[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68331-68343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27248]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047]
RIN 1904-AC57
Energy Conservation Program: Request for Exclusion of 100 Watt
R20 Short Incandescent Reflector Lamp From Energy Conservation
Standards
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for certain
commercial and industrial equipment and various consumer products,
including incandescent reflector lamps (IRLs). The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) received a petition from the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association requesting the initiation of a rulemaking to
exclude from coverage under EPCA standards a certain type of IRL
marketed for use in pool and spa applications. Specifically, the lamp
at issue is a 100-watt R20 short (having a maximum overall length of 3
and \5/8\ or 3.625 inches) IRL (``R20 short lamp''). DOE published this
petition and a request for comment in the Federal Register on December
23, 2010. From its evaluation of the petition and careful consideration
of the public comments, DOE decided to grant the petition for
rulemaking. DOE published a request for information in the Federal
Register on September 8, 2011, followed by a notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal Register on December 31, 2012.
Based on data gathered by DOE and the comments it received on these
notices, DOE excludes R20 short lamps from coverage under the EPCA
energy conservation standards.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is December 16, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in
the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket Web page can be found on regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047, at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047. The regulations.gov Web page
will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of the Final Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
III. General Discussion
A. Authority
B. R20 Short Lamp Special Application Design and Impact on
Energy Savings
1. Special Application of R20 Short Lamps
a. R20 Short Lamp Design for Special Applications
b. Marketing and Distribution Channels of R20 Short Lamps
2. Impact on Energy Savings
C. Availability of R20 Short Lamp Special Characteristics in
Substitutes
1. Improved R20 Short Lamp
2. 60 W PAR16 Lamp
3. LED Lamps
4. Consumer Use of Substitute Products
IV. Conclusion
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
[[Page 68332]]
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
M. Congressional Notification
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Final Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (``EPCA'' or ``the
Act''), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), as amended,\1\
prescribes energy conservation standards for certain commercial and
industrial equipment and various consumer products, including
incandescent reflector lamps (IRLs). The National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) petitioned the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) to undertake a rulemaking to exclude from coverage under
energy conservation standards a certain type of IRL that is marketed
for use in pool and spa applications. 75 FR 80731 (Dec. 23, 2010).
Specifically, the lamp at issue is a 100-watt (W) R20 short (having a
maximum overall length [MOL] of 3 and \5/8\ [or 3.625] inches) lamp
that falls within the voltage range of covered IRLs (hereafter ``R20
short lamp''). A review for exclusion is authorized under 42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(E), which allows the Secretary, by rule, to exclude from the
terms ``fluorescent lamp'' and ``incandescent lamp'' any lamp for which
standards would not result in significant energy savings because such
lamp is designed for special applications or has special
characteristics not available in reasonably substitutable lamp types.
Based on its review for exclusion discussed in this rule, DOE
determined that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E), R20 short lamps
should be excluded from coverage under the applicable energy
conservation standards for IRLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) allows for exclusion of a lamp
for which standards would not result in significant energy savings
because it is designed for special applications. Thus, DOE assessed the
impact of the application of R20 short lamps on the potential energy
savings from standards for these lamps. The characteristics of R20
short lamps, as well as their distribution channels and marketing,
indicate that they are designed for pool and spa applications. DOE
determined that because the R20 short lamps serve a very small market,
they will not result in significant energy savings under the applicable
conservation standards.
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) allows exclusion based on
unavailability of reasonably substitutable lamp types. Therefore, DOE
analyzed the characteristics of R20 short lamps to determine if
reasonable substitutes were commercially available. The most likely
commercially available substitute lamp required a modification to the
fixture lens in order to maintain the same light distribution.
Therefore, DOE concluded that the special characteristics of an R20
short lamp are not available in a reasonably substitutable lamp type.
Therefore, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E), DOE excludes R20 short
lamps from coverage of energy conservation standards based on the
determination that energy savings are not significant due to R20 short
lamps' use in special applications and their having special
characteristics not available in reasonably substitutable lamp types.
Accordingly, DOE modifies the definition of ``Incandescent reflector
lamp'' to include an exemption for R20 short lamps and adds a
definition for ``R20 short lamp'' in 10 CFR 430.2.
II. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,\2\ a program
covering most major household appliances (collectively referred to as
``covered products''), including the types of IRLs that are the subject
of this rulemaking. In particular, amendments to EPCA in the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992), Public Law 102-486, established energy
conservation standards for certain classes of IRLs and authorized DOE
to conduct two rulemaking cycles to determine whether those standards
should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1), 6295(i)(1) and (3)-(4)) DOE
completed the first cycle of amendments by publishing a final rule in
July 2009 (hereafter ``2009 Lamps Rule''). 74 FR 34080 (July 14,
2009).\3\ Standards adopted in the 2009 Lamps Rule will hereafter be
referred to as the ``July 2012 standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ Information regarding the 2009 Lamps Rule can be found at on
regulations.gov, docket number EERE-2006-STD-0131 at
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0131 and on DOE's
Building and Technologies Web page for Incandescent Reflector Lamps:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPAct 1992 amendments to EPCA also added as covered products
certain IRLs with wattages of 40 W or higher and established energy
conservation standards for these IRLs. Section 322(a)(1) of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140,
subsequently expanded EPCA's definition of ``incandescent reflector
lamp'' to include lamps with a diameter between 2.25 and 2.75
inches.\4\ (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii)) This addition made R20 lamps
(having a diameter of \20/8\, or 2.5, inches) covered products subject
to EPCA's standards for IRLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Prior to the enactment of EISA 2007, this definition applied
to lamps with a diameter that exceeds 2.75 inches. EISA 2007
modified this definition to make it applicable to IRLs with a
diameter that exceeds 2.25 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although these lamps are covered products, 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E)
gives DOE the authority to exclude these lamps upon a determination
that standards ``would not result in significant energy savings because
such lamp is designed for special applications or has special
characteristics not available in reasonably substitutable lamp types.''
B. Background
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.),
provides, among other things, that ``[e]ach agency shall give an
interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule.'' (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) Pursuant to this provision of the
APA, NEMA petitioned DOE for a rulemaking to exclude a type of IRL from
coverage of energy conservation standards. Specifically, NEMA sought
exclusion for R20 short lamps marketed for use in pools and spas. These
lamps are sold in jurisdictions that allow pools and spas to be
supplied with 120-volt (V) electricity. 75 FR 80731 (Dec. 23, 2010).
As stated in the previous section II.A, amendments to EPCA in EISA
2007 expanded EPCA's definition of IRLs to include smaller diameter
lamps, such as the R20 lamps that are the subject of this rulemaking.
