Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 55609 

Proposed by Foremost Farms USA 

Cooperative, Inc.; National Farmers 

Organization, Inc.; Dairy Farmers of 

America, Inc.; Michigan Milk 

Producers Association; Dairylea 

Cooperative, Inc.; and Continental 

Dairy Products, Inc. 

Proposal 1 

This proposal seeks to alter the 

definition of a pool distributing plant 

within the Mideast Milk Marketing 

Order. Specifically, the proposal 

recommends that a distributing plant, 

which is physically located within the 

Mideast Milk Marketing Order, be 

regulated by that order if half of its total 

route disposition is within Federal Milk 

Marketing Area boundaries and its sales 

patterns are such that no one Order has 

more than 25% of its sales volume. This 

proposed change would only affect the 

Mideast Milk Marketing Order. 

1. Amend § 1033.7 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1033.7 Pool plant 

* * * * * 

(a) A distributing plant, other than a 

plant qualified as a pool plant pursuant 

to paragraph (b) of this section or 

§ ____.7(b) of any other Federal milk 

order, from which during the month 30 

percent or more of the total quantity of 

fluid milk products physically received 

at the plant (excluding concentrated 

milk received from another plant by 

agreement for other than Class I use) are 

disposed of as route disposition or are 

transferred in the form of packaged fluid 

milk products to other distributing 

plants. At least 25 percent of such route 

disposition and transfers must be to 

outlets in the marketing area. Plants 

located within the marketing area with 

combined route disposition and 

transfers of at least 50% into Federal 

Order marketing areas but without 25% 

of route disposition and transfers into 

any one Federal Order will be regulated 

as a distributing plant in this Order. 

* * * * * 

Proposed by Dairy Programs, 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Proposal 2 

Make such changes as may be 

necessary to make the entire marketing 

agreement and the order conform with 

any amendments thereto that may result 

from this hearing. 

Copies of this notice of hearing and 

the order may be procured from the 

Market Administrator of the Mideast 

Marketing Area, or from the Hearing 

Clerk, United States Department of 

Agriculture, STOP 9200—Room 1031, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–9200, or may be 

inspected there. 

Copies of the transcript of testimony 

taken at the hearing will not be available 

for distribution through the Hearing 

Clerk’s Office. If you wish to purchase 

a copy, arrangements may be made with 

the reporter at the hearing. Copies of the 

transcript will also be made available 

online at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

dairy. 

From the time that a hearing notice is 

issued and until the issuance of a final 

decision in a proceeding, Department 

employees involved in the decisionmaking process are prohibited from 

discussing the merits of the hearing 

issues on an ex parte basis with any 

person having an interest in the 

proceeding. For this particular 

proceeding, the prohibition applies to 

employees in the following 

organizational units: 

Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, 

Office of the Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, Office of the General 

Counsel, Dairy Programs, Agricultural 

Marketing Service (Washington Office) 

and the Offices of all Market 

Administrators. 

Procedural matters are not subject to 

the above prohibition and may be 

discussed at any time. 

Dated: September 2, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22945 Filed 9–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047] 

RIN 1904–AC57 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Request for 

Exclusion of 120 Volt, 100 Watt R20 

Short Incandescent Reflector Lamp for 

Spa Applications From Energy 

Conservation Standards 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Request for information and 

notice of granting of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

received a petition from the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association 

requesting the initiation of a rulemaking 

to exclude from coverage under Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act standards 

120 volt, 100 watt, R20 short (having a 

maximum overall length of 35⁄8 or 3.625 

inches) incandescent reflector lamps 

marketed for use in hot tub spas. DOE 

published this petition and a request for 

comments in the Federal Register on 

December 23, 2010. Based upon its 

evaluation of the petition and careful 

consideration of the public comments, 

DOE has decided to grant this petition 

for rulemaking. DOE seeks comments 

that will inform its rulemaking to 

determine whether 120 volt, 100 watt, 

R20 short incandescent reflector lamps 

should be excluded from energy 

conservation standards. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

document and information requested 

must be submitted on or before October 

11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the Request for 

Information (RFI) for Spa Lamps and 

provide Docket Number EERE–2010– 

BT–PET–0047 and/or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) 1904–AC57. 

