On October 3, 2011, we published in theFederal Register(76 FR 61228-61244, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0070) a proposal to amend and republish the list of select agents and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to animal or plant health, or to animal or plant products, reorganize the list of select agents and toxins based on the relative potential of each select agent or toxin to be misused to adversely affect human, plant, or animal health, and amend the regulations in order to add definitions and clarify language concerning security, training, biosafety, biocontainment, and incident response.

Comments on the proposed rule were required to be received on or before December 2, 2011. We are reopening the comment period on Docket No. APHIS-2009-0070 for an additional 30 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. We will also consider all comments we receive between December 3, 2011, and the date of this document.

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291,etseq.;“EPCA” or, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007)). Part B of title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) establishes the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.” Part C of title III, “Certain Industrial Equipment” (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), establishes an energy conservation program for such equipment. (For editorial reasons, Parts B and C were re-designated as Parts A and A-1 on codification in the U.S. Code). While HID lamps are defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(46), DOE is required to set standards for HID lamps in 42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)). Therefore, DOE has determined that the provisions of Part C are applicable to HID lamps.

Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; and (3) Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification, compliance, and enforcement. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use (1) As the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)); and (2) for making representations about the efficiency of this equipment (42 U.S.C. 6315(b)). Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether the equipment complies with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s) and 6316(a)(1))

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product or equipment during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as determined by the Secretary of Energy (Secretary), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))

EPCA requires DOE to prescribe test procedures for HID lamps within 30 months of determining that energy conservation standards are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6317(a)(1)) DOE published a positive final notice of determination (determination) regarding HID lamps on July 1, 2010, concluding that energy conservation standards for certain HID lamps are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would likely result in significant energy savings. 75 FR 37975. DOE intends to publish any final HID lamp test procedures by January 1, 2013.

In today's NOPR, DOE proposes to establish test procedures for HID lamps based on industry standards pertaining to HID lamp measurements.

The proposed test procedures include methods to determine lamp power and lumen output1 (lamp efficacy in lumens per watt), and would also provide for the efficiency measurement of directional lamps using center beam intensity (in candelas2 )3 and beam angle. The proposed procedures would also measure lumen maintenance (i.e.,the percentage of lamp light output relative to initial output, over time)4 at 40 percent and 70 percent of rated lamp lifetime. CCT and CRI would also be measured because DOE may consider delineating HID equipment classes using these metrics.

Efficacy of HID lamps is calculated based on the measured lumen output and the measured input electrical power. DOE proposes that the input power measurements be performed using the measurement methods for lamp current and voltage prescribed in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C78.389-2006 (C78.389), “Electric Lamps—High Intensity Discharge—Methods of Measuring Characteristics,” and the measurement method for lumen output prescribed in Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) LM-51 (LM-51), “Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of High Intensity Discharge Lamps,” and the measurement method for luminous intensity prescribed in ANSI C78.379-2006 (C78.379), “For Electric Lamps—Classification of Beam Patterns of Reflector Lamps.” DOE also proposes that lamp current, voltage, and lumen output measurements be performed while operating the lamp with an appropriately rated reference ballast.5 DOE proposes that lumen maintenance measurements be performed using the measurement methods prescribed in IES LM-47 (LM-47), “IESNA Approved Method for Life-Testing of HID Lamps.” Under DOE's proposal, CCT and CRI would be obtained from spectroradiometric measurements of the light output in the visible spectrum.6 CCT and CRI would be calculated by numerical evaluation of the color characteristics as prescribed in International Commission on Illumination (Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE)) 13.3 and CIE 15 using spectroradiometric measurement data.

The following industry standards and test procedures relevant to this NOPR are proposed to be incorporated by reference into the HID test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart Y:

As discussed in further detail in section III.E, DOE has concluded that HID lamps (without ballasts) are incapable of either standby mode or off mode energy use. HID lamps do not have additional features besides light output and thereby cannot operate in standby mode. HID lamps cannot be in off mode because there is no condition in which the lamp is connected to themain power source (via the ballast) and is not in a mode already accounted for in either active mode or standby mode. Therefore, DOE does not propose measurement methods to determine energy use in either standby mode or off mode for HID lamps.

DOE proposes to require measurement of both photometric and electrical characteristics of HID lamps to calculate HID lamp efficacy. DOE reviewed ANSI C78.379, ANSI C78.389, CIE 13.3, CIE 15, IES LM-47, and IES LM-51 in developing the proposed test procedures for HID lamps. From these industry test procedures, DOE proposes lamp selection, test setup, and test conditions for HID lamps.

The proposed photometric measurement methods for lamp light output (also referred to as luminous flux) for omni-directional lamps, measured in lumens, and luminous intensity for directional lamps, measured in candelas,8 are detailed in LM-51. CCT and CRI typically are derived from spectroradiometric measurement of lamp light output. Color measurement and calculation of CCT are detailed in CIE 15. Calculation of CRI is detailed in CIE 13.3.

The proposed electrical measurement methods are provided in ANSI C78.389 and include line voltage, lamp voltage, current (measured in amperes), and lamp electrical power input (measured in watts). Under ANSI C78.389, electrical measurements are to be performed when operating the lamp with an appropriately rated reference ballast that provides specified power, voltage, and current required to operate the lamp as stated in data sheets referenced by ANSI C78.389. The reference ballast itself is to be operated from a power supply with specified voltage and impedance requirements. Reference ballast and power supply specifications, set forth in the standards referenced by ANSI C78.389, are intended to provide a level of power quality that enables repeatable and consistent electrical measurements.

DOE further proposes that, prior to any measurement, lamps be stabilized by the methods specified for each lamp type in ANSI C78.389, section 3.7. A lamp is considered to be stabilized when successive electrical characteristic measurements remain within a given percentage range over a given period of time. There is some variation in the ANSI measurement procedure to determine lamp stabilization proposed for the three types of HID lamps—mercury vapor (MV), high-pressure sodium (HPS), and metal halide (MH). For MV lamps, electrical characteristic measurement values must remain within 1 percent of each other for three consecutive measurements over a 15 minute period. For HPS lamps, electrical characteristic measurement values must also remain within 1 percent of each other for three consecutive measurements spaced 10-15 minutes apart. For MH lamps, electrical characteristic measurement values may vary up to 3 percent of each other for three consecutive measurements spaced 10-15 minutes apart.

In accordance with the stabilization methods in ANSI C78.389, DOE specifies a lamp aging time and burning position, as described in section III.D. DOE further proposes that all test measurements be performed at an ambient temperature of 25 °C ± 5 °C with an interior air speed rate of less than or equal to 0.5 meters/second.

The following sections set forth proposed definitions for the HID test procedure, detailed discussion of the proposed test method, and proposed laboratory accreditation requirements.

In today's proposed rule, DOE proposes definitions for the following terms based on the EPCA definitions of these terms: “ballast” (42 U.S.C. 6291(58)), “color rendering index” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(J)), “correlated color temperature” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(K)), “high-intensity discharge lamp” (42 U.S.C. 6291(46)), “mercury vapor lamp” (42 U.S.C. 6291(47)(A)), and “metal halide lamp” (42 U.S.C. 6291(63)).

As explained in section III.A.1, DOE also proposes to adopt definitions of “beam angle,” “directional lamp,” “high-pressure sodium lamp,” “lamp electrical power input,” “lamp wattage,” “lumen maintenance,” “rated luminous flux or rated lumen output,” and “self-ballasted lamp.” Many of the proposed definitions are identical or very similar to the definitions set forth in 10 CFR part 430 for consumer products. As discussed in section III.A.2, DOE also proposes to amend the definition of “ballast efficiency.” As discussed in III.A.3, DOE proposes a definition of “basic model” for HID lamps.

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to define the following terms: “beam angle,” “directional lamp,” “high-pressure sodium lamp,” “lamp efficacy,” “lamp electrical power input,” “lamp wattage,” “lumen maintenance,” “rated luminous flux or rated lumen output,” and “self-ballasted lamp.”

DOE proposes to define “beam angle” as follows: “ `Beam angle' means the beam angle (or angles) as measured according to the requirements of ANSI C78.379, including complex beam angles as described in ANSI C78.379.”