(42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii)) The related statutory standards required
compliance on June 15, 2008--180 days after the date of enactment of
EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(D)(ii)) Although R20 short lamps were
required to comply with these standards, noncompliant R20 short
[[Page 68333]]
lamps remained on the market until September 2010 because the
manufacturers of these lamps mistakenly believed the lamps were
excluded from coverage. 75 FR at 80732 (Dec. 23, 2010). The
manufacturers had relied upon the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's)
labeling rule, 16 CFR Part 305, which, until July 19, 2011, published
the previous lamp definitions from the EPAct 1992 amendments of
EPCA.\5\ Before July 19, 2011, the FTC labeling regulations treated
IRLs as general service incandescent lamps (GSILs), and erroneously
continued to define GSILs as not including lamps specifically designed
for ``[s]wimming pool or other underwater service.'' 16 CFR 305.3(m)(3)
(2010) This exclusion was eliminated from EPCA by section 321 of EISA
2007. Upon realization that the FTC definitions were incorrect and the
R20 short lamps were subject to energy conservation standards, the
manufacturers removed the product from the market. Subsequently, in
November 2010, NEMA submitted its petition to exclude R20 short lamps
from coverage under EPCA standards. DOE published the petition in the
Federal Register on December 23, 2010, and requested public comment. 75
FR 80731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The FTC published a final rule in the Federal Register on
July 19, 2010, which updated its regulations regarding its
definition of general service incandescent lamp to reflect the
definitional changes provided in EISA 2007. 75 FR 41696, 41713-
41714. These changes were effective July 19, 2011, at which time the
amendments were reflected in the Code of Federal Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the petition, NEMA asked for a rulemaking to exclude R20 short
lamps from coverage of energy conservation standards, as well as a stay
of enforcement pending that rulemaking. As grounds for the petition,
NEMA stated that R20 short lamps qualify for exclusion under 42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(E), which allows the Secretary to exclude a fluorescent or
incandescent lamp ``as a result of a determination that standards for
such lamp would not result in significant energy savings because such
lamp is designed for special applications or has special
characteristics not available in reasonably substitutable lamp types.''
In its petition, NEMA contended that a rulemaking would find that
energy conservation standards for R20 short lamps would not result in
significant energy savings and that the lamp was designed for special
applications or has special characteristics not available in substitute
lamp types. Specifically, NEMA argued that because the lamp has a
particular MOL and is specially designed to meet underwater
illumination requirements of pool and spa manufacturers (including
designated beam spread and lumen output), there are no substitute
products on the market for this application. 75 FR at 80732 (Dec. 23,
2010).
Additionally, NEMA asserted that having energy conservation
standards for this lamp type would lead to its unavailability in the
United States. To the best of NEMA's and manufacturers' knowledge, the
decision of the two manufacturers of R20 short lamps to withdraw the
product from the market had already resulted in its current
unavailability. 75 FR at 80732-80733 (Dec. 23, 2010).
After reviewing NEMA's petition and all comments received in
response,\6\ DOE concluded it has the legal authority to grant
exclusions for IRLs under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) and initiated a
rulemaking to make a determination on exclusion. DOE granted NEMA's
petition for a rulemaking in a request for information (RFI) published
in the Federal Register on September 8, 2011, announcing its decision
and requesting more information on this product. 76 FR 55609. The RFI
stated that DOE granted the petition for a rulemaking pursuant to the
requirements specified in section 6291(30)(E), and would also grant a
stay of enforcement pending the outcome of the rulemaking. In the RFI,
DOE also specifically asked for comment on (1) the potential for
unregulated R20 short lamps to be used as substitutes for other lamps
subject to energy conservation standards; (2) whether the distinctive
features, pricing, and application-specific labeling and marketing of
R20 short lamps provide a sufficient deterrent to their use in other
applications; (3) the availability of substitute lamps that would meet
both energy conservation standards and relevant pool and spa
application requirements; and (4) the technological feasibility of R20
short lamps complying with the prescribed energy conservation standards
and also meeting relevant pool and spa application requirements. 76 FR
at 55614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NEMA's petition and associated comments can be found at
regulations.gov under Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047, at
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed all comments received in response to the RFI and
conducted an analysis on the exclusion of R20 short lamps that included
market research and manufacturer interviews. DOE then published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal Register addressing
comments and stating DOE's proposal to exclude R20 short lamps from
energy conservation standards. 77 FR 76959 (Dec. 31, 2012). California
Investor Owned Utilities, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison, (hereafter the
``CA IOUs''); Earthjustice and the National Resources Defense Council
(hereafter ``Earthjustice and NRDC''); and NEMA responded to the
proposal and DOE considered these additional comments when developing
this final rule. DOE's responses to these comments and the final
analysis on the determination of exclusion of R20 short lamps from
energy conservation standards are discussed in the following section.
III. General Discussion
A. Authority
In response to the NOPR, DOE received comment from Earthjustice and
NRDC regarding DOE's authority to exclude R20 short lamps under 42
U.S.C. 6291(30)(E). Earthjustice and NRDC referred to their previous
comments made in response to NEMA's petition, that section 6291(30)(E)
can only apply to lamps for which significant energy savings would not
be captured under future standards; the language of the provision
(i.e., ``would not result'') does not permit DOE to apply it
retroactively to lamps with existing standards. (Earthjustice and NRDC,
No. 15 at p. 1; \7\ Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 8 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A notation in the form ``Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 15 at p.
1'' identifies a written comment that DOE has received and has
included in the docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation
refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Earthjustice and NRDC; (2) in
document number 15 of the docket; and (3) on page 1 of that
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the NOPR and RFI, the plain language of section
6291(30)(E) gives DOE the authority to exclude certain lamps for which
standards would not result in significant energy savings. DOE does not
believe this section applies only to standards that have not yet taken
effect. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3), DOE is already barred from adopting
standards for any product for which the standards would not result in
significant conservation of energy. Therefore, section 6291(30)(E)
would be rendered redundant and superfluous, if it applied only to
products for which standards are not yet in effect. Instead, DOE finds
that section 6291(30)(E) contains no time bar for undertaking a
rulemaking action to address a lamp for which standards would not
result in significant energy savings because it is designed for special
applications or has special characteristics not available in
substitutable lamp types. Given the
[[Page 68334]]
broad and growing coverage of DOE's energy conservation standards for
lamps, DOE believes that Congress intended section 6291(30)(E) to
provide a mechanism to address both those lamps covered by existing
standards, as well as new lamps subsequently developed to which
standards would otherwise apply. 76 FR at 55611 (Sept. 8, 2011); 77 FR
at 76961 (December 31, 2012).
Earthjustice and NRDC disagreed that section 6291(30)(E) would be
redundant if not applicable to standards that already require
compliance. Earthjustice and NRDC commented that section 6291(30)(E)
retains a separate relevance from section 6295(o)(3) because it enables
DOE to exclude lamps from statutory standards that do not yet apply,
whereas section 6295(o)(3) only applies to DOE's adoption of standards
via rulemakings. (Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 8 at pp. 1-2)
The language in section 6291(30)(E) does not explicitly condition
exclusions from coverage of standards based on the authority under
which the standards were developed. Interpreting section 6291(30)(E) as
applying to only statutory standards in order to distinguish it from
section 6295(o)(3) would limit the scope of section 6291(30)(E). The
language in section 6291(30)(E) does not indicate that it was
Congress's intent to limit the Secretary's authority of exemption.
Therefore, DOE concluded it has the authority under section 6291(30)(E)
to consider excluding R20 short lamps from energy conservation
standards. Based on this authority, DOE assessed whether the lamps
qualify for exclusion under each criterion set forth in section
6291(30)(E), and discusses its assessment in the following sections.