Comments may be submitted using any 

of the following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) E-mail: ShortLampsPetition-2010- 

PET-0047@ee.doe.gov. Include docket 

number EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047 and/ 

or RIN 1904–AC57 in the subject line of 

the message. 

(3) Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

(4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://www.

regulations.gov. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the http://www.

regulations.gov index. However, not all 

documents listed in the index may be 

publicly available, such as information 

that is exempt from public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page on the 

http://www.regulations.gov site can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55610 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘R’’ denotes a reflector lamp type, and ‘‘20’’ 

denotes diameter in 1⁄8 inch increments, which 

translates to 2.5 inches. 

2Prior to the enactment of EISA 2007, this 

definition applied to lamps with a diameter which 

exceeds 2.75 inches. EISA 2007 modified this 

definition to make it applicable to IRL with a 

diameter which exceeds 2.25 inches. 

3The FTC published a final rule in the Federal 

Register on July 19, 2010, which updated its 

regulations regarding its definition of GSIL to reflect 

the definitional changes provided in EISA 2007. 75 

FR 41696, 41713–14. These changes are effective 

July 19, 2011, at which time the amendments will 

be reflected in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

4NEMA’s petition and associated comments can 

be found under Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–PET– 

0047. 

residential/incandescent_lamps.html. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

page contains simple instructions on 

how to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, please 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or e-mail: Brenda.Edwards

@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Tina Kaarsberg PhD, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1393. E-mail: 

Tina.Kaarsberg@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. E-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Authority to Grant Exclusion 

III. Evaluation of Stay of Enforcement 

IV. Conclusion 

V. Rulemaking Overview 

A. Purpose of the Rulemaking 

B. Significance of Energy Savings of R20 

Short Lamp Standards 

C. Special Utility of R20 Short Lamps and 

Unavailability of Substitutes 

D. Request for Information 

I. 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, 

the National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) has petitioned the 

Department of Energy (DOE) for 

rulemaking to exclude from coverage a 

type of incandescent reflector lamp 

(IRL) from energy conservation 

standards under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA; 42 U.S.C. 6291 

et seq.). Specifically, NEMA seeks an 

exemption for 120 volt (V), 100 watt 

(W), R20 1 short (having a maximum 

overall length (MOL) of 35⁄8 inches) 

lamps (hereafter referred to as ‘‘R20 

short lamps’’) marketed for use in hot 

tub spas. These lamps are sold in 

jurisdictions that allow pools and spas 

to be supplied with 120V electricity. 

Amendments to EPCA in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140, 

expanded EPCA’s definition of 

‘‘incandescent reflector lamp’’ to 

include lamps with a diameter between 

2.25 and 2.75 inches (R18–R22).2 (42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii)) This addition 

made R20 lamps (having a diameter of 

20/8, or 2.25, inches) covered products 

subject to EPCA’s standards for IRLs. As 

explained in NEMA’s petition, based 

upon this change to the definition, 

statutory standards went into effect for 

R20 lamps on June 15, 2008, the date 

180 days after the date of enactment of 

EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(D)(ii)) 

However, noncompliant R20 short 

lamps remained on the market until 

September 2010, because the two 

manufacturers of these lamps 

mistakenly believed the lamps were 

excluded from coverage. The 

manufacturers had relied upon the 

Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) 

labeling rule, 16 CFR part 305, which 

continues to publish the previous lamp 

definitions from the Energy Policy Act 

of 1992 (EPACT 1992), Public Law 102– 

486, amendments of EPCA. As written, 

the FTC labeling regulations treat IRLs 

as general service incandescent lamps 

(GSILs), and erroneously continued to 

define GSILs as not including those 

lamps specifically designed for 

‘‘[s]wimming pool or other underwater 

service.’’ 16 CFR 305.3(m)(3). This 

exclusion was eliminated from EPCA by 

section 321 of EISA 2007.3 Upon 

realization that FTC definitions were 

incorrect and the R20 short lamps were 

subject to energy conservation 

standards, the manufacturers removed 

the product from the market, and, in 

November 2010, NEMA submitted the 

petition that is the subject of this notice. 