DOE proposes to define “directional lamp” as follows: “ `Directional lamp' means a lamp emitting at least 80 percent of its light output within a solid angle of π steradians (corresponding to a cone with an angle of 120 degrees).”9

DOE proposes to define “high-pressure sodium lamp” as follows: “ `High-pressure sodium (HPS) lamp' means a high-intensity discharge lamp in which the major portion of the light is produced by radiation from sodium vapor operating at a partial pressure of about 6,670 pascals (approximately 0.066 atmospheres or 50 torr) or greater.” By including pressure equivalents in both atmospheres and torr, DOE's proposed definition would harmonize with the existing statutory definition of “mercury vapor lamp,” which includes both units of pressure (pascals and atmospheres). (42 U.S.C. 6291(47)(A))10

DOE proposes to adopt a definition for “lamp efficacy” similar to that setforth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R,11 where DOE defines “lamp efficacy” as “the ratio of measured lamp lumen output in lumens to the measured lamp electrical power input in watts, rounded to the nearest tenth, in units of lumens per watt.” DOE proposes in this rulemaking to replace “lamp lumen output” with “rated luminous flux or rated lumen output” and to add the abbreviation “lm/W” after “lumens per watt.” The term “rated luminous flux or rated lumen output” is consistent with DOE's proposed definition for “lumen maintenance,” and means the same thing as “lamp lumen output.” Therefore, DOE proposes to define “lamp efficacy” as follows: “ `Lamp efficacy' means the ratio of rated lumen output (or rated luminous flux) to the measured lamp electrical power input in watts, rounded to the nearest tenth, in units of lumens per watt (lm/W).”12

DOE proposes to define “lamp electrical power input” as follows: “ ‘Lamp electrical power input’ means the total electrical power input to the lamp, including both arc and cathode power where appropriate, at the reference condition, in units of watts.” This definition is the same as that set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R.

DOE proposes the following definition for “lamp wattage” in this rulemaking: “ ‘Lamp wattage’ means the total electrical power required by a lamp in watts, measured following the initial aging period referenced in the relevant industry standard.” (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(O))13

DOE proposes a definition for “lumen maintenance” as follows: “ ‘Lumen maintenance’ means the luminous flux or lumen output at a given time in the life of the lamp and expressed as a percentage of the rated luminous flux or rated lumen output, respectively.” This definition is the same as that set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix W, section (2)(c).

DOE proposes a definition for “rated luminous flux or rated lumen output” as follows: “ `Rated luminous flux or rated lumen output' means the initial lumen rating (100 hour) declared by the manufacturer, which consists of the lumen rating of a lamp at the end of 100 hours of operation.”14 This is the same definition as is set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix W, section (2)(d).

DOE proposes to define “self-ballasted lamp”15 based on the definition for “self-ballasted CFL lamp” found in 10 CFR 430 subpart B, appendix W, section (2)(h), as follows: “ ‘Self-ballasted lamp’ means a lamp unit that incorporates all elements that are necessary for the starting and stable operation of the lamp in a permanent enclosure, and that does not include any replaceable or interchangeable parts.”

DOE proposes an amended definition of “ballast efficiency” for metal halide lamp fixtures, currently set forth at 10 CFR 431.322, to correspond to the definitions proposed in section III.B.1. Currently, “ballast efficiency” for a high-intensity discharge fixture means, in relevant part, the efficiency of a lamp and ballast combination, expressed as a percentage, and calculated in accordance with the following formula: Efficiency = Pout/Pinwhere:

The meaning of the term “Pout” as currently defined for ballast efficiency is the same as DOE is proposing for “lamp electrical power input.” To avoid confusion where “Pout” refers to the lamp wattage when testing a ballast for HID fixtures, and “lamp electrical power input” refers to lamp wattage when testing a HID lamp, DOE proposes to amend the definition of “ballast efficiency” as follows: “ ‘Ballast efficiency’ means, in the case of a high-intensity discharge fixture, the efficiency of a lamp and ballast combination, expressed as a percentage, and calculated in accordance with the following formula: Efficiency = Lamp electrical power input/Ballast power input where:

(1) Lamp electrical power input means the total electrical power input to the lamp, including both arc and cathode power where appropriate, at the reference condition, units of watts;

(2) Ballast power input equals the measured operating input wattage;

(3) The lamp, and the capacitor when the capacitor is provided, shall constitute a nominal system in accordance with the ANSI C78.43 (incorporated by reference; see § 431.323);

(4) For ballasts with a frequency of 60 Hz, ballast power input and lamp electrical power input shall be measured after lamps have been stabilized according to section 4.4 of ANSI C82.6 (incorporated by reference; see § 431.323) using a wattmeter with accuracy specified in section 4.5 of ANSI C82.6; and

(5) For ballasts with a frequency greater than 60 Hz, ballast power input and lamp electrical power input shall have a basic accuracy of ±0.5 percent at the higher of either 3 times the output operating frequency of the ballast or 2.4 kHz.”

DOE also proposes a definition of “basic model” for the HID lamp test procedures. DOE provides extensive discussion of the concept of “basic model” in the 2010 NOPR for certification, compliance, and enforcement. 75 FR 56796, 56798-99 (Sept. 16, 2010).

DOE proposes to define “basic model” for HID lamps as follows: “ ‘Basic model’ with respect to HID lamps means all units of a given type of covered equipment (or class thereof) manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source and which have essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water efficiency, and are rated to operate a given lamp type and wattage.”

DOE invites comment on the definitions set forth in this section.

The proposed test procedures adopt the methods and safety precautions set forth in ANSI C78.389 and LM-51 to obtain consistent and reproducible measurements of the electrical and photometric characteristics of HID lamps. In particular, the lamps being tested are to be operated at the specified conditions (i.e.,tested at a given temperature and air speed), with the appropriate power supply characteristics, the lamps operating on the reference circuit before measurements are taken, and the appropriate instrumentation. Each of these factors is described in the following discussion. Lamp stabilization and aging are discussed in section III.B.2, Lamp Selection and Setup.

As stated previously, photometric characteristics proposed to be measured are total luminous flux (lumens), luminous intensity (candelas), CCT, and CRI. Lamp electrical characteristics proposed to be measured are those required to calculate lamp efficacy during normal operation (e.g.,line voltage, lamp voltage, input current, and lamp electrical power input). All measured quantities are proposed to be obtained using an appropriately rated reference ballast or power source whose characteristics are within the required specifications listed in section III.B.1.c. The test equipment required to conduct all the test procedures' electric and photometric measurements is proposed to be calibrated and meet the required performance specifications in ANSI C78.389 and LM-51.

The test apparatus must be operated in a location where ambient conditions (e.g.,ambient temperature and air speed) are stable, in accordance with the specifications listed as follows.

DOE proposes an ambient temperature requirement of 25 °C± 5 °C for HID lamp testing in accordance with ANSI C78.389. This is the industry standard temperature for testing most ballasted and non-ballasted light sources (both HID and other types of sources). It is also the temperature required by the MH lamp ballast17 test procedures final rule. 75 FR 10950, 10956 (March 9, 2010). Although HID lamps are not as sensitive as other lamps to temperature, temperature still affects their performance such that it could affect test results. A specific, standardized, temperature allows for the use of relative photometry for light fixtures. Thus, an ambient temperature requirement of 25 °C ± 5 °C is followed in industry standards and practices for HID lamps. DOE invites comment on the proposed ambient temperature requirement.

DOE proposes an air speed limit of ≤ 0.5 meters per second (m/s) for HID lamp testing because, as detailed in the following, higher air speeds affect photometric and electrical data measurements. Although LM-51, section 2.3, states that special precautions against normal room air movements are unnecessary, ANSI C78.389, section 3.3, states that ambient conditions shall be draft-free (but provides no definition of the term “draft-free”). During the public meeting for the MH lamp ballast test procedures NOPR, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) requested a definition of “draft-free.” (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0017, NEMA, No. 0013 at p. 13)18 Following the public meeting and comment period, DOE received a comment from NEMA requesting that DOE either define “draft-free” or remove it from the MH lamp ballast test procedures. (Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0017, NEMA, No. 0024 at p. 3) In preparing the MH lamp ballast test procedures final rule, DOE reviewed industry test procedures for the topic of air speed. (Various documents use different terms; therefore, DOE also specifically reviewed the terms “airflow” and “air movement.”) 75 FR at 10956 (March 9, 2010). DOE found that air speed requirements varied, with some industry test procedures using non-quantitative terms such as “still air” or “draft free.” This proposed HID lamps air speed requirement is the same as the MH lamp ballast testing requirement. DOE's view is that specifying a maximum air speed requirement as part of the test conditions acknowledges industry practices intended to minimize forced convection cooling that could affect measured photometric and electrical data. Thus, DOE proposes to adopt for HID lamp testing the air speed limit of ≤ 0.5 m/s used for testing MH lamp ballasts (75 FR at 10957 (March 9, 2010)) and invites comment on this proposed requirement.

DOE proposes power supply characteristics for HID lamps test procedures based on ANSI C78.389 and LM-51, as follows.

DOE proposes to adopt the waveshape requirements set forth in ANSI C78.389 for HID lamp testing. DOE proposes that any lamp being tested be operated with a sinusoidal voltage supply waveshape as recommended by ANSI C78.389, section 3.2, which states that the waveshape of the power supply shall have a root-mean-square (RMS)19 summation of the harmonic components that remains below 3 percent of the fundamental frequency (i.e.,the lowest frequency of the waveform). DOE invites comment on these proposed voltage waveshape requirements.