B. R20 Short Lamp Special Application Design and Impact on Energy
Savings
As mentioned in the previous sections, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E),
DOE may determine to exclude a fluorescent or incandescent lamp
provided standards for the lamp would not result in significant energy
savings because the lamp is designed for special applications. DOE
first established that R20 short lamps serve a special application by
analyzing their design features and their marketing and distribution
channels, and then evaluated the impact on energy savings from
standards for R20 short lamps.
1. Special Application of R20 Short Lamps
a. R20 Short Lamp Design for Special Applications
NEMA's original petition stated that the R20 short lamp was
specifically designed to meet the underwater illumination requirements
of pool and spa part manufacturers. NEMA stated that the R20 short
lamp's MOL, heat shield, filament, lumen output, and beam spread
indicate the lamp was specifically designed for its application. 75 FR
at 80733 (Dec. 23, 2010) Through interviews with lamp manufacturers and
pool and spa part manufacturers, DOE was able to confirm that the R20
short lamp's MOL of 3 and \5/8\ inches is required for compatibility
with pool and spa fixtures; the heat shield is necessary for operation
in a high temperature environment; and the lumen output range between
637 and 1022 lumens, and beam spread between 70 and 123 degrees are
designed to satisfy consumer preferences, as well as building codes and
standards specific for pool and spa applications. DOE also found that
the filament in R20 short lamps is specifically placed to achieve the
required beam spread. However, DOE concluded that filament placement
does not stand on its own as a requirement for pools and spas, but is
rather encompassed within the requirement for a specific beam spread.
NEMA agreed with this list of special characteristics, affirming that
they are representative of the R20 short lamp, and that there are no
additional features to address. (NEMA, No. 14 at pp. 1) Because the
described R20 short lamp characteristics are designed to meet
requirements specific to pools and spas, DOE believes that R20 short
lamps are designed for a special application. For more discussion on
R20 short lamp features, see section III.C.
b. Marketing and Distribution Channels of R20 Short Lamps
In addition to design features, DOE also analyzed marketing
literature and distribution channels for R20 short lamps when
determining if R20 short lamps are designed for special applications.
DOE found R20 short lamps are marketed and clearly packaged in a way
that indicates the lamps are specifically for pool and spa use. Through
lamp manufacturer interviews and research using publicly available
information, DOE found that R20 short lamp manufacturers do not sell
lamps directly to consumers. The commercial market is supplied through
catalog warehouses; maintenance supply; maintenance, repair, operations
(MRO) distributors; and pool and spa distributors. The residential
market is primarily supplied through pool and spa distributors, which
include large retail pool outlets and online retailers. Additionally, a
small portion of products are sold to online retailers for pool and spa
replacement parts, electrical distributors for direct installation in
new pool construction, and hospitality and specialty lighting suppliers
(e.g., medical equipment retail) for use with pools and spas.
Therefore, DOE concluded that the application-specific packaging and
non-traditional distribution channels indicate R20 short lamps are
intended for pool and spa applications.
Based on the application-specific design characteristics of the R20
short lamp and the marketing and non-traditional distribution channels
used by these lamp types, DOE concluded that R20 short lamps are
designed for pool and spa applications. Pursuant to section
6291(30)(E), DOE then proceeded to determine whether standards for the
lamp would not result in significant energy savings because the lamp is
designed for a special application.
2. Impact on Energy Savings
As part of its analysis to determine the impact of standards for
R20 short lamps on energy savings, DOE evaluated the market share of
R20 short lamps put forth by NEMA. In its petition, NEMA stated there
are only two known manufacturers of the 100 W R20 short lamp in the
United States. Both manufacturers submitted their confidential R20
short lamps 2009 shipment data to NEMA. In interviews, these lamp
manufacturers commented that the shipment data from 2009 is
representative of the R20 short lamp market before they stopped making
the lamp available to consumers in 2010. For comparison, NEMA used an
adjusted estimate of covered IRL shipments from the 2009 Lamps Rule. In
the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE estimated the shipments of covered IRLs to be
181 million units in the year 2005. Based on a decline in shipments of
all IRLs in 2009, NEMA assumed covered IRLs would also decline, but
estimated the shipments to still remain above 100 million. Based on a
minimum of 100 million and a maximum of 181 million shipments of
covered IRLs, NEMA calculated that the shipments of R20 short lamps
represented significantly less than 0.1 percent of 2009 shipments of
covered IRLs. 75 FR at 80733 (Dec. 23, 2010).
In interviews conducted for the NOPR, DOE independently obtained
[[Page 68335]]
shipment information from lamp manufacturers that confirmed NEMA's
estimate of R20 short lamps being significantly less than 0.1 percent
of 2009 shipments of covered IRLs. Therefore, DOE determined this to be
an accurate assessment of the R20 short lamp market share and concluded
that less than 0.1 percent of covered IRLs indicated a small market
share for R20 short lamps. (More information on R20 short lamp energy
use can be found in appendix B of this final rule.\8\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The appendices can be found on regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047, at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As well as assessing the existing market share, DOE also analyzed
the potential for growth due to market migration of R20 short lamps.
NEMA stated that with the R20 short lamp's small market share,
specialized distribution chains, and typically high price point, their
exclusion from standards does not present any significant loss in
energy savings. (NEMA, No. 14 at pp. 2, 3) Earthjustice and NRDC
referred to their previous comments made in response to the RFI,
stating that they remain concerned that exempted R20 short lamps will
migrate to applications other than pools and spas. (Earthjustice and
NRDC, No. 15 at p. 1) The CA IOUs also referred to comments on the
subject submitted for the RFI. Specifically, they reiterated that the
size of R20 short lamps allows them to be used in applications other
than pool and spa lighting, and that R20 short lamps are not
necessarily more expensive than other small diameter IRLs and an
increase in their production could allow manufacturers to achieve some
economies of scale and lower prices further. The CA IOUs stated that
DOE did not sufficiently address these two points in the NOPR. (CA
IOUs, No. 16 at p. 1)
DOE agrees that R20 short lamps' MOL does not physically prohibit
their use in other applications. Further, DOE had received information
from lamp manufacturers stating that the end-user price varies, but
typically ranges from $12 to $25. DOE market research also indicated a
large variation, finding prices ranging from as low as $2 to as high as
$34. Therefore, DOE acknowledges that the price of R20 short lamps can
be competitive with other IRLs. However, R20 short lamps are sold
through specialized distribution channels where they are marketed and
packaged specifically for pool and spa applications. Additionally, even
when R20 short lamps were perceived to be unregulated, there was no
evidence of market migration to other applications. For these reasons,
even though physical constraints may not limit their use in other
applications and they may be sold at low prices, the substitution of
R20 short lamps in general applications is highly unlikely.
The CA IOUs stated that while R20 lamps are sold through specific
distribution channels, and are therefore unlikely to be purchased for
use outside of the pool and spa lighting market, there are no rules to
prevent manufacturers from selling R20 short lamps outside these
distribution channels in the future. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 1) The CA
IOUs also noted that as consumers do more shopping online, historically
hard lines between different distribution channels become increasingly
blurred, and consumers have greater access to products being sold
through a variety of merchants. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 1-2)
Overall, DOE did not find an indication of a potential trend
towards selling R20 short lamps through general application channels.
