[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68331-68343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: incandescent_reflector_lamps@ee.doe.gov.
    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: celia.sher@hq.doe.gov.

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