DOE proposes to adopt the voltage regulation requirements set forth in LM-51, section 3.2, for HID lamp testing, which states that the voltage regulation shall be within ± 0.1 percent. DOE also considered ANSI C78.389, section 3.2, which states that the power supply voltage should be regulated such that it will be steady and free of sudden changes (e.g.,noise, line transients) and shall be regulated to within ± 0.5 percent of the reference ballast voltage rating. ANSI C78.389, section 3.2, also notes that if automatic voltage regulation is not provided, constant checking and readjustments of the supply will be necessary for accurate lamp test measurements. DOE proposes to use the LM-51 requirement for voltage regulation, however, to minimize variations in electrical and photometric measurements and provide more consistent test measurements. DOE proposes that voltage regulation be within ± 0.1 percent of the reference ballast voltage rating. DOE invites comment on the voltage requirements proposed.

For HID lamp testing, DOE proposes to adopt the power supply impedancemeasurement method and impedance limit specified in ANSI C78.389, section 3.2, which requires that power supply impedance remain at or below 2 percent of the reference ballast impedance, measured at the point where the reference ballast and lamp are connected. This method requires that variable autotransformers or other voltage transformation devices have kilovolt-ampere ratings of at least five times the lamp wattage. DOE invites comment on this proposed power supply impedance measurement method and impedance limit.

DOE proposes to adopt the reference ballast requirements of ANSI C78.389 for HID lamp testing. For HID lamp measurements (electrical and photometric), ANSI C78.389, section 3.4, requires that tested lamps be operated with (1) An appropriately rated reference ballast or (2) a reference ballast with variable impedance that can be set to match the impedance and electrical requirements for each lamp type to be tested. ANSI C78.389 states that the reference ballast should have the impedance and the electrical characteristics required by the lamp being tested to prevent the measured characteristics from differing from those stated by the lamp manufacturer. DOE notes that a ballast with different electrical characteristics, regardless of its impedance, can materially alter the measured electrical characteristics of the lamp.20 If electrical readings are to be taken on a lamp for which no ANSI standard exists, DOE proposes that the HID reference ballast have impedance appropriate for the lamp as specified in the standards incorporated by reference in ANSI C78.389.

DOE has determined that reference ballasts are readily available, based on review of industry literature, communication with independent testing laboratories, and communication with industry, and that their use is likely to provide repeatable and consistent measurements. DOE invites comment on its proposed reference ballast requirements based on ANSI C78.389.

DOE proposes to adopt the electrical and photometric instrumentation requirements of ANSI C78.389 and LM-51, respectively, for its HID lamp test procedures. The instruments proposed here for electrical measurements are described in ANSI C78.389, section 3.8. The instruments proposed here for photometric instruments are described in LM-51, section 9.0. These instrumentation requirements for electrical and photometric measurements are detailed in the following sections.

DOE proposes that instruments used for electrical measurements be accurate to better than 0.75 percent over a frequency range of 40 to 1000 Hz, with calibration capability (e.g.,scale calibration). These accuracy and range requirements are the same as the industry requirement in ANSI C78.389, section 3.8.1.

DOE also proposes that instrument impedance be high compared to the load impedance (high impedance is typically in the megaohm range) for voltage measurements, and low compared to the load impedance (low impedance is typically in the milliohm range) for current measurements to reduce the effects of the measurement instrumentation in the circuit. Specifically, for lamp current measurements, instruments connected in series with the HID lamp being tested would have an impedance such that the voltage drop remains at or below 2 percent (1 percent for HPS lamps) of the rated lamp voltage under the proposal, unless the instrument impedance has already been included as part of the reference ballast impedance. If corrections for the presence of instrumentation in the circuit are to be avoided, the voltage drop shall be at or below 0.75 percent (0.50 percent for HPS lamps) of the rated lamp voltage. For lamp voltage measurements, instruments connected in parallel with the lamp being tested are proposed to not draw more than 1 percent of the rated lamp current. If the correction due to the presence of such instruments is to be avoided, then the current draw is proposed to be limited to 0.5 percent of the rated lamp current. These proposals are consistent with section 3.8.2 of ANSI C78.389.

DOE proposes that instruments selected for HID lamp voltage and current measurement be of the true RMS type and have a specified accuracy and frequency response adequate to meet the specified uncertainty requirements (i.e.,±0.5 percent for voltage and current and ±0.75 percent for wattage).

DOE proposes that the photometer have a relative spectral responsivity that approximates that of the human eye (i.e.,the V-lambda (V(λ)) function). DOE accepts use of either an integrating sphere or a goniophotometer for such measurements. DOE proposes that photometric measurements of color characteristics be specified in terms of the CIE colorimetry system and CRI. LM-51 provides further details regarding photometric measurements as well as colorimetry and CRI.

In the case of integrating sphere measurements, the spectral responsivity would be measured taking into account the relative spectral throughput of the sphere and detector spectral responsivity.21 The detector used in an integrating sphere measurement must have a wide field of view (approximating a cosine response) to maximize the sampled area of the sphere wall during measurement. If a diffuser is used on the detector, its surface would need to be mounted flush with the sphere wall.

An integrating sphere for luminous flux measurements must be large enough to allow the sphere's interior ambient temperature to reach thermal equilibrium at the specified ambient temperature and to permit the internal baffle(s) to be small relative to the size of the integrating sphere.

For measurements using a goniophotometer, DOE proposes that the detector required for intensity distribution measurements have a cosine response. This proposed requirement is particularly important for those cases in which the calibration source subtends a smaller viewing angle than the test source. The intensity distribution around a lamp would be determined with a photometer at a recommended minimum distance of five times the longest dimension of the lamp. The axis of rotation used to vary the angle between the lamp and the detector is to preserve the lamp orientation relative to the detector to provide measurement consistency and repeatability.

These proposals are consistent with LM-51-00. DOE invites comment on these proposed requirements for instrumentation.

For HID lamp testing, DOE proposes that the energy efficiency characteristics of each basic model be determined using these test procedures. As discussed in section III.A.2, a “basic model” is a group of lamp models that are essentially identical in design and performance. The rated performance characteristics proposed to be measured (i.e.,lumen output, CCT, and CRI) should be similar for all of the lamps represented by a basic model.

For HID lamp testing, DOE proposes a lamp sampling method similar to that used for general service fluorescent lamps, incandescent reflector lamps, and general service incandescent lamps (GSFL/GSIL/IRL).22 10 CFR 430.27(a)(2)(i)-(ii)

DOE proposes to adopt the lamp sampling method from 10 CFR 429.27 for HID lamp testing as follows:

For each basic model of HID lamps, samples of production lamps from a minimum sample size of 21 lamps are to be tested, and the results for all samples are to be averaged over a consecutive 12-month period. The manufacturer is to randomly select a minimum of three lamps from each month of production for a minimum of 7 months out of the 12-month period. If production occurs during fewer than 7 of such 12 months, the manufacturer is to randomly select three or more lamps from each month of production, and the number of lamps selected for each month is to be distributed as evenly as practicable among the months of production to obtain a minimum sample of 21 lamps. Due to inherent uncertainty in any sample measurement, the confidence limit is set to 95 percent based on the sample's statistical t-test.23 Any represented characteristic value of a basic model is to be based on this sample and this characteristic value is to be no greater than the lower of:

(A) The mean of the sample, where:

(B) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the characteristic value true mean divided by 0.97, where:

In determining the proposed sampling plan requirements, DOE reviewed sample size requirements for voluntary programs for HID lamps (ENERGY STAR®), European testing requirements, and sample size requirements for other lighting technologies.

ENERGY STAR luminaires (i.e.,light fixtures) specification includes testing requirements for luminaires using HID lamps. Metal halide (quartz and ceramic) and HPS lamps are the only HID lamps allowed for ENERGY STAR-qualified luminaires. ENERGY STAR lamp-ballast efficacy testing requires a minimum sample of three lamp-ballast combinations. The remaining ENERGY STAR criteria (CCT, CRI, and lumen maintenance) require a minimum 10 samples of each lamp model be tested.

In 2009, Commission Regulation (EC) No 245 was published in theOfficial Journal of the European Union.This document included both energy efficiency standards and testing requirements for fluorescent and HID lamps. Annex IV of the document defines the sample size for all lamps as a total of 20 lamps of the same model and from the same manufacturer, randomly selected.

DOE also surveyed testing requirements for non-HID light sources. In 2011, the IES published TM-21-11, which provides the methodology for the lumen maintenance of light-emitting diode (LED) sources and requires a sample size of 20 LEDs. Covered lighting products and equipment where non-power values are being measured(e.g.,lumens, CCT, CRI, lumen maintenance) typically have sample sizes of 21 including general service fluorescent, general service incandescent, and incandescent reflector lamps (10 CFR 429.27) and candelabra base incandescent lamps and intermediate base incandescent lamps (10 CFR 429.40). Bared or covered (no reflector) medium base compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), however, have sample sizes that vary with the value being measured. Only 5 lamps are needed for efficacy or lumen maintenance, 6 unique (and not previously tested) lamps are required for rapid cycle stress testing, and a minimum of 10 units are required for life testing for these CFLs.