With few exceptions, DOE found that the majority of R20 short lamps
available online are on Web sites selling specialty and pool and spa
lighting or equipment. Therefore, even via online channels, R20 short
lamps are still generally sold through designated, niche Web sites.
Also, as noted in the NOPR, lamp manufacturers stated in interviews
that the R20 short lamp market is primarily for replacement lamps and,
therefore, historically has shown very little growth or decline. 77 FR
at 76963 (December 31, 2012). Further, despite the fact that lamp
manufacturers have not considered the lamps as regulated, the market
share has remained extremely low and there has been no evidence of
market migration. In addition to being found primarily through
designated distribution channels, the lamps' packaging indicates they
are specifically for pool and spa applications.
The CA IOUs also commented that even though R20 short lamps may
currently be appropriately labeled for use in pools and spas only,
there are no guidelines to ensure that consumers use them only in pool
and spa applications. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 1) Further, the CA IOUs
stated that although R20 short lamps have not become a loophole
previously, the new energy conservation standards for IRLs set by the
2009 Lamps Rule have required compliance since July 2012. The CA IOUs
contended that because these standards increased existing lumen per
watt (lm/W) standards for covered products, they provide greater
incentive for excluded lamp types to become loopholes. The CA IOUs
stressed that exclusion of R20 short lamps from standards is now more
likely to result in significant loss of energy savings through market
migration towards these products. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 2)
DOE finds it unlikely that consumers will seek out R20 short lamps
packaged and labeled for use in pool and spa applications as
replacements for any general service lighting impacted by the standards
adopted by the 2009 Lamps Rule. The definition of R20 short lamp, as
added by this final rule to 10 CFR 430.2, requires that they be
designed, labeled, and marketed specifically for pool and spa
applications. DOE believes the use of R20 short lamps in other
applications despite their packaging and marketing materials is
improbable as consumers are unable to purchase R20 short lamps at
typical retail outlets such as large home improvement stores. As noted
in section III.B.1.b, the majority of R20 short lamps are purchased
from pool and spa distributors and specialty retail stores, and are not
available where general service IRLs are typically sold. In its
interviews with manufacturers for various lighting regulations, DOE has
consistently received feedback that when replacing lamps, consumers
attempt to replace the same lamp that was previously installed. It is
not typical consumer behavior to seek out alternative lamp types from
unrelated niche application lighting. Therefore, DOE concluded that the
R20 short lamp market has limited potential for growth, and it is
unlikely the lamps will migrate to general lighting applications.
Because the specialty application of the R20 short lamps results in
a small market share and limited potential for growth for these lamps,
DOE concluded that the exclusion of R20 short lamps would not
significantly impact the energy savings resulting from energy
conservation standards.
C. Availability of R20 Short Lamp Special Characteristics in
Substitutes
DOE may also exclude a lamp because its special characteristics are
not available in reasonably substitutable lamp types. 42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(E) To determine whether an exclusion was acceptable based on
this condition, DOE identified the special characteristics of R20 short
lamps and determined whether these characteristics existed in other
lamp types that would qualify as reasonable substitutes.
DOE considered a lamp characteristic special if, without it, the
R20 short lamp would not be able to provide the special application for
which it was designed (i.e., use in pools and spas). Therefore, even if
the lamp characteristic was not
[[Page 68336]]
unique to the R20 short lamp, it was deemed special if it was required
for the lamp to function in pools and spas. DOE identified the
following set of features that in combination allow the lamp to be used
in a specialty application:
Shortened MOL: An MOL of 3 and \5/8\ inches or less;
Heat Shield: A shield reflecting radiant energy from the
lamp base;
Beam Spread: A beam angle between 70 and 123 degrees;
Lumen Output: A lumen output between 637 and 1,022 lumens;
and
Illumination: 0.5 W per square foot of water surface area
or the equivalent.
DOE evaluated lamps that could serve as potential substitutes by
determining whether they contained all of the above noted special
characteristics of R20 short lamps. DOE notes that a reasonable
substitute lamp may also need to be Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
listed for applicable pool and lighting fixtures in order to prevent
voiding fixture manufacturer warranties. As stated in the NOPR, based
on interviews with pool and spa part manufacturers, DOE finds that
reasonable substitutes will not encounter barriers when obtaining a UL
listing. 77 FR at 76964-76965 (December 31, 2012).
DOE surveyed the market and conducted manufacturer interviews to
identify several commercially available lamps that were marketed or
considered by manufacturers as potential substitutes for an R20 short
lamp. These lamps included a more efficacious halogen-based R20 short
lamp, a smaller diameter IRL, the 60 W PAR16, and certain light-
emitting diode (LED) lamps. When analyzing each of the likely
replacements, DOE focused on whether they possessed the special
characteristics of the R20 short lamp.
In the NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that there were no
reasonably substitutable lamp types currently available that offered
the special characteristics of R20 short lamps. NEMA agreed that there
are no reasonable substitute lamp designs for this application that
meet energy efficiency regulations and pass safety and performance
requirements for this lamp type. NEMA stressed that should inferior
substitutes be forced on the market purely due to energy efficiency
goals, the existing relationship between the R20 short lamps and the
devices that use them would not be replicated, which could create a
potential safety and liability risk. Further, NEMA noted that its
members have attempted to design substitute lamps using improved energy
performance solutions, only to have the products fail testing across
the greater range of requirements, including energy conservation
standards, safety requirements, and form factors. NEMA asserted that if
it were possible to make substitute lamps, its members would have made
them. (NEMA, No. 14 at p. 3)
However, the CA IOUs and Earthjustice and NRDC recommended that DOE
further examine the possibility of a reasonable substitute for R20
short lamps. (Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 15 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 16 at
pp. 2-4) DOE responds to their specific comments and presents its final
assessment in the following sections.
1. Improved R20 Short Lamp
Currently, R20 short lamps use incandescent technology and do not
meet previous energy conservation standards or the existing standards
adopted in the 2009 Lamps Rule that required compliance in July 2012.
In the NOPR, DOE investigated the potential of improving the efficacy
of R20 short lamps using halogen capsules, also called halogen burners,
known to improve the efficacy of IRLs. Halogen capsules consist of a
small diameter, fused quartz envelope filled with a halogen molecule
that surrounds the lamp's filament. Through teardowns, testing,
calculations, and interviews, DOE's NOPR analysis concluded that
although it is potentially feasible to incorporate a halogen burner
into an R20 short lamp, the expected improvement in efficacy would not
be enough to meet or exceed the July 2012 standards.
The CA IOUs urged DOE to undertake a more rigorous analysis of the
achievable efficacy of R20 short lamps with halogen burners. They
requested more detail on DOE's modeling approach and why DOE was unable
to model a more efficacious halogen-based R20 lamp. As efficacy
generally increases with lamp wattage, and none of the special
characteristics were reported to affect efficacy, the CA IOUs found it
unlikely that the modeled 75 W halogen R20 short lamp with a single-
ended burner had a theoretical efficacy of only 10.3 lm/W.
