 W equipment class, the projected change in INPV 
ranges from a decrease of $75.9 million to an increase of $21.8 
million, which equates to a decrease of 26.2 percent and an increase of 
7.5 percent, respectively, in INPV for manufacturers of HID lamps.
    On the basis of the negative NPV, large differences in first costs 
for some commercial consumers, and potential decrease in industry net 
present value for HID lamp manufacturers (including large conversion 
costs), DOE determined that the EL 3 standard was not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered the next most efficacious level, EL 2, which 
applies to the 50-400 W and 401-1000 W equipment classes. Regarding 
economic impacts to commercial consumers, the 50-400 W equipment class 
at EL 2 has an estimated negative NPV of commercial consumer benefit of 
-$1.21 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and a negative NPV of 
commercial consumer benefit of -$2.20 billion using a 3-percent 
discount rate. The 401-1000 W equipment class at EL 2 has an estimated 
negative NPV of commercial consumer benefit of -$0.25 billion using a 
7-percent discount rate, and a negative NPV of commercial consumer 
benefit of -$0.49 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Regarding economic impacts to manufacturers, at EL 2 for the 50-400 
W equipment class, DOE estimates industry will need to invest 
approximately $37.4 million in conversion costs. At EL 2 for the 401-
1000 W equipment class, DOE estimates industry will need to invest 
approximately $5.7 million in conversion costs. Conversion costs are 
small because minimal capital expenditures are necessary to produce EL 
2 compliant lamps at a mass market scale. At EL 2 for the 50-400 W 
equipment class, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$50.1 million to a decrease of $33.3 million, which equates to a 
decrease of 17.3 percent and a decrease of 11.5 percent, respectively, 
in INPV for manufacturers of HID lamps. At EL 2 for the 401-1000 W 
equipment class, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$3.9 million to an increase of $0.2 million, which equates to a 
decrease of 8.7 percent and an increase of 0.6 percent, respectively, 
in INPV for manufacturers of HID lamps.
    On the basis of the negative NPV and potential decrease in industry 
net present value for HID lamp manufacturers, DOE determined that an EL 
2 standard was not economically justified.
    Finally, DOE considered EL 1, which applies to the 50-400 W, 401-
1000 W, and 1001-2000 W equipment classes. Regarding economic impacts 
to commercial consumers, the 50-400 W equipment class at EL 1 has an 
estimated negative NPV of commercial consumer benefit of -$0.03 billion 
using a 7-percent discount rate, and a negative NPV of commercial 
consumer benefit of -$0.01 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. The 
401-1000 W equipment class at EL 1 has an NPV of commercial consumer 
benefit of $0.0 using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.0 using a 3-
percent discount rate. The 1001-2000 W equipment class at EL 1 has an 
estimated negative NPV of

[[Page 76372]]

commercial consumer benefit of -$0.012 billion using a 7-percent 
discount rate, and an estimated negative NPV of -$0.02 billion using a 
3-percent discount rate. The NPV for 400-1000 W equipment class because 
of no shipments for this baseline.
    Regarding economic impacts to manufacturers, at EL 1 for the 50-400 
W equipment class, DOE estimates industry will need to invest 
approximately $7.4 million in conversion costs. At EL 1 for the 401-
1000 W equipment class, DOE estimates industry will need to invest 
approximately $0.5 million in conversion costs. At EL 1 for the 1001-
2000 W equipment class, DOE estimates industry will need to invest 
approximately $0.9 million in conversion costs. Conversion costs are 
small because minimal capital expenditures are necessary to produce EL 
1 compliant lamps at a mass market scale. At EL 1 for the 50-400 W 
equipment class, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$5.1 million to a decrease of $4.7 million, which equates to a decrease 
of 1.7 percent and a decrease of 1.6 percent, respectively, in INPV for 
manufacturers of HID lamps. At EL 1 for the 401-1000 W equipment class, 
the projected change in INPV is a decrease of $0.3 million, which 
equates to a decrease of 0.8 percent, in INPV for manufacturers of HID 
lamps. At EL 1 for the 1001-2000 W equipment class, the projected 
change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $0.8 million to a decrease of 
$0.7 million, which equates to a decrease of 25.2 percent and a 
decrease of 24.4 percent, respectively, in INPV for manufacturers of 
HID lamps.
    On the basis of the negative NPV and potential decrease in industry 
net present value for HID lamp manufacturers, DOE determined that an EL 
1 standard was not economically justified.
4. Conclusions
    DOE determines that standards for HID lamps are either not 
technologically feasible, would not result in significant energy 
savings, or are not economically justified (see Table VI.17). 
Therefore, DOE is not establishing energy conservation standards for 
HID lamps.

                    Table VI.17--Rationale for Not Establishing Energy Conservation Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lamp category                                                                            Rationale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directional HID lamps..................................................................  Would not result in
                                                                                          significant energy
                                                                                          savings.
Self-ballasted HID lamps...............................................................  Would not result in
                                                                                          significant energy
                                                                                          savings.
HID lamps designed to operate exclusively on electronic ballasts.......................  Would not result in
                                                                                          significant energy
                                                                                          savings.
HID lamps that have a CCT of 5000-6999 K, have a non-screw base, and have a non-T-       Not technologically
 shaped bulb.                                                                             feasible.
Electrodeless HID lamps................................................................  Would not result in
                                                                                          significant energy
                                                                                          savings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other HID Lamps......................  HPS Lamps                                         Not technologically
                                                                                          feasible.
                                      --------------------------------------------------
                                                                MV lamps that are        Not technologically
                                                                 double-ended, have a     feasible.
                                                                 non-screw base, and
                                                                 have no outer bulb.
                                                                MV lamps greater than    Not economically
                                                                 or equal to 50 W and     justified.
                                                                 less than or equal to
                                                                 1000 W.
                                       MH Lamps...............  MH lamps less than 50 W  Would not result in
                                                                 or greater than 2000 W.  significant energy
                                                                                          savings.
                                                                MH lamps with CCT less   Would not result in
                                                                 than 2800 K and          significant energy
                                                                 greater than or equal    savings.
                                                                 to 7000 K.
                                                                High-CRI MH lamps......  Would not result in
                                                                                          significant energy
                                                                                          savings.
                                                                Colored MH lamps.......  Would not result in
                                                                                          significant energy
                                                                                          savings.
                                                                MH lamps greater than    Not economically
                                                                 or equal to 50 W and     justified.
                                                                 less than or equal to
                                                                 2000 W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    This final 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, and a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 
adopts as a final rule, 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

[[Page 76373]]

General Counsel's Web site (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this final determination under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on 
February 19, 2003. In the final 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. The final determination does not establish any energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps, and DOE is not prescribing 
standards for HID lamps at this time. On the basis of the foregoing, 
DOE certifies that the final determination has no significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has 
not prepared an FRFA for this final 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 final determination does not impose new information or record 
keeping requirements since it does not impose any standards. 
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 final determination, DOE determines that energy 
conservation standards for HID lamps do 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), Public Law 91-190, 
codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. is not required at this time because 
standards are not being imposed. 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 not 
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 not 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 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 final 
determination finds that standards are not 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 final 
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. Public Law 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 https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. This final 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 final determination does not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions

[[Page 76374]]

and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'' 53 
FR 8859 (Mar. 18, 1988) that this final determination does not result 
in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    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 final 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 final determination finds that standards for HID lamps 
are not 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 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.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
determination.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2015.
David Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-30992 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P