Based on its review of sample size requirements, DOE proposes to use a sample size of 21 for HID lamps. This is the same requirement as GSFL/GSIL/IRL, and is similar to the European Union's requirement of 20 samples. An odd number of lamps is required to establish a majority of surviving or failed lamps for life testing, whereas an even number could produce a 50-50 split. Although lamp life is not a metric required in these proposed test procedures, manufacturers will likely use the same set of lamps for life testing as they do for the lumen maintenance testing. The sample size of 21 addresses the variability in lamp production, and the 95 percent confidence limit minimizes the tolerances in the testing instrumentation.

In summary, DOE proposes to base the sampling method for HID lamp testing on the method set forth in 10 CFR 429.27. For each basic model of HID lamp, DOE proposes that the same samples be used for measuring color characteristics as were used for luminous output (i.e.,lumens and candelas (where required)) and power. The sampling method for HID lamps would be set forth as a new section in 10 CFR part 429. DOE invites comment on the accuracy and applicability of the proposed sampling method, and whether an alternative sampling method would be more appropriate for HID lamps.

For HID lamp testing, DOE proposes a lamp aging method based on ANSI C78.389, section 3.7, to ensure stable photometric, color, and electrical characteristics of the lamp being tested. Aging is performed once, for 100 hours, on every lamp before stabilization and testing. ANSI C78.389, section 3.7, requires that, during the aging period, the lamp be operated in the same orientation in which it will be used.25 DOE invites comment on the proposed lamp aging method for HID lamp testing. Standard lamp orientation(burning position) would be base up unless otherwise designated by the manufacturer.26

Lamps being tested for lumen maintenance are proposed to be operated with an appropriately rated ballast as described in section III.B.1.c, or power source under specified normal operating conditions, defined in the following sections, and be operated in the same orientation used for the test procedures.

DOE also proposes a lamp stabilization method based on ANSI C78.389, section 3.7. Under this proposal, after its one-time aging period, a lamp being tested should achieve stable operation prior to any measurements. DOE included metal halide lamp operational stability in the MH lamp ballast test procedures final rule, determining operational stability for tested ballasts based on three consecutive measurements of lamp power, 5 minutes apart, in which the three measurements had to remain within 2.5 percent tolerance. 75 FR at 10958 (March 9, 2010). As detailed in ANSI C78.389, section 3.7, HID lamp stabilization requirements vary with lamp type. Table III.1 lists the lamp warm-up, stabilization, and re-stabilization requirements for MV, HPS, and MH lamps under ANSI C78.289. For example, MV lamps require a 15 to 20 minute warm-up period, with stable operation indicated by three consecutive measurements of the lamp's electrical characteristics over a 15 minute period that vary by 1 percent or less.

For HID lamp testing, DOE proposes to adopt the more detailed lamp-specific stabilization requirements of ANSI C78.389, section 3.7, as shown in Table III.1. DOE invites comment on these proposed requirements, as well as any appropriate alternative lamp stabilization procedures.

DOE proposes to adopt the lamp transfer and re-stabilization methods of ANSI C78.389, section 3.7, for HID lamp testing. HID lamps are very sensitive to movement once they are warmed up and stabilized. Therefore, any significant movement or disturbance could destabilize the lamp operation, altering its output or electrical characteristics and requiring the lamp to be re-stabilized prior to testing. The re-stabilization time varies by lamp type, whether the lamp arc has been extinguished, and whether lamp orientation has changed. Lamps are often “pre-burned” on a different ballast than that used for final electrical and photometric testing, which requires moving and re-stabilizing the lamp before final testing can begin.

The lamp cool down and transfer requirements of ANSI C78.389, section 3.7, are shown in Table III.2. The requirements vary by HID lamp type and with the specifics of the lamp movement. Under ANSI requirements, MH lamps that will be physically relocated without a change in orientation must be allowed to cool to 60 °C before moving and then be warmed up for 30 minutes in the new location before stabilization measurements may begin. If its orientation changes, the MH lamp is to be operated for 6 hours in the final testing orientation before stabilization measurements may be taken. HPS lamps require a cooling period of at least 1 hour before the lamps may be moved and restarted prior to stabilization measurements. MV lamps do not require cooling, but must be warmed up before stabilization measurements may be taken after the lamps are moved.

Alternatively, LM-51, section 6.2, states that stabilization may be minimized by switching the lamp between ballasts without extinguishing the arc. Less warm-up time is required if the two ballasts being switched are electrically equivalent; otherwise, an additional warm-up period of 5 to 10 minutes may be required. According to LM-51, section 6.2, some HID lamps may require a brief cooling period before testing may be restarted, in which case another 10 to 30 minutes of warm-up time may be required before stabilization measurements may be taken. LM-51 does not specifically give guidance regarding the cooling requirements, whereas ANSI C78.389 gives specific requirements (e.g.,time or temperature) for cooling. LM-51 also generalizes re-stabilization, whereas ANSI C78.389 provides specific guidance for re-stabilization requirements for each of the HID lamp types. Therefore, given the sensitivity to movement of certain types of HID lamps, DOE has opted for the ANSI C78.389 re-stabilization requirements.

In summary, DOE proposes to adopt the lamp transfer and re-stabilization methods of ANSI C78.389, section 3.7, for HID lamp testing, as summarized in Table III.2. DOE invites comment on these proposed methods, as well as any alternative appropriate lamp transfer and re-stabilization methods.

DOE proposes to adopt the lamp orientation requirements of ANSI C78.389, section 3.6, for HID lamp testing. Lamp orientation is critical for the testing of most HID lamps, and industry procedures have been developed to ensure the correct orientation is maintained for consistent electrical and photometric measurements.

ANSI C78.389, section 3.6, requires that a lamp marked or designated on the lamp's data sheet for use in a specific operating position be tested in that position. If no operating position is specified or the lamp is marked “universal,” the lamp is to be operated in the base up position.

In contrast, LM-51 does not contain lamp orientation requirements for testing, except to note that lamp orientation during warm-up must be the same as that during photometry. LM-51 also states that the manufacturer's specifications should be consulted for any restrictions on lamp orientation.

In summary, DOE proposes to adopt the more specific lamp orientation requirements of ANSI C78.389, section 3.6, for HID lamp testing because ANSI provides specific guidance for both MH and MV lamps where lamp position is critical. ANSI C78.389 also provides default guidance if no position is specified. DOE invites comment on these proposed requirements, as well as on any appropriate alternative lamp testing orientation requirements.

Directional lamps, which are typically reflector lamps with a discernible beam pattern, have different set-up and measurement requirements than do omni-directional lamps. Care must be taken to ensure a directional lamp is properly positioned prior to testing for accurate measurement of center beam intensity and beam angle. There are also additional calculations required to determine the beam angle of directional lamps. DOE proposes that set-up and measurement of directional lamps be done in accordance with ANSI C78.379, which provides classification of beam patterns and specification of directional lamp measurement and evaluation. DOE invites comment on its proposal to adopt the test methods outlined in ANSI C78.379 for directional lamps.

DOE proposes to adopt the requirements for selecting testing laboratories for HID lamps from the GSFL/GSIL/IRL test procedures final rule. 74 FR 31829, 31841 (July 6, 2009). That rule states that testing is to be conducted by test laboratories accredited by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or by an accrediting organization recognized by NVLAP. NVLAP establishes standards for the accreditation of laboratories that test for compliance with relevant industry standards pursuant to 15 CFR 285.3. A manufacturer's or importer's own laboratory, if accredited, may be used to conduct the applicable testing. 15 CFR 285.3

DOE invites comment on these proposed requirements, as well as any alternative requirements for testing laboratory selection.

DOE proposes that HID lamp efficacy be calculated as the lumen output divided by the input lamp wattage measured, with the resulting quotient rounded off to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. This requirement is consistent with the 2009 GSFL/GSIL/IRL test procedures final rule, in which DOE required testing to a tenth of a lumen per watt. 74 FR 31829, 31836 (July 6, 2009). DOE invites comment on this proposed efficacy calculation method.

As indicated in section III.B.3, directional lamps have different set-up and measurement requirements than do omni-directional lamps. DOE proposes to adopt the procedure described in ANSI C78.379 for measuring center beam intensity, beam angle, and other relevant characteristics of directional lamps with symmetrical or asymmetrical beams. For lamps with complex beam patterns (e.g.,containing multiple lobes of varying intensity), DOE proposes to adopt the procedure described in ANSI C78.379, annex A, for HID lamp testing. DOE invites comment on the proposed test procedures, as well as any appropriate alternative test procedures for center beam intensity measurement.