DOE published the petition for 

rulemaking in the Federal Register on 

December 23, 2010 and requested public 

comment. 75 FR 80731. 

In this petition, NEMA asked both for 

a rulemaking to exclude R20 short 

lamps from coverage of energy 

conservation standards, and for a stay of 

enforcement pending that rulemaking. 

As grounds for the petition, NEMA 

stated that R20 short lamps qualify for 

an exemption 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 do not result in significant energy 

savings and that the lamp is designed 

for special applications or has special 

characteristics not available in 

substitute lamp types. Specifically, as 

the lamp has a particular MOL and was 

specially designed to meet underwater 

illumination requirements of hot tub 

manufacturers (including designated 

beam spread and lumen output), there 

are no substitute products on the market 

for this application. 75 FR 80731, 80732 

(Dec. 23, 2010). 

Additionally, NEMA asserted that 

having energy conservation standards 

for this unique 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 R20 short lamp 

manufacturers to withdraw the product 

from the market has already resulted in 

its current unavailability. 75 FR 80731, 

80732–33 (Dec. 23, 2010) 

As noted above, DOE subsequently 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register on December 23, 2010 

containing the petition and requesting 

public comment. 75 FR 80731. DOE 

received several comments from 

manufacturers, utilities, and 

environmental and energy efficiency 

organizations.4 Specifically, DOE 

received comments from Pentair Water 

Pool and Spa, Inc. (Pentair) and 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

(NEEA). It also received a joint comment 

from Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(PG&E), Southern California Edison 

(SCE), Southern California Gas 

Company (SCGC), and San Diego Gas 

and Electric (SDG&E) (hereafter 

‘‘California Investor-Owned Utilities’’ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 55611 

5A notation in the form ‘‘NEMA, No. 2.1 at p. 2’’ 

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 NEMA; (2) in document number 2.1 

of the docket, and (3) on page 2 of that document. 

(CA IOUs)). Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), the Appliance 

Standard Awareness Project (ASAP), the 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Earthjustice, and the National Consumer 

Law Center (NCLC) (hereafter ‘‘Energy 

Efficiency Organizations’’) also 

provided joint comments. The following 

discussion summarizes and responds to 

comments on the NEMA petition. 

II. Authority To Grant Exclusion 

In response to the notice of NEMA’s 

petition, several stakeholders 

commented on DOE’s authority to 

exempt R20 short lamps under 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E). 

In its petition, NEMA asserted that 

DOE has the authority to exempt lamps 

that meet the criteria set forth in 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(E). In January 2011, 

NEMA submitted comments 

supplementing its original petition. To 

bolster its argument, in its 

supplementary statements, NEMA cited 

42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(D), which 

authorizes the Secretary to exempt a 

general service lamp from standards in 

the event that application of the 

standard would prevent the fulfillment 

of a specialized application and when 

the lamp is unlikely to be used in a 

general service lighting application. 

While R20 short lamps are not classified 

as general service lamps, NEMA pointed 

to 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(D) as further 

evidence of Congress’s intent to provide 

a regulatory pathway for excluding 

lamps that serve special applications. 

(NEMA, No. 2.1 at p. 2) 5

Both the CA IOUs and Energy 

Efficiency Organizations argued that 

exclusion under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) is 

no longer possible because the 

compliance date has already passed for 

these standards. The CA IOUs and 

Energy Efficiency Organizations 

commented that 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) 

permits the exemption of lamps for 

which standards ‘‘would not result in 

significant energy savings,’’ and 

contended the conditional phrasing 

‘‘would not result,’’ as opposed to the 

present tense wording ‘‘are not 

resulting,’’ means the section only 

applies to standards not yet in effect. 