Specifically, they noted that the 45 W halogen R20 lamp used by DOE to
scale to a 75 W halogen R20 short lamp would be compliant with the
existing energy conservation standards and therefore, presumably have a
minimum efficacy of 14.0 lm/W. Similarly, the CA IOUs questioned that
the modeled 75 W halogen R20 short lamp with a double-ended burner had
a theoretical efficacy of only 13.8 lm/W. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 2)
In the NOPR analysis, DOE modeled efficacies at 75 W for an R20
short lamp in two scenarios, one using single-ended burner technology,
and the second using double-ended burner technology. DOE developed
these lamps by scaling from commercially available lamps. DOE selected
a 45 W halogen R20 lamp with a single-ended burner that had a rated
efficacy of 9.3 lm/W. Because the selected lamp is excluded \9\ from
the existing standards for IRLs specified in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(5), it is
not required to meet the minimum standard of 14.0 lm/W as assumed by
the CA IOUs. When this lamp was scaled to a 75 W lamp with a single-
ended burner, the efficacy improved to 10.3 lm/W. (More information on
the scaling methodology can be found in appendix A of the NOPR.\10\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For a full list of exclusions see 10 CFR 430.32(n)(6)(ii).
\10\ Appendix A from the NOPR can be found on regulations.gov,
under docket number EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047, at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To model the R20 short lamp with a double-ended burner, DOE used
the tested double-ended burner efficacy for a standards-compliant 60 W
PAR30 short lamp and added an average reflector efficiency factor of
62.2 percent, based on tested reflector efficiencies of R20 lamp types,
to calculate an efficacy of 13.5 lm/W. When scaled to a 75 W lamp with
a double-ended burner, the resulting efficacy improved to 13.8 lm/W.
(More information on the scaling methodology can be found in appendix A
of the NOPR.)
Therefore, as expected, in both scenarios the efficacies of the
scaled higher wattage lamps were greater than the efficacies of the
lower-wattage lamps from which they were scaled. However, because the
lower-wattage lamp used to model an R20 short lamp with a single-ended
burner is excluded from existing standards and has a lower efficacy
than 14.0 lm/W, the modeled lamp would not necessarily meet current
standards. Similarly, while a standards-compliant lamp's burner
efficiency was used to model an R20 short lamp with a double-ended
burner, the inclusion of an R-shaped reflector efficiency allows for
the possibility that the modeled lamp would not be compliant to
standards.
The CA IOUs also questioned whether using the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) scaling equations alone
can sufficiently capture the full range of benefits from moving to more
efficient halogen burners. The CA IOUs gave the example of there
possibly being some temperature advantages to using halogen or halogen
infrared (HIR) burners due to less waste heat
[[Page 68337]]
generation. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 2-3) The improved R20 short lamps
are modeled using a set of industry-accepted IESNA equations. DOE
believes these equations offer an accurate theoretical assessment of
lamp performance based on a relationship between lifetime, lumens, and
wattage.
Stakeholders recommended additional modeling scenarios in order to
explore other pathways to a more efficacious R20 short lamp. The CA
IOUs questioned DOE's decision to base the modeled R20 short lamp with
a double-ended burner on a PAR30 short lamp with a double-ended burner,
as its efficacy had to be discounted to account for the different
reflector shape. The CA IOUs suggested DOE base the analysis on the 40
W Philips Halogena Energy Saver R20 lamp with a double-ended burner, so
there would be no need to adjust the results for reflector efficiency.
The CA IOUs also noted that the Philips Halogena R20 lamp has an
efficacy of 14.25 lm/W, making it compliant with standards.\11\ (CA
IOUs, No. 16 at p. 2) The CA IOUs further recommended that DOE consider
modeling the theoretical double-ended burner lamp with a higher
efficiency reflector (as opposed to the average reflector efficiency
for R20 lamps), given that the primary goal of the analysis is to
determine achievable efficiency improvements for the product. (CA IOUs,
No. 16 at p. 2) The CA IOUs had also noted that it might be possible to
redesign other aspects of the lamp to better support halogen burners.
(CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 2-3) Earthjustice and NRDC similarly encouraged
DOE to seek additional information on the technical feasibility of
improving the efficacy of R20 short lamps. (Earthjustice and NRDC, No.
15 at p. 1) In this final rule, taking into consideration the preceding
recommendations from stakeholders, DOE modeled the performance of R20
short lamps utilizing HIR technology and also a more efficient
reflector to determine if an improved R20 short lamp could be a viable
substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Please note that the referenced lamp is excluded from the
existing IRL standards specified in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(5). See 10 CFR
430.32(n)(6)(ii) for a list of exclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE identified commercially available HIR R20 lamps with single-
ended or double-ended burners to use in modeling an HIR R20 short lamp
with performance characteristics comparable to a 100 W incandescent R20
short lamp. While the specific Philips lamp suggested by the CA IOUs
was no longer listed in their catalog, DOE was able to identify a
currently available HIR R20 lamp with a double-ended burner with the
same efficacy. Including this lamp, DOE identified a 40 W HIR R20 lamp
with a single-ended burner, two 40 W HIR R20 lamps with double-ended
burners, and one 45 W HIR R20 lamp with a double-ended burner.
DOE then performed teardowns to determine the dimensional
compatibility of the identified HIR R20 lamps' halogen capsules with an
R20 short lamp. Based on the dimensions of the burners and the R20
short lamp, DOE concluded that it is not possible to fit the double-
ended halogen burners found in commercially available HIR R20 lamps in
an R20 short lamp; it is possible, however, to fit the single-ended
burner. Therefore, for this final rule, DOE used the HIR R20 lamp with
a single-ended burner to model a more efficacious R20 short lamp.
Because DOE could not identify a double-ended HIR R20 lamp with a
capsule that was dimensionally compatible with an R20 short lamp, DOE
continued to use the 60 W HIR PAR30 short lamp tested for the NOPR to
model an HIR R20 short lamp with a double-ended burner. A double-ended
burner is more efficient than a single-ended burner because it has the
lead wire outside of the capsule, where it does not interfere with the
reflectance of energy from the capsule wall back to the capsule
filament. This limits the loss of energy and raises the filament
temperature, resulting in an increase in lamp efficacy.
To model an HIR R20 short lamp with a single-ended burner, DOE
tested the efficacy of the identified 120 V, 40 W HIR R20 lamp with the
dimensionally compatible single-ended burner. Using the IESNA equations
relating lifetime, lumens, and wattage, DOE scaled the lumen output of
the 40 W lamp in three scenarios, with the lumen output reasonably
close to the minimum, maximum, and average lumen output of the desired
range (637 and 1,022 lumens). Typically R20 short lamps have a lifetime
of 2,000 or 2,500 hours. For this analysis, DOE assumed the maximum
rated lifetime of 2,500 hours. Through these scaling calculations, DOE
found that in the average lumen output scenario, the efficacy of the
R20 short lamp could potentially be improved to meet the July 2012
standards with the use of HIR technology and a single-ended burner. For
the maximum lumen output scenario the efficacy of the modeled lamp did
not meet the July 2012 standards. In order to achieve the minimum lumen
output, the modeled lamp wattage was reduced to lower than 45 W,
thereby excluding the lamp from existing standards for IRLs specified
in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(5).\12\ For more information on the improved
efficacy calculations, see appendix A of this final rule.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For a full list of exclusions see 10 CFR 430.32(n)(6)(ii).