DOE received comments on the proposed HID lamps determination from NEMA supporting DOE's inclusion of lumen maintenance in potential energy conservation standards. (Docket No. EERE-2006-DET-0112, NEMA, No. 0021 at p. 2) DOE proposes to include measuring lumen maintenance (i.e.,the percentage (or fraction) of lamp light output relative to initial output, over time) for HID lamps. As discussed in the HID lamp determination technical support document, different manufacturers choose different points of rated life to measure lumen maintenance for the different HID lamps.27 The proposed DOE test method for lumen maintenance would provide a standard measurement for this metric. In addition, lumen maintenance is a more significant issue for HID lamps than for other electric lamps, and DOE already measures lumen maintenance for compact fluorescent lamps, using the procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix W. For HID lamp testing, DOE proposes to adopt the test method described in LM-47, wherein lamp lumen maintenance is determined after initial lamp aging and initial lumen output measurement. At a minimum, the lumen maintenance measurements are to be collected at 40 percent and 70percent of rated lamp life, as described in LM-47.

DOE invites comment on the proposed test method, as well as any appropriate alternative test method for determining HID lamp lumen maintenance.

DOE proposes to adopt CCT and CRI measurement methods based on CIE 15 and CIE 13.3. The CIE is internationally accepted as the authority for industry standards and references for color, colorimetry, and related practices and procedures. CIE recommendations are peer-reviewed by committee and revised and expanded as needed given new developments in lighting practice and science. DOE has previously incorporated these standards in the GSFL/GSIL/IRL test procedures final rule. 74 FR 31829, 31834 (July 6, 2009).

In the past, DOE has used CCT to define and categorize certain kinds of lamps (e.g.,modified-spectrum fluorescent and incandescent lamps, and general service fluorescent lamps). DOE also created product classes and set efficacy standards based on CCT in the GSFL/GSIL/IRL test procedures final rule. 74 FR at 34097 (July 6, 2009). DOE is considering chromaticity (CCT) as a means to define equipment classes and set energy conservation standards for HID lamps. Currently, there are no industry-accepted color/chromaticity guidelines for HID lamps. DOE examined industry practices and, in particular, the recommendations from IES and CIE organization and industry standards regarding color. For HID lamp testing, DOE proposes to adopt the procedures and methods in CIE 15 to determine HID lamp CCT.

DOE is also considering CRI as a means to define equipment classes and set energy conservation standards for HID lamps. DOE proposes to adopt the methods and procedures set forth in CIE 13.3 to determine lamp CRI. In particular, the methods identified in CIE 13.3 determine a set of 14 special CRI values, 8 of which are used to calculate the lamp CRI.28 29

DOE invites comment on the proposal to adopt the procedures and methods set forth in CIE 15 to determine lamp CCT, and the procedure and methods in CIE 13.3 to determine CRI, as well as any appropriate alternative methods for determining these lamp color properties.

As discussed previously in section II, there is no standby mode or off mode energy use by HID lamps. DOE has preliminarily concluded that HID lamps do not operate in a standby or off mode. If a covered product is a single-function product and does not offer any secondary user-oriented or protective functions, it does not satisfy the EPCA definition for “standby mode.” (42 U.S.C. 6259(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) All covered equipment that meets a relevant definition of HID lamp is single-function equipment that does not offer any secondary user-oriented or protective functions, thus HID lamps do not operate in standby mode. With respect to off mode, HID lamps must be entirely disconnected from the main power source (i.e.,the lamp is switched off) in order to not provide any active mode or standby mode functions (i.e.,emit light or instant start readiness state), to meet the second provision in the definition of “off mode.” (42 U.S.C. 6259(gg)(1)(A)(ii))30 Therefore, DOE has determined that the HID lamps that are the subject of this rulemaking do not operate in standby mode or off mode, and does not propose to incorporate a test method for either of these modes into the test procedures for HID lamps.31

The effective date for these test procedures would be 30 days after publication of any final test procedures in theFederal Register.

The compliance date for making any representations of the energy efficiency derived from the test procedures is 180 days from the date of the publication of any final test procedures in theFederal Register. On or after that date, any such representations, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, would be required to be based on results generated under the final test procedures and the applicable sampling plans.

Until DOE establishes energy conservation standards for HID lamps, manufacturers, including importers, are not required to submit compliance statements or certification reports for HID lamps. DOE will address these requirements should DOE establish energy conservation standards for HID lamps.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the 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 (Aug.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 DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's web site:http://www.gc.doe.gov.

Today's proposed rule would adopt test procedures for HID lamps based on active industry testing standards, ANSI C78.379, ANSI C78.389, CIE 13.3, CIE 15, IES LM-47, and IES LM-51. DOEhas reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. For the reasons explained as follows, DOE certifies that this test procedure rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set size standards for an entity to be classified as a “small business” for the purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis. DOE used the SBA's size standards to determine whether any small entities would be required to comply with the rule.See13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry description and are available athttp://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. DOE identified applicable size standards for HID lamp manufacturers as NAICS 335110, “Electric Lamp Bulb and Part Manufacturing,” and NAICS 335121, “Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing.” The SBA's size standard for the respective NAICS codes are 1,000 employees or less (NAICS 335110) and 500 employees or less (NAICS 335121).

DOE examined small business manufacturers of equipment covered by this rulemaking to determine whether any of these manufacturers qualified as a small business under the SBA size standards. DOE conducted a market survey in which it reviewed industry trade association membership directories (including NEMA), individual company Web sites, and marketing research tools (e.g.,Dun and Bradstreet reports, Manta) to create a list of companies that manufacture or sell HID lamps covered by this rulemaking. Using these sources, DOE identified 15 possible manufacturers of HID lamps. Table IV.1 lists these manufacturers, the primary NAICS code for the company, and the SBA size standard for the applicable NAICS code.

Of the 15 companies listed in the table,32 DOE could not identify any small business manufacturers. All of the companies either exceeded the applicable size standard, were foreign owned and operated, or were not manufacturers of HID lamps.

In addition, DOE notes that the proposed test procedures for HID lamps are based on test procedures developed and already in general use by industry. These are the same industry standards that manufacturers would need for existing voluntary performance standards, such as the ENERGY STAR program requirements that are the basis for the proposed test procedures. The costs of this testing are described in the following paragraph.

DOE reviewed the potential costs for testing basic models of HID lamps for lumen output, power input, lumen maintenance, color characteristics, and, when applicable, intensity. Recently, NEMA provided a detailed list of costs for testing the lifetime of general service incandescent lamps. Although this is a different product, the two test procedures share elements. Per NEMA's itemized list, $66 is needed for materials per lamp tested and labor and benefits equate to $30 per lamp tested. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0012, NEMA, No. 0008 at p. 4) The HID lamps test procedures involve more tasks (i.e.,measuring lumens, measuring power, measuring color characteristics, lumen maintenance) than a lifetime test (e.g.,operating the lamps until a sample population fails); therefore, labor and material costs will probably be somewhat greater for the HID test procedures. DOE estimates approximately between $100 to $200 in both materials and labor per lamp for the HID lamp test procedures. Therefore, with a sample size of 21, the total costs per basic model are between $2,100 and $4,200.

In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to require test facilities conducting HID lamp efficacy, color, and lumen maintenance testing to be accredited by NVLAP or an organization recognized by NVLAP. When accreditation is sought for the first time, DOE has determined that NVLAP imposes fees of $9,000 and $8,000 on years one and two of accreditation, respectively. For the years following, the fees alternate between $5,000 and $8,000, with the $8,000 fee corresponding to the on-site evaluation required every other year. DOE does not expect this requirement to impose a significant additional burden for most manufacturers. Most HID lamp manufacturers also make other lamps that are currently covered products (e.g.,GSFL, GSIL, IRL, medium-base compact fluorescent lamps). The test procedures for those lamps already require a laboratory accredited by NVLAP or an NVLAP-recognized organization.

Because the proposed test procedure incorporates the same industry standards that manufacturers would need for existing voluntary performance standards, such as the ENERGY STAR program requirements that are the basis for the proposed test procedures, and because NVLAP certification is already required for other types of lamps typically made by HID manufacturers,DOE does not find that the requirements in this document would result in any significant increase in testing costs.

For the reasons stated in this section, DOE certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE's certification and supporting statement of factual basis will be provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). DOE seeks comment regarding whether the proposed amendments in today's rule would have a significant economic effect on any small entities.

There is currently no information collection requirement related to the test procedure for HID lamps. In the event that DOE proposes an energy conservation standard with which manufacturers must demonstrate compliance, or otherwise proposes to require the collection of information derived from the testing of HID lamps according to this test procedure, DOE will seek OMB approval of such information collection requirement.

Manufacturers of covered products must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standard developed by DOE. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the applicable DOE test procedure, including any amendments adopted for that test procedure.

DOE established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for certain covered consumer products and commercial equipment. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping was subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement was approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification was estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

As stated above, in the event DOE proposes an energy conservation standard for HID lamps with which manufacturers must demonstrate compliance, DOE will seek OMB approval of the associated information collection requirement. DOE will seek approval either through a proposed amendment to the information collection requirement approved under OMB Control Number 1910-1400 or as a separate proposed information collection requirement.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedures that it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for HID lamps. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this proposed rule would establish test procedures without affecting the amount, quality, or distribution of energy usage, and therefore would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to 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 at13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the equipment that are the subject of today's proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 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; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (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 sections 3(a) and 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, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

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, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likelyto 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; also available athttp://www.gc.doe.gov.DOE examined today's proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

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 rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for 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 today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated 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.