(CA IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 1; Energy 

Efficiency Organizations, No. 4.1 at 

p. 1–2) 

Energy Efficiency Organizations 

further stated that they interpret 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) as facilitating the 

process of determining coverage rather 

than retroactively excluding products 

from coverage. Moreover, the 

commenters argued that interpreting 

exclusion as a process occurring after 

standards go into effect would erode 

energy savings by allowing 

manufacturers to continually exempt 

products and chip away at the covered 

lamp market. The Energy Efficiency 

Organizations stated that while 

standards for any one lamp may 

generate marginal savings, standards for 

IRLs as a whole represent considerable 

energy savings. (Energy Efficiency 

Organizations, No. 4.1 at p. 2–3) 

DOE does not believe the plain 

language of EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E) compels an interpretation 

that the section only applies to 

standards before their compliance date. 

DOE finds this reading would prevent 

application of 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E). 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3), DOE is 

already barred from adopting standards 

for any product class for which the 

standards would not result in significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, if 

interpreted to apply to products for 

which standards are not yet in effect, 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) would be rendered 

redundant and superfluous, as both it 

and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3) evaluate 

possible significant energy savings from 

future standards. Instead, DOE has 

concluded that 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) 

contains no time bar in terms of DOE 

taking a rulemaking action to address 

any lamp for which standards would 

not result in significant energy savings 

as it is designed for special applications 

or has special characteristics not 

available in substitute lamp types. 

Given the broad and growing coverage 

of DOE’s energy conservation standards 

for lamps, DOE believes that Congress 

intended 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) to 

provide a mechanism to address both 

those lamps inadvertently covered by 

preexisting standards, as well as new 

lamps subsequently developed to which 

standards would otherwise apply. 

The CA IOUs and the Energy 

Efficiency Organizations also argued 

that DOE does not have the authority to 

exempt R20 short lamps because of the 

statute’s anti-backsliding provision, 

which prohibits DOE from prescribing 

amended standards that increase the 

maximum allowable energy use or 

decrease the minimum required energy 

efficiency, of a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) The CA IOUs and the 

Energy Efficiency Organizations stated 

that applying an exemption to R20 short 

lamps would violate EPCA by 

decreasing the required energy 

efficiency of a currently covered 

product. (CA IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 1; 

Energy Efficiency Organizations, No. 4.1 

at p. 2) The Energy Efficiency 

Organizations added that the precedent 

set by NRDC v. Abraham (355 F.3d 179, 

196 (2d Cir. 2004)) means that ‘‘section 

325(o)(1) must be read to restrict DOE’s 

subsequent discretionary ability to 

weaken that standard at any point 

thereafter.’’ (Energy Efficiency 

Organizations, No. 4.1 at p. 2) 

NEMA countered that the antibacksliding provision does not preclude 

excluding lamps from an existing 

standard because: (1) 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E) would be rendered 

superfluous if the anti-backsliding 

provision were to preclude DOE from 

considering a petition; and (2) a 

determination would have already been 

made that the exempted lamp would not 

produce significant energy savings if 

subjected to standards, thereby meeting 

the criteria that the exclusion would not 

increase allowable energy use. (NEMA, 

No. 2.1 at p. 2–3) 

After careful review of the relevant 

statutory provisions and these 

comments, DOE has concluded that 

Congress intended 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) 

to provide a mechanism for granting 

relief from current and future lamp 

standards. In reaching this conclusion, 

DOE notes that it is possible to read 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1) in harmony so as to give 

effect to both provisions. DOE would 

not be changing the level of the existing 

energy conservation standard, and for 

those units that would now be excluded 

from the definition of ‘‘incandescent 

lamp,’’ there would first have to be a 

determination that the standard would 

not result in a significant energy savings 

for those lamps. Rather than DOE 

exercising discretion to weaken energy 

conservation standards in violation of 

the anti-backsliding provision, DOE is 

giving effect to an express statutory 

provision under precisely the situation 

for which Congress provided a 

mechanism for resolution. 