\13\ Appendix A can be found on regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047, at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the efficacy of an HIR R20 lamp with a double-ended
burner, DOE revised the scaling analysis conducted for the NOPR by
analyzing in addition to an average efficiency reflector, a more
efficient reflector. DOE utilized the NOPR test results of the burner
efficiency of a 120 V, 60 W PAR30 short lamp with a double-ended burner
that is dimensionally compatible with an R20 short lamp. Using the
IESNA equations relating lifetime, lumen output, and wattage, DOE first
scaled the lumen output of the 60 W lamp with the average reflector
efficiency in three scenarios, with the lumen output reasonably close
to the minimum, maximum, and average lumen output of the desired range
(637 and 1,022 lumens). DOE again assumed the maximum rated lifetime of
R20 short lamps (2,500 hours). DOE found for the average lumen output
and maximum lumen output scenarios that the efficacy of the modeled R20
short lamp with average reflector efficiency would not meet the July
2012 standards. However, DOE found for the minimum lumen output
scenario, the efficacy of the R20 short lamp could potentially be
improved to meet the July 2012 standards with the use of HIR technology
with a double-ended burner.
As suggested by the CA IOUs, DOE then conducted the same analysis
for the 60 W lamp with a higher efficiency reflector. DOE found for the
average lumen output and maximum lumen output scenarios that the
efficacy of the R20 short lamp could potentially be improved to meet
the July 2012 standards with the use of HIR technology with a double-
ended burner and improved reflector. In order to achieve the minimum
lumen output, the modeled lamp wattage was reduced to lower than 45 W,
thereby excluding the lamp from existing standards for IRLs specified
in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(5).\14\ For more information on the improved
efficacy calculation, see appendix A of this final rule.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For a full list of exclusions see 10 CFR 430.32(n)(6)(ii).
\15\ Appendix A can be found on regulations.gov, under docket
number EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047, at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that there is uncertainty associated with the theoretical
modeling
[[Page 68338]]
assessment. The modeled lamps reflect a standard R20 reflector shape
rather than a short R20 reflector shape. Thus, the modeled lamp
efficacies were based on R20 lamps with a longer MOL than the R20 short
lamp's 3.625 inches. DOE compared standard length and long length
halogen lamps that had the same shape, diameter, lifetime, voltage, and
wattage, and could find no consistent relationship between lamp length
and efficacy. Therefore, it is unknown how shortening the length of the
reflector would impact the efficacy of the modeled lamps.
Even given this uncertainty, DOE evaluated whether the standards-
compliant R20 short lamps based on the modeling described above could
also include the special characteristics of the R20 short lamp. (See
section III.C.) First, DOE believes that a heat shield could be
included in the improved R20 short lamp as they are included in most
commercially available halogen IRLs. Next, DOE also determined that
because the HIR capsules were dimensionally compatible with an R20
short lamp, the shortened MOL is retained. The addition of an HIR
capsule would, however, affect the lumen output and beam spread. Based
on its theoretical modeling, DOE determined that an HIR R20 short lamp
may have a lumen output within the established range for an R20 short
lamp of 637 to 1,022 lumens.\16\ However, because the position of the
filament impacts the beam angle, DOE anticipates that the beam angle
could be affected by the use of a halogen capsule. Because standards-
compliant R20 short lamps are not commercially available, DOE is unable
to confirm the beam angle of R20 short lamps that utilize an HIR
capsule. However, DOE believes that the HIR R20 short lamps would
likely meet the 0.5 watts per square foot of water surface area or
equivalent illumination requirements because the theoretical lamps
could deliver higher lumen output with reduced input wattage compared
to the R20 short lamp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Note that, as modeled, the lamps have the necessary lumen
output, but DOE is uncertain of the impact of a shorter reflector
length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the modeling assessment, DOE determined that the efficacy
of an R20 short lamp could potentially be improved through the use of
HIR technology. However, DOE cannot be certain of the improvement in
efficacy due to the fact that the commercially available lamps from
which the more efficacious R20 short lamps were scaled did not have the
same reflector length as the R20 short lamp. Moreover, it is not clear
that the more efficacious R20 short lamp would be able to achieve the
combination of the special characteristics because HIR technology has
not yet been incorporated in a commercially available R20 short lamp.
Therefore, the modeled efficacy and performance characteristics of the
HIR R20 short lamp could be affected by adjustments required to
accommodate these features. Thus, DOE was unable to conclude, based on
its modeling, whether an improved R20 short lamp could be compliant
with standards and also include all the special characteristics of a
R20 short lamp.
If DOE concluded that the special characteristics of R20 short
lamps prohibit the lamps from reaching efficacy levels achievable by
other R20 lamps, the CA IOUs suggested DOE use the relationship between
these lamp characteristics and efficacy to scale the existing standards
to accommodate R20 short lamps, instead of granting a full exception
from standards. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 3) The authority of this
rulemaking is based on 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E), which is limited to
determining whether or not lamp types should be excluded from energy
conservation standards. 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) does not grant DOE the
authority to establish unique energy conservation standards for these
lamps.
2. 60 W PAR16 Lamp
In addition to analyzing HIR R20 short lamps as a reasonable
substitute, DOE also analyzed 60 W PAR16 lamps. In the NOPR, DOE
determined that the 60 W PAR16 lamp must be partnered with a fixture
with an optimized LED lens to achieve the appropriate beam angle and
does not contain all of the special characteristics of a R20 short lamp
by itself. 77 FR at 76966-67 (December 31, 2012). NEMA agreed that the
60 W PAR16 lamp is therefore not an acceptable substitute for R20 short
lamps. NEMA allowed that 60 W PAR16 lamps may provide adequate lumens
and meet total illumination requirements without an additional lens,
but emphasized that their beam angle does not provide the same total
illumination throughout the pool or spa. NEMA further clarified that
because 60 W PAR16 lamps produce a targeted cone of light output, areas
of the pool or spa where the lamp fixture is not directed would not be
illuminated, creating safety issues. Additionally, NEMA noted that the
R20 short lamp has been optimized for the fixture and the application,
as corroborated by DOE's analysis, and a substitute, lower-wattage lamp
would not provide the same service. (NEMA, No. 14 at p. 2)
For this final rule, DOE again evaluated the 60 W PAR16 lamp and
found no change in its characteristics. Therefore, DOE maintains that
because the 60 W PAR16 lamp alone cannot achieve the required beam
spread for R20 short lamps, the lamp is not a reasonable substitute.
3. LED Lamps
In the NOPR, DOE also evaluated whether commercially available LED
lamps could serve as reasonable substitutes for R20 short lamps. DOE
determined that because they do not have the required special
characteristics of R20 short lamps, specifically lumen output and beam
spread, they are not reasonable substitutes. Furthermore, DOE did not
consider LED lamp and fixture replacements as reasonable substitutes
because they require more than the lamp to be replaced. 77 FR at 76967
(December 31, 2012).