Today's regulatory action to create the test procedures for measuring the energy efficiency of HID lamps is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.

The proposed test procedures incorporate testing methods contained in the following commercial standards:

DOE evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act, (i.e.,that they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). Before prescribing a final rule, DOE will consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the effect of these test procedures on competition.

The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in theDATESandADDRESSESsections at the beginning of this document. If you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 orBrenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.As explained in theADDRESSESsection, foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures.

In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web sitehttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/high_intensity_discharge_lamps.html. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in theADDRESSESsection at the beginning of this notice. The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, if needed.

DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.

The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.

At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.

A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in theDocketsection at the beginning of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in theDATESsection at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods described in theADDRESSESsection at the beginning of this notice.

Submitting comments via regulations.gov.The regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.

However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.

Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.

DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail.Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. Email submissions are preferred. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.

Campaign form letters.Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time.

Confidential Business Information.According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: one copy of the document markedconfidential including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).

DOE proposes that HID lamp efficacy testing be based on the industry standards ANSI C78.379, ANSI C78.389, CIE 13.3, CIE 15, LM-47, and LM-51.

DOE invites comments and data on the proposed HID lamp test procedures. Although comments are welcome on all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE is particularly interested in comments on the following:

DOE seeks comments on all of the proposed definitions in this NOPR; see section III.A.

DOE invites comments and data on the applicability of the proposed ambient test temperature requirements (25 °C ±5 °C) based on ANSI C78.389. DOE is particularly interested in comments on whether an alternate set of ambient test conditions might be more appropriate for HID lamp testing. See section III.B.1.a.i for a discussion of the proposed ambient temperature conditions.

DOE invites comments and data on the appropriateness of adopting the maximum air speed limit (5 ≤ meters per second) for HID lamp testing that DOE required for the MH lamp ballast test procedures. See section III.B.1.a.ii for a discussion of the proposed air movement requirements.

DOE invites comments on the appropriateness of adopting the waveshape and power source impedance requirements set forth in ANSI C78.389 and the voltage regulation requirement set forth in LM-51, as summarized and discussed in section III.B.1.b.

DOE invites comments on the proposed reference ballast requirements and the appropriateness of adopting the recommendations in ANSI C78.389, as summarized and discussed in section III.B.1.c.

DOE invites comments on the proposed instrumentation specifications and the appropriateness of adopting these requirements from the industry standards ANSI C78.389, section 3.8, and LM-51, section 9.0, as summarized and discussed in section III.B.1.d.

DOE invites comments and data on the precision and applicability of the proposed sample of 21 for HID lamps for testing. DOE seeks comments on whether an alternative sampling method exists that might be more appropriate for HID lamps. See section III.B.2.b for a discussion of the proposed sampling method.

DOE invites comments and data on the applicability of the proposed 100-hour lamp aging requirement and lamp stabilization method, both of which are set forth in ANSI C78.389, section 3.7. DOE is particularly interested in whether a preferred lamp aging or lamp stabilization approach exists within the industry. See section III.B.2.c for a discussion of the proposed lamp aging and stabilization conditions and requirements.

DOE has proposed that lamp transfer and re-stabilization methods of HID lamps be performed using the method described in section 3.7 of ANSI C78.389. DOE invites data and comments on whether an alternative method for re-stabilization after lamp transfer should be considered. See section III.B.2.d for a discussion of the method for lamp transfer and re-stabilization.

DOE invites comments on the appropriateness of DOE's proposed adoption of the lamp orientation requirements specified in section 3.6 of ANSI C78.389, which require base up positioning unless the manufacturer specifies a different orientation on the lamp, lamp packaging, or lamp data sheet. DOE also seeks comments on whether a preferred lamp orientation approach exists within the industry for lamp testing. See section III.B.2.e for a discussion of the proposed lamp orientation requirements.

DOE invites comments on the proposed set-up and measurement methods for directional lamps based on ANSI C78.379. See section III.B.3 for a discussion of proposed beam angle calculations, and section III.D.2 for a discussion of proposed test set-up and measurement requirements.

DOE has proposed adopting the lab accreditation plan in the GSFL/GSIL/IRL test procedures, which would require laboratories that have been accredited by NVLAP or by an accrediting organization recognized by NVLAP for the testing of HID lamps. DOE invites comments on whether additional or alternative requirements for testing laboratories should be considered. See section III.C for a discussion of the proposed laboratory accreditation program.

DOE invites data and comments on the applicability of the proposed measurement and calculation of lamp efficacy procedures for omni-directional lamps, as well as the proposed efficiency measurements and calculation procedures for directional lamps using center beam intensity and beam angle. DOE also seeks comment on the measurement methods proposed for lumen maintenance and color characteristics (CCT and CRI) according to the requirements of ANSI C78.379, CIE 13.3, CIE 15, IES LM-47, and LM-51. See section III.E for a discussion of the proposed testing measurements and calculations.

DOE seeks comments on its reasoning that the proposed test procedures will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 429 and 431 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth as follows.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-1321; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-045-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

On October 26, 2005, we issued AD 2005-23-02, Amendment 39-14360 (70 FR 69067, November 14, 2005). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on Airbus Model A319-100 Series Airplanes, Model A320-111 airplanes, Model A320-200 series airplanes, and Model A321-100 series airplanes.

Since we issued AD 2005-23-02, Amendment 39-14360 (70 FR 69067, November 14, 2005), The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0177, dated August 30, 2010 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A320-28-1162, Revision 02, dated December 18, 2009. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information.

We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 721 products of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2005-23-02, Amendment 39-14360 (70 FR 69067, November 14, 2005) and retained in this proposed AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions is $85 per product.

We estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $183,855, or $255 per product.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under theADDRESSESsection. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-1320; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-208-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, tohttp://www.regulations.gov,including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We have received four reports of retaining cross bolt hardware not fully engaged into the fuse pins of the MLG forward trunnion lower housing. Reports indicated the incorrectly installed cross bolts were found during a scheduled C-check inspection, an MLG replacement, a 4C inspection, and a hard landing inspection. All findings indicated that the cross bolt and lock wire were intact, but the cross bolt had not properly engaged in the fuse pin. The cross bolt and lock wire are used to prevent the fuse pin from migrating out of position. A migrated or missing fuse pin in the MLG forward trunnion lower housing can cause the remaining fuse pins in the MLG forward trunnion upper and lower housing to wear at a faster rate and also result in possible failure of the adjacent fuse pins in the MLG forward trunnion upper and lower housing. Failure of the fuse pins in the MLG forward trunnion upper and lower housing could result in an incorrect emergency landing MLG break-away sequence, which will cause the MLG to puncture the wing box and consequent fuel leaks and possible airplane fire. Failure of the fuse pins could also result in a premature landing gear collapse causing a runway excursion during take-off or landing.

We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0090, dated August 24, 2011. This service information describes procedures for doing a detailed inspection of the fuse pin cross bolts and fuse pins of the left and right MLG forward trunnion lower housing to verify that the cross bolts are correctlyinstalled and that there are no missing fuse pins, and replacing all fuse pins in the MLG forward trunnion upper and lower housing with new fuse pins if necessary.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.

We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 166 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements.

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

On September 21, 2011, the Postal Service published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (the Advance Notice) in theFederal Registersoliciting public comment on a conceptual proposal to revise service standards for market-dominant products.1 The comment period for the Advance Notice closed on October 21, 2011. Having developed the concept into a concrete proposal, the Postal Service is now publishing and soliciting public comment on proposed revisions to the service standard regulations contained in 39 CFR part 121. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3661(b), the Postal Service has also requested an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission regarding the proposed revisions.2

In the Advance Notice, the Postal Service explained that the growing excess capacity in its mail processing network has led it to consider significantly consolidating that network. The excess capacity stems largely from falling mail volumes, particularly in First-Class Mail. Annual First-Class Mail volume peaked in 2001 at 103.7 billion pieces; it has fallen about 30 billion pieces since then, or 29 percent. The Postal Service's mail processing network was designed principally to achieve First-Class Mail service standards, and the decline in First-Class Mail volume has made it difficult for the Postal Service to consolidate the network quickly enough to align with current volumes.

The Postal Service stated in the Advance Notice that further changes to align the mail processing network will for the most part be unachievable without a relaxation of certain market-dominant service standards, particularly for First-Class Mail. The Postal Service set forth a proposal to eliminate the overnight service standard for First-Class Mail, narrow the product's two-day delivery range, and enlarge its three-day delivery range. The proposal also contemplated similar changes to the Periodicals service standards, because those service standards are linked to First-Class Mail service standards. The Postal Service further noted that the proposal could entail minor changes to Standard Mail service standards, and it stated that all Postal Service products could experience changes in specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pairs' transit times.