DOE also received comments from CA 

IOUs and Energy Efficiency 

Organizations that R20 short lamp 

noncompliance would be better 

addressed through the Requests for 

Adjustments provision (Section 504 of 

the Department of Energy Organization 

Act, Pub. L. 95–91; codified at 42 U.S.C. 

7194). The Requests for Adjustments 

provision (also known as ‘‘exception 

relief’’) allows a manufacturer to submit 

a hardship waiver to DOE’s Office of 

Hearings and Appeals (OHA). OHA has 

a process to handle claims of ‘‘hardship, 

inequity, or unfair distribution of 

burdens’’ by making adjustments to 

regulations. Id. Specifically, the CA 

IOUs and the Energy Efficiency 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55612 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

6The page number refers to the letter from Pentair 

included in NEMA’s comment. 

Organizations claim this process is 

better for the R20 short lamp situation 

because: (1) DOE can grant exceptions to 

certain manufacturers rather than a 

general exemption to the product; (2) 

DOE can grant exceptions for a certain 

period of time appropriate to the 

manufacturers’ needs; and (3) DOE can 

avoid using its time and resources to 

carry out an additional rulemaking. (CA 

IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 3; Energy Efficiency 

Organizations, No. 4.1 at p. 1, 4) NEEA 

further contended that filing a hardship 

petition with OHA would provide more 

appropriate relief for the manufacturer, 

but given that the OHA process allows 

a more specific remedy, NEEA argued 

that a blanket product exemption would 

be highly inappropriate. (NEEA, No. 5.1 

at p. 1–2) In response, DOE has 

determined that this situation is not 

specific to a single manufacturer, but 

rather, it applies to an entire product 

type. Accordingly, OHA exception relief 

would not be an appropriate remedy for 

R20 short lamps, because exception 

relief cannot be used to alter a standard 

level across the board, even where it has 

been belatedly demonstrated that 

another level might be more 

appropriate. In such case, exception 

relief to specific manufacturers could 

preclude others from entering this 

market and ultimately reduce 

competition. Furthermore, OHA’s 

authority to grant exception relief does 

not apply to energy conservation 

standards set by statute, but instead, it 

only applies to standards set pursuant to 

DOE’s regulatory authority. The 

Secretary is legally required to 

implement the laws as enacted, so if the 

Secretary lacks authority to waive 

statutory requirements, the Secretary 

cannot delegate a greater power to OHA 

in terms of granting exception relief. 

After reviewing NEMA’s petition and 

responses to the petition, DOE has 

concluded that 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) 

applies to products for which standards 

for fluorescent lamps and incandescent 

lamps are already in effect and that it 

grants DOE the authority to exclude by 

rule certain IRLs from coverage if they 

met the necessary statutory criteria for 

exclusion. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that the exemption of R20 

short lamps must be evaluated based on 

energy savings and lamp application 

rather than through a petition for 

exception relief based upon hardship. 

For these reasons, DOE grants NEMA’s 

petition to initiate a rulemaking to 

consider exclusion of R20 short lamps 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E). 