Earthjustice and NRDC and the CA IOUs encouraged DOE to seek
additional information on compliant LED lamps that could be reasonable
substitutes. (Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 15 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 16 at
p. 3) Specifically, the CA IOUs commented that LED technology has
advanced rapidly in recent years, and LED light sources increasingly
are used in many different applications. The CA IOUs stated that they
have found several examples of commercially available pool and spa LED
lamps sold by online retailers that could be alternatives to R20 short
lamps. While these products are currently more expensive, the CA IOUs
contended that they offer energy cost savings, longer lifetimes, and
lower maintenance costs. The CA IOUs also noted that LED lamp costs are
forecasted to fall quickly in the coming years as LED technology
continues to mature. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 3)
In the NOPR analysis, DOE had conducted market research to identify
any commercially available LED lamps determined to be compatible with
the R20 short lamp fixture and to have the required special
characteristics of R20 short lamps. For this final rule, DOE updated
its market analysis and verified the conclusions of the NOPR
assessment; DOE did not find any LED lamps that had the necessary
requirements of lumen output or beam spread.
The CA IOUs remarked that while DOE acknowledged that the PAR16 and
LED replacement lamps are currently being used, DOE still claimed that
these lamps should not be considered substitute products because
neither lamp type is demonstrating full equivalency in terms of lumen
output
[[Page 68339]]
and/or measured light distribution. The CA IOUs suggested this
reasoning is not applicable when comparing LED to incandescent lighting
in pool and spa applications. Pool and spa LEDs can be designed to
provide cooler light compared to incandescent lamps, with higher
intensity at shorter wavelengths within the spectrum of visible light.
The CA IOUs explained that water has a higher optical absorption
coefficient at longer wavelengths, which effectively acts as a filter
that allows more cool light than warm light to pass through. Therefore,
LED lamps need fewer total lumens to light a pool and will provide more
even illumination with fewer ``hot spots'' than incandescent lighting.
For these reasons, the CA IOUs argued that comparisons of lumen output
and light distribution for pool and spa lighting should not be based on
raw measurements of the light source outside of the fixture. (CA IOUs,
No. 16 at p. 3)
In support of this argument, the CA IOUs referred to a 2010
emerging technology study wherein they evaluated the performance of
incandescent and LED lamps in pool and spa lighting applications.\17\
The CA IOUs stated that the study measured the light output and
distribution of R20 lamps and several LED replacement products (both
lamps and fixtures) at the surface of a pool, and generally found the
quality of light provided by the LED products was superior in terms of
brightness and evenness of distribution. The CA IOUs also noted that
LED pool and spa lighting products have probably continued to improve
in the three years since this study was completed. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at
p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Southern California Edison. Commercial LED Pool Lamps.
December 2010. Southern California Edison Design and Engineering
Services Customer Service Business Unit:.Rosemead, CA. Report No.
ET10SCE1130. Available here: www.etcc-ca.com/images/stories/
et10sce1130__-commercial_led_pool_lighting.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed the study referenced by the CA IOUs to further assess
the possibility of LED lamps as a reasonable substitute for R20 short
lamps. The study did find that uniformity and light levels improved
relative to incandescent lighting in pools, but mainly for replacements
of both lamp and fixture. For direct replacement LED lamps, the study
noted that while they had the potential to improve uniformity, the
results were less constant and in some cases poorer than those of the
preexisting incandescent lighting.\18\ Further, the study stated that
direct replacement LED lamps tend to fall in the ``one size fits all''
category, limiting their ability to provide the performance needed in
certain applications.\19\ As noted previously, DOE concluded the
criteria for a reasonable substitute must be met by the lamp alone.
Based on the study, the direct replacement lamps tested did not
consistently meet light levels compared to incandescent lighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Ibid, page 34.
\19\ Ibid, page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CA IOUs suggested that the ``blue filter'' effect causes the
underwater performance of lumens to differ from the absolute lumen
output as measured outside the underwater fixture. Thus, using measured
lumens as a criterion to identify a reasonable substitute is unsuitable
for this application. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 3-4) However, the study
noted that the influence of the ``blue filter'' effect on pool lighting
is proportional to pool size. The effect is greater in larger pools
where light must travel long distances, than in spas where light
travels shorter distances.\20\ The variation in this phenomenon makes
it problematic to develop an accurate and consistent light level
metric. Further, a light level metric based on this effect cannot be
used to determine replacements for all R20 short lamps, as the blue
filter effect is not significant in small pools. Hence, lumen output
remains a more consistent and reliable metric of gauging the
suitability of a replacement lamp for the R20 short lamp in all pool
and spa applications, and can be applied across technologies, including
LED lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Ibid, pages 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the study acknowledged that LED pool lighting systems
would have difficulty meeting the 0.5 W per square foot or equivalent
illumination building code requirement. The study suggested that
building code requirements should be modified to account for the
spectral distribution of lumens rather than the total lumen output.\21\
However, DOE must base its criteria for reasonable substitutes in this
rulemaking on existing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ibid, page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this final rule, DOE again evaluated commercially available LED
lamps to determine whether they meet the special characteristics of R20
short lamps. DOE did not find an LED lamp that comprised all the
necessary characteristics to serve as a reasonable substitute for an
R20 short lamp. DOE also examined information provided by stakeholders
regarding the potential improvement in pool and spa lighting by
replacing incandescent with LED technology. However, because this
improvement is attributable to replacement of lamp and fixture rather
than only the lamp, DOE could not consider it in its evaluation of LEDs
as reasonable substitutes for R20 short lamps. Further, DOE concluded
that while there may be different ways to measure the illumination of a
pool or spa, the lumen output range identified as a special
characteristic for R20 short lamps remains a reliable metric that can
be applied across technologies and for all types of pools and spas.
4. Consumer Use of Substitute Products
The CA IOUs noted that R20 short lamps have not been manufactured
since 2010. In the meantime, PAR16 lamps and LED products have been
successfully installed in new and existing pool and spa fixtures
without noticeable negative impacts to consumers. The CA IOUs further
cited their experience implementing rebate programs for LED pool
lighting, noting that consumers have expressed a high degree of
satisfaction when replacing their existing R20 short lamps with LEDs.
The CA IOUs affirmed that in their experience, consumers are not able
to distinguish small differences in the beam angle or distribution of
light, particularly when the lamps are behind a lens and under water.
An additional interview the CA IOUs conducted with a major distributor
of pool lighting products also confirmed these findings of consumer
satisfaction. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 3)
DOE evaluated lamps as reasonable substitutes using a set of
criteria described in the beginning of section III.C. The fact that
consumers can physically replace R20 short lamps with PAR16 or LED
lamps does not automatically mean they are reasonable substitutes.
Rather, the necessary criteria for a reasonable substitute lamp are
based on special characteristics of the R20 short lamp identified in
this analysis.
The CA IOUs called attention to the fact that for new fixtures the
question of light source equivalency is a non-issue, and R20 short lamp
fixtures do not offer any unique functionality that cannot be met by
other light sources. As new fixtures are sold together with the lamps
they were designed for, fixture manufacturers are able to customize
their lenses based on the source of lighting being used. (CA IOUs, No.