The Postal Service explained in the Advance Notice that the proposal could make possible a significant modification of the mail processing network, betteraligning the network with current and future mail volumes, and that the proposal could lead to significant cost savings. The Postal Service also described some of the effects the proposal could have on mail users. The Postal Service solicited public comment on all aspects of the proposal.

The Postal Service received over 4,200 comments in response to the Advance Notice, from a variety of sources, including retail customers, small businesses, periodicals publishers, parcel shippers, nonprofit mailers, commercial mail advertisers, mailer trade associations, postal unions and associations, state and local governments, members of Congress, and others. The majority of commenters expressed opposition to the proposal. Some commenters, while not opposed to the proposal, raised concerns regarding it. Some commenters requested more information. A minority of commenters supported the proposal.

Commenters who opposed the proposal cited a number of reasons for their opposition. Some stated that the current service standards constitute an essential component of the mail, without which the mail would lose its utility to those who rely upon it most, such as the elderly, those who cannot access the internet, and those who live in rural areas. They pointed out that the proposal could cause delayed receipt of vital checks and medicines and could lead to more late fees being levied by financial institutions. They stated that the proposal would lead to lower mail volumes and revenue for the Postal Service, would hurt many businesses that rely on the mail, and would damage the economy generally. Numerous commenters expressed concern regarding the impact that the closures of processing facilities would have on local communities.

Some commenters questioned whether the Postal Service's financial difficulties are significant enough to require major changes. Others suggested that the Postal Service seek to improve its financial position through other means, such as pricing and legislative changes, rather than lengthen service standards. Some commenters stated that the proposal violates the statutes governing the Postal Service, and they questioned whether the Postal Service has considered all of the requisite statutory factors in forming its proposal.

Commenters also requested more information about the proposal. Commenters asked for a calculation of the cost savings and revenue loss that would result from the proposal. They stated that the mailing industry needs comprehensive information on how the proposal would alter the service standards between each 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pair and Critical Entry Times. They requested an implementation timeline, including the sequence in which facilities would be closed.

Some commenters questioned whether the Postal Service would be able to maintain its current on-time delivery performance, given the longer distances that mail will be transported to and from processing facilities. Many mailers expressed concern regarding how Business Mail Entry Units (BMEUs) and Detached Mail Units (DMUs) would be affected by the proposal; for example, they asked whether BMEUs would be maintained at sites where processing facilities are closed, and whether “stand-alone” BMEUs might be established in more central locations. Mailers expressed concern that, after the consolidation of a significant number of processing facilities, there could be congestion at the loading docks of the remaining facilities.

Mailers sought clarification on how the Postal Service will transition customer mailing accounts if acceptance units are closed or consolidated, and whether existing permits could continue to be used at new acceptance units. Some mailers inquired whether the Postal Service would create single permits for customers that mail at multiple origin offices. More generally, many commenters asked how the Postal Service would communicate the changes associated with the proposal both to commercial customers and to the public at large.

The Postal Service has decided to continue pursuing the proposal, with some changes, by issuing proposed rules.3 The Postal Service acknowledges that the proposal would cause difficulty for some customers, and would, to some degree, reduce the value of the mail to customers. However, it believes that, on balance, the proposal is in the long-term interests of the Postal Service, and that it will help maintain the viability of the Postal Service for all customers into the future. The Postal Service believes that the proposal conforms to the policies of Title 39 and, in particular, to the factors and objectives set forth in subsections (b)(1) and (c) of 39 U.S.C. 3691 for designing and revising market-dominant service standards.4

The primary reality driving the proposal is the decline in First-Class Mail volume. As noted above, annual First-Class Mail volume has declined 29 percent over the last decade. The Postal Service expects this volume to decline faster in the next decade—the Postal Service forecasts annual First-Class Mail volume to fall from 73.5 billion pieces in 2011 to 39 billion pieces in 2020, a decline of 47 percent from the 2011 level. The mail processing network was designed principally to achieve First-Class Mail service standards, and if the network does not undergo significant consolidation, it will be vastly oversized for the amount of First-Class Mail volume it processes. As the Postal Service has stated, a significant consolidation of the mail processing network is not possible without adjusting market-dominant service standards.

In regard to commenters' concern that the proposal will exacerbate volume declines, the Postal Service has conducted market research to determine how retail and commercial customers would react to the proposal. Based on this market research, the Postal Service estimates that the proposal will lead to an additional 1.9 percent decline in First-Class Mail (approximately 1.5 billion pieces), based on 2010 volume.5 In light of the forecast 47 percent decline in annual First-Class Mail volume by 2020, the Postal Service believes that the additional 1.9 percent decline is, while unfortunate, acceptable.

The Postal Service has also calculated the cost savings that will likely accrue to the Postal Service upon full implementation of the proposal, by reviewing all of the operational changes that would occur if the proposal were to be implemented, and then quantifying the costs that would be saved as a result of those changes. The Postal Service believes that these cost savings will totalapproximately $2.6 billion annually.6 The data produced by the Postal Service's market research indicate that the proposal would lead to an annual loss of $1.3 billion in revenue, which translates to $0.5 billion in lost contribution. Subtracting this contribution loss from the cost savings yields a net annual benefit of $2.1 billion to the Postal Service. Given the multi-billion dollar deficits that the Postal Service has experienced in each of the last five years, and given the over $14 billion dollar loss it expects in 2012,7 capturing cost savings wherever possible will be vital to the Postal Service's financial viability. The Postal Service believes that the present proposal's estimated $2.1 billion in net annual benefit will, along with other initiatives and measures, help return the Postal Service to a fiscally sound position.

To provide detail on the potential impact of the proposal on the service standards between specific 3-digit ZIP Code origin-destination pairs, the Postal Service has published an illustrative Service Standard Directory (SSD) athttp://about.usps.com/news/facility-studies/. The SSD lists the service standards that would exist in a potential realigned network. Because the proposal could change prior to implementation or possibly not be implemented, and because the actual changes that ultimately occur will depend on the outcome of numerous Area Mail Processing studies, the SSD list is only hypothetical and illustrative. For the same reasons, the Postal Service does not presently have an implementation timeline or a planned sequence in which facilities would be closed.

The Postal Service believes that, if the proposal is implemented, the Postal Service will achieve the same rates of success in meeting the new service standards as it currently achieves in meeting the existing service standards. In response to mailers' concerns regarding BMEUs, the Postal Service will, wherever practicable, retain BMEUs in facilities where processing operations are eliminated. Where this is not practicable, the Postal Service will set up new acceptance units within relatively close geographical proximity to the original facilities. In regard to mailers' concerns about congestion at the loading docks of remaining facilities, the Postal Service will adjust local staffing levels and facility capacity as necessary to avoid congestion. In addition, Plant-Verified Drop Ship appointment windows in the Facility Access and Shipment Tracking system will be adjusted as necessary to support shifting volumes across the network. In regard to mailers' concerns about permits, the Postal Service will allow customers to maintain their existing permit account numbers from eliminated sites for use at the remaining sites. Customers will also be able to continue using existing indicia.8

As the Postal Service moves forward with the proposal, it is committed to communicating its plans in a clear and simple manner.

The Postal Service's market-dominant service standards are contained in 39 CFR part 121. The proposed revised version of 39 CFR part 121 appears at the end of this Notice. The following is a summary of the proposed revisions.

Before describing how service standards will be revised, it is important to understand how service standards are structured. Service standards are comprised of two components: (1) A delivery day range within which all mail in a given product is expected to be delivered;9 and (2) business rules that determine, within a product's applicable day range, the specific number of delivery days after acceptance of a mail piece by which a customer can expect that piece to be delivered, based on the 3-Digit ZIP Code prefixes associated with the piece's point of entry into the mail stream and its delivery address.

Business rules are based on Critical Entry Times (CETs). The CET is the latest time on a particular day that a mail piece can be entered into the postal network and still have its service standard calculated based on that day (this day is termed “day-zero”). In other words, if a piece is entered before the CET, its service standard is calculated from the day of entry, whereas if it is entered after the CET, its service standard is calculated from the following day.10 For example, if the applicable CET is 5 p.m., and a letter is entered at 4 p.m. on a Tuesday, its service standard will be calculated from Tuesday, whereas if the letter is entered at 6 p.m. on a Tuesday, its service standard will be calculated from Wednesday.

CETs are not contained in 39 CFR part 121, because they vary based on where mail is entered, the mail's level of preparation, and other factors. The CETs at retail collection points are generally listed at those points.11 For example, blue collection boxes list the time of day when mail is collected from them by the Postal Service; if a blue collection box lists three pick-up times on one day, the CET for that day is the latest listed pick-up time.

The Postal Service has noted below certain new CETs it plans to institute if it determines to implement the proposed rules. The CETs could, of course, be modified in the future, as the operating environment that the Postal Service faces changes over time.