III. Evaluation of Stay of Enforcement 

In its petition, NEMA also requested 

a stay of enforcement of standards for 

R20 short lamps pending the outcome of 

this rulemaking. Pentair, a manufacturer 

of spas, commented that its supplier has 

stopped supplying R20 short lamps in 

order to comply with the energy 

conservation standards, and the 

commenter warned that this supply 

stoppage will create significant hardship 

for both Pentair and its customers 

because there is no substitute for this 

lamp. (NEMA, No. 2.1 at p. 1) 6 Further, 

Pentair stated that Underwriters 

Laboratories specifies the use of R20 

short lamps in luminaires for numerous 

spa products. Pentair asserted that 

without an equivalent replacement, its 

customers would be forced to replace 

the entire fixture in order to continue 

meeting local building codes that 

require certain wattage per square foot 

to ensure adequate and safe lighting 

levels. (NEMA, No. 2.1 at p. 1) 

NEMA also warned that failure to 

exclude R20 short lamps will lead to 

their unavailability in the United States. 

75 FR 80731, 80733 (Dec. 23, 2010). 

NEMA stated that such unavailability 

presents a potential marketplace 

problem for the public, pool and spa 

builders, and consumers, as they do not 

have any available substitutes. Further, 

Pentair noted that it had orders in 

excess of its inventory, a problem that 

would become worse with time. 

(NEMA, No. 2.1 at p. 3) 

DOE has decided that given the 

confusion in the industry and harm 

likely to result in the interim, while this 

rulemaking is pending, DOE will not 

pursue enforcement action against 

manufacturers producing and/or selling 

R20 short lamps that do not comply 

with prescribed standards. 

IV. Conclusion 

After reviewing NEMA’s petition and 

comments on the petition, DOE has 

concluded it has the legal authority to 

grant exclusions for IRLs under 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(E). DOE will conduct a 

rulemaking to consider excluding R20 

short lamps from coverage under energy 

conservation standards pursuant to the 

requirements specified in 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E) and has granted a stay of 

enforcement pending the outcome of the 

rulemaking. Accordingly, while this 

rulemaking is pending, DOE will not 

pursue enforcement action against 

manufacturers producing and/or selling 

R20 short lamps that do not comply 

with prescribed standards. 

V. Rulemaking Overview 

A. Purpose of the Rulemaking 

DOE will undertake a rulemaking to 

consider exclusion from coverage under 

energy conservation for R20 short lamps 

pursuant to the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(E). Under this section, 

in order to exclude a fluorescent or 

incandescent lamp, the Secretary must 

make the determination, by rule, that 

standards for the 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.’’ 

Id. In its petition, NEMA asserted that 

a rulemaking to consider exclusion of 

R20 short lamps from standards 

coverage will conclude: (1) That energy 

conservation standards for this unique 

type of lamp will not result in 

significant energy savings; and (2) this 

type of lamp is designed for special 

applications or has special 

characteristics not available in 

reasonably substitutable lamp types. 

Therefore, in the rulemaking, DOE 

will evaluate the market impact of 

excluding R20 short lamps from 

coverage, including the direct loss in 

energy savings, as well as the potential 

for migration of the lamps to other 

markets and the associated impacts on 

energy savings. DOE will also determine 

whether R20 short lamps truly have 

unique characteristics not available in 

reasonably substitutable lamp types. 

DOE will conduct a market and 

technology analysis to identify options 

that meet requirements of spa 

applications, including technologies to 

make R20 short lamps more energy 

efficient, as well as the availability of 

standard-compliant substitute lamps. 

DOE will consult the relevant 

interested parties in the rulemaking 

process including manufacturers (both 

of lamps and of spas), consumers, 

energy conservation and environmental 

advocates, and any other interested 

members of the public. The rulemaking 

will address the comments DOE has 

already received or subsequently 

receives regarding whether or not R20 

short lamps meet the statutory criteria 

for exclusion. 

B. Significance of Energy Savings of R20 

Short Lamp Standards 

In the rulemaking, DOE will 

determine whether or not energy 

conservation standards for R20 short 

lamps result in significant energy 

savings. Energy Efficiency Organizations 

have commented that an exclusion 

under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) can only be 

granted if the standards would not 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 55613 

7The page number refers to the letter from Pentair 

included in NEMA’s comment. 

result in significant energy savings 

either because the lamp is designed for 

special application or has special 

characteristics not available in 

reasonably substitutable lamp types. 