16 at p. 3) DOE acknowledges that a lamp and fixture replacement could
adequately meet pool and spa lighting needs. However, as the scope of
this rulemaking covers only the R20 short lamp itself, and not pool and
spa fixtures, DOE must assess reasonable substitutes for the lamp
alone.
[[Page 68340]]
IV. Conclusion
DOE has established that R20 short lamps were designed for pool and
spa applications based on industry need and consumer preference. The
design requirements included a wide beam spread, high lumen output, and
adequate illumination; a heat shield to withstand the high operating
temperatures of spas; and a shortened MOL, allowing the lamp to fit in
underwater pool or spa fixtures. Further, DOE has determined that the
majority of R20 short lamps are purchased from pool and spa
distributors and specialty retail stores, and are not available where
IRLs are typically sold for general lighting applications. R20 short
lamps are also marketed and clearly packaged in a way that indicates
the lamps are specifically for use in pools and spas. Therefore, DOE
has concluded that R20 short lamps are designed for pool and spa
applications. Due to the special application of R20 short lamps, DOE
assessed the impact on energy savings from the exclusion of these lamps
from energy conservation standards. As R20 short lamps have a small
market share and limited potential for growth, DOE determined that the
regulation of R20 short lamps would not result in significant energy
savings.
DOE also evaluated lamps that could serve as potential substitutes
by analyzing their ability to replicate the specialized characteristics
of the R20 short lamp, specifically a shortened MOL, heat shield, high
lumen output, wide beam spread, and adequate illumination. DOE
concluded that there are no reasonably substitutable lamp types
currently commercially available that offer the special characteristics
of R20 short lamps.
Based on the assessments of this final rule, DOE determined that
R20 short lamps should be excluded from energy conservation standards.
DOE's analysis found that energy conservation standards for R20 short
lamps would not result in significant energy savings because the lamps
are designed for special applications and have special characteristics
not available in reasonably substitutable lamp types. Therefore, under
section 6291(30)(E), DOE excludes R20 short lamps from energy
conservation standards by modifying the definition of ``Incandescent
reflector lamp'' and adding a new definition for ``R20 short lamp'' in
10 CFR 430.2, as set forth in the regulatory text of this rule.
In response to the definition of R20 short lamp proposed in the
NOPR, Earthjustice and NRDC commented that DOE should ensure the
definition includes each of the identified special characteristics of
R20 short lamps, including the incorporation of a heat shield, a beam
angle between 70 and 123 degrees, and a minimum light output of 900
lumens. Earthjustice and NRDC stated that DOE should either add these
criteria to the text of the R20 short lamp definition or clarify in the
preamble of this final rule that the requirement that an R20 short lamp
be ``designed . . . specifically for pool and spa applications''
includes the satisfaction of these three criteria. (Earthjustice and
NRDC, No. 15 at p. 1)
DOE agrees with Earthjustice and NRDC on the importance of the
special characteristics of R20 short lamps and has stated in section
III.C of this final rule that each of these characteristics is required
for the R20 short lamp to provide the special application for which it
was designed. DOE believes the definition for R20 short lamp added to
10 CFR 430.2, which specifies the wattage, MOL, and requires that the
lamp must be designed, labeled, and marketed specifically for pool and
spa applications, sufficiently identifies the lamps designated for
exclusion.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Today's regulatory action has been determined to not be a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Accordingly, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is not required to review
this action.
DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)).
Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt
a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable,
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its
guidance, OIRA has emphasized that such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the
reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today's final rule is
consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to
the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net
benefits are maximized.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) for any
rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed today's rulemaking under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. This rulemaking sets no standards; it only
determines that exclusion from standards is warranted for R20 short
lamps. DOE certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant
impact on a substantial
[[Page 68341]]
number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is
as follows.
For manufacturers of R20 short lamps, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533,
53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121.The size
standards are listed by North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code and industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. R20 short lamp
manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335110, ``Electric Lamp Bulb
and Part Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 employees
or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this
category. DOE identified two small business manufacturers of R20 short
lamps.
Amendments to EPCA in EPAct 1992 established the current energy
conservation standards for certain classes of IRLs. On July 14, 2009,
DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register that amended these
standards, with a compliance date of July 14, 2012. 74 FR 34080. In
that rulemaking, DOE concluded that the standards would not have a
substantial impact on small entities and, therefore, did not prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis. 74 FR at 34174-34175 (July 14, 2009).
On the basis of the foregoing and because this rulemaking to establish
an exclusion from standards decreases regulatory burden, DOE certifies
that this rulemaking will have no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared
an RFA for this final rule. DOE transmitted the certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking, which establishes an exclusion from energy
conservation standards for R20 short lamps, would impose no new
information or record keeping requirements. Accordingly, the OMB
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
DOE has determined that this final rule fits within the category of
actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, codified at 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, the rulemaking amends an existing rule without changing
its environmental effect, and, therefore, is covered by Categorical
Exclusion (CX) A5 found in 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A.
Therefore, as DOE has made a CX determination for the rulemaking, DOE
does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement. DOE's CX determination is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of 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 13735. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of today's final
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) No
further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3)
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure
that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if
any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General.
Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and
section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to
meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets
the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For an amended regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``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
[[Page 68342]]
UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE examined today's rulemaking 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. Instead, the rule
excludes R20 short lamps from standards, thereby eliminating any
existing associated compliance costs. Accordingly, no further
assessment or analysis is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This 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.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines
issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22,
2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7,
2002). DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any 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.
DOE has concluded that today's regulatory action, which excludes
R20 short lamps from energy conservation standards, is not a
significant energy action because the exclusion from standards is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by
the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects on the final rule.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14,
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the
agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and
substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions. 70 FR 2667 (Jan. 14, 2005).
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this
report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using
objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a
judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness
of programs and/or projects. The ``Energy Conservation Standards
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been
disseminated and is available at the following Web site:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
and Small businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 7, 2013.
David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. In Sec. 430.2, revise the definition for ``Incandescent reflector
lamp'' and add the definition for ``R20 short lamp,'' in alphabetical
order, to read as follows:
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Incandescent reflector lamp (commonly referred to as a reflector
lamp) means any lamp in which light is
[[Page 68343]]
produced by a filament heated to incandescence by an electric current,
which: contains an inner reflective coating on the outer bulb to direct
the light; is not colored; is not designed for rough or vibration
service applications; is not an R20 short lamp; has an R, PAR, ER, BR,
BPAR, or similar bulb shapes with an E26 medium screw base; has a rated
voltage or voltage range that lies at least partially in the range of
115 and 130 volts; has a diameter that exceeds 2.25 inches; and has a
rated wattage that is 40 watts or higher.
* * * * *
R20 short lamp means a lamp that is an R20 incandescent reflector
lamp that has a rated wattage of 100 watts; has a maximum overall
length of 3 and 5/8, or 3.625, inches; and is designed, labeled, and
marketed specifically for pool and spa applications.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-27248 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P