The Postal Service is not proposing to change the first component of the First-Class Mail service standards, namely the delivery day range applicable to First-Class Mail in general. As is currently the case, the delivery day range for First-Class Mail that originates and destinates in the contiguous forty-eight states will technically remain one to three days, and the delivery day range for First-Class Mail that originates or destinates in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or other U.S. territories will technically remain one to five days.

The Postal Service is, however, proposing to change the second component of the First-Class Mail service standards, namely the business rules. The most significant effect of these changes will be to drastically reduce the amount of First-Class Mail that qualifies for an overnight service standard. Under the current First-Class Mail overnight business rule, intra-Sectional Center Facility (SCF) mail is subject to overnight delivery if it isentered before the applicable day-zero CET.12 Mail is “intra-SCF” if its destination is within its designated SCF's delivery area. The current overnight business rule also includes criteria establishing an overnight service standard for some inter-SCF mail entered before the CET, depending on the mail's destination.

Under the proposed revisions to the First-Class Mail overnight business rule, overnight service would be accorded only to intra-SCF Presort First-Class Mail that is entered at the SCF prior to the CET.13 Overnight service would not be accorded to any mail that is entered anywhere other than the designated SCF, it would not be accorded to any mail whose destination is outside the delivery area of the SCF (i.e., inter-SCF), and it would not be accorded to any mail that does not meet all of the preparation requirements for Presort mail. The CET at the SCF would be 8 a.m., with a 12 p.m. exception that would be available only to intra-SCF Presort First-Class Mail that is sorted and containerized to the 5-digit Zip Code or 5-digit scheme level.14 Pursuant to these revisions, overnight service would no longer be available to any First-Class Mail entered by retail customers, regardless of when or where such mail is entered.15

Intra-SCF mail that is entered before the day-zero CET but does not meet the criteria for overnight service would be accorded a two-day service standard. The First-Class Mail two-day business rule would be revised accordingly. In addition, the current First-Class Mail two-day business rule covers any mail piece entered before the day-zero CET if the driving time between the piece's origin Processing and Distribution Center or Facility (P&DC/F) and its destination Area Distribution Center (ADC) is twelve hours or less (and the piece does not qualify for the overnight standard). This criterion would be revised to a four hour driving time between the piece's origin P&DC/F and its destination SCF.16

All First-Class Mail that qualifies for a two-day service standard under the current two-day business rule, but would not qualify for a two-day service standard under the proposed two-day business rule, will qualify for a three-day standard. The three-, four-, and five-day business rules for First-Class Mail will not be revised. Any First-Class Mail that currently qualifies for a three-, four-, or five-day service standard will retain its current service standard under the proposed rules.17

The Postal Service is not proposing any changes to the service standards for First-Class Mail International beyond the changes described above for domestic First-Class Mail. The new domestic transit time for First-Class Mail International will mirror the new domestic transit time for domestic First-Class Mail.

The Postal Service is not proposing to change the delivery day range for Periodicals mailed within the contiguous forty-eight states, but it is proposing to change the delivery day range for Periodicals that originate or destinate outside the contiguous forty-eight states. The Postal Service proposes extending such mail's maximum delivery period from the current twenty days to a proposed twenty-six days, to more accurately reflect the service that is received by such mail.18

The Postal Service is also proposing to change the Periodicals business rules. There are separate business rules for end-to-end Periodicals and destination-entry Periodicals.

Under the current overnight business rule for end-to-end Periodicals, intra-SCF mail is subject to overnight delivery if it is entered before the applicable day-zero CET and its origin P&DC/F and SCF are located in the same building.19 Under the proposed overnight business rule, overnight service would be limited to pieces that are intra-SCF, Presort, not mixed with any inter-SCF pieces, and entered at the SCF prior to the CET.20 The differences between the current and proposed rules, then, are that the proposed rule adds requirements that the mail be Presort, that it not be mixed with inter-SCF mail, and that it be entered at the designated SCF.

Further, some of the end-to-end Periodicals CETs will change. The current CETs at facilities that do not employ the Flats Sequencing System (non-FSS facilities) are 4 p.m. for mailings that require the Postal Service to perform a bundle sort, and 5 p.m. for mailings that do not require the Postal Service to perform a bundle sort. These CETs would be changed to 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., respectively. The current CETs at FSS facilities—8 a.m. for mailings that require a bundle sort, and 11 a.m. for mailings that do not require a bundle sort—will remain unchanged.

The Postal Service is proposing to insert a new, two-day business rule for end-to-end Periodicals to cover all intra-SCF mail that is entered prior to the CET and does not meet the requirements of the proposed overnight business rule.21 Thus, end-to-end Periodicals mail pieces that meet the requirements of the current overnight business rule but do not meet the requirements of the proposed overnight business rule will be accorded a two-day service standard.

Consequently, the current two- to four-day business rule for end-to-end Periodicals will be revised to become a three- to four-day business rule. This rule will not be revised in any other way. The current five- to nine-day business rule for end-to-end Periodicals will not be revised. The current eight- to twenty-day business rule for end-to-end Periodicals will be revised to become an eleven- to twenty-six-day business rule. This revision is being made so that the rule more accurately reflects the service that is currently received by pieces destinating outside the contiguous forty-eight states.22

The CETs for destination-entry Periodicals will be changed in the same manner as the CETs for end-to-end Periodicals are changed. The CETs at non-FSS facilities will change from 4 p.m. for mailings that require a bundle sort, and 5 p.m. for mailings that do not require a bundle sort, to 11 a.m. and 2 p.m., respectively. The CETs at FSS facilities will not change.

The business rules for destination-entry Periodicals will not be revised in any significant fashion. The seven-day business rule will be revised to become an eleven-day business rule, and the five- to eight-day business rule will be revised to become an eight- to eleven-day business rule. Both of these changes are being made so that the rules more accurately reflect the service that is currently received by pieces destinating outside the contiguous forty-eight states.23

The Postal Service is not proposing any revisions to the service standards for Standard Mail and Package Services pieces mailed within the contiguous forty-eight states. The Postal Service is proposing to revise the Standard Mail and Package Services service standards for pieces that originate or destinate outside the contiguous forty-eight states, to more accurately reflect the service that such pieces receive. The Postal Service is proposing to extend Standard Mail's maximum delivery period from the current twenty-two days to a proposed twenty-seven days. In the Standard Mail business rules, the end-to-end nine- to twenty-two-day rule would be revised to twelve to twenty-seven days, and the destination-entry nine- to twelve-day rule would be revised to twelve to fourteen days.

The Postal Service is proposing to extend Package Services' maximum delivery period from the current twenty days to a proposed twenty-six days. In the Package Services business rules, the end-to-end seven- to twenty-day rule would be revised to ten to twenty-six days, and the destination-entry seven- to eight-day rule would be revised to eleven to twelve days.

The Postal Service requests comments on the proposed revisions to 39 CFR Part 121 and on the proposal generally. A more extensive discussion of the proposal and its associated network and service implications is available in the materials filed by the Postal Service with the Postal Regulatory Commission in Docket No. N2012-1, athttp://www.prc.gov. If the Postal Service determines to implement the proposal, it will publish final rules in theFederal Register.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service proposes the following revision to 39 CFR part 121:

I. What action is EPA taking? II. What is the background for this action? III. What is the air quality in the Atlanta area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2008-2010 monitoring period? IV. What is the proposed action and what is the effect of this action? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What action is EPA taking?

Based on EPA's review of the quality-assured and certified monitoring data for 2008-2010, and in accordance with section 179(c)(1) of the CAA and EPA's regulations, EPA proposes to determine that the Atlanta Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQSby the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2011. 1 The Atlanta Area is comprised of Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and Walton Counties in Georgia. On June 23, 2011, EPA published a final rulemaking making a determination of attainment to suspend the requirements for the Atlanta Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS so long as the Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.See76 FR 36873. Today's proposed action merely makes a determination that the Atlanta Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date. This action is not a re-proposal of the attainment determination to suspend the requirements for the Atlanta Area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and other planning SIP revisions related to attainment of the standard. More information regarding the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the Area's attainment of that NAAQS is available at 76 FR 36873 (June 23, 2011).

As a nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Atlanta Area had an applicable attainment date of June 15, 2011 (based on 2008-2010 monitoring data). Pursuant to section 179(c) of the CAA, EPA is required to make a determination on whether the Area attained the standard by its applicable attainment date. Specifically, section 179(c)(1) of the CAA reads as follows: “As expeditiously as practicable after the applicable attainment date for any nonattainment area, but not later than 6 months after such date, the Administrator shall determine, based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area attained the standard by that date.”

Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.10, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, is less than or equal to 0.08 parts per million (ppm) (i.e.,0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) in the subject area.

EPA reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Atlanta Area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I. All data considered have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database. This review addresses air quality data collected in the 3-year period from 2008-2010. The 3-year period from 2008-2010 is the period EPA must consider for areas that had an applicable attainment date of June 15, 2011.