Subsequently, the Energy Efficiency 

Organizations contend that in its 

petition, NEMA does not make the case 

that it is the unique features of R20 

short lamps and the unavailability of 

substitutes that will prevent the 

standards from generating significant 

energy savings. Instead, they contend 

that NEMA relies solely on the 

uniqueness of the 100W R20 short lamp 

as a basis for exclusion under 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E). (Energy Efficiency 

Organizations, No. 4.1 at p. 4) 

In response, DOE does not believe 

that 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) requires a 

lamp’s lack of significant energy savings 

potential to be directly attributable to 

the special application or special 

characteristic itself. Instead, DOE 

believes that a more reasonable 

interpretation would also account for 

the fact that the lamps’ use in special 

applications and special characteristics 

not available in substitute lamps may 

result in very low shipment volumes, 

which in turn may lead to a 

determination that significant energy 

savings would not result from 

application of energy conservation 

standards to such lamps. 

In its petition, NEMA contended that 

due to the low market share and lower 

wattage of R20 short lamps, energy 

conservation standards will not result in 

significant energy savings. NEMA 

determined that sales of R20 short 

lamps represented significantly less 

than 0.1 percent of 2009 shipments of 

IRL covered by energy conservation 

standards. The petitioner noted that in 

the 2009 rulemaking for IRL standards, 

DOE determined that due to low market 

share, IRLs with rated wattages greater 

than 205 watts would not represent 

substantial potential energy savings and 

should, therefore, not be covered by 

standards. 75 FR 80731, 80733 (Dec. 23, 

2010). Because the R20 short lamp 

market is even smaller, NEMA reasoned 

that these lamps similarly would not 

have a significant energy savings 

potential. 

The CA IOUs disagreed with NEMA, 

stating that exempting R20 short lamps 

would put significant energy savings at 

risk, because the lamp has the potential 

to be used in other applications. (CA 

IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 2) NEMA contended 

that market migration of unregulated 

R20 short lamps is improbable and that 

consumers would be unlikely to 

substitute unregulated R20 short lamps 

for other types of regulated residential 

lamps, arguing that R20 short lamps are: 

(1) Relatively expensive ($10–20) 

compared to other types of IRL used in 

residential applications; (2) marked for 

pool and spa applications, thereby 

deterring purchases for general lighting 

use; and (3) generally not found in 

stores where other lighting products for 

general residential applications are sold. 

75 FR 80731, 80733 (Dec. 23, 2010). 

However, the CA IOUs found that 

there were R20 short lamp types starting 

from $7.88, which is not much higher 

than the typical $5–9 price range of 

small diameter reflector lamps. (CA 

IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 2) The CA IOUs also 

pointed out that the maximum overall 

length (MOL) of 35⁄8 inches is not 

unique to R20 short lamps, as there are 

many small diameter reflector lamps 

and some larger diameter reflector 

lamps (PAR30) that have an MOL of less 

than or equal to 35⁄8 inches. Therefore, 

the commenters argued that the MOL of 

R20 short lamps does not prevent it 

from being used in other fixtures. 

Additionally, the commenters argued 

that reflector lamps with larger MOLs 

can be substituted for short lamps. (CA 

IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 2) The Energy 

Efficiency Organizations raised similar 

points about prices and MOL and added 

that other distinctive features of R20 

short lamps, such as the wide beam 

spread or heat shields, would not 

prevent their use in applications that 

did not require these features. (Energy 

Efficiency Organizations, No. 4.1 at p. 3) 

The CA IOUs also commented that if 

production of the lamps were to 

increase, manufacturers could achieve 

economies of scale, which would bring 

down the price and further increase the 

chances that the R20 short lamps could 

serve as substitutes for other lamps 

covered by standards. (CA IOUs, No. 3.1 

at p. 2) 

NEEA also agreed with the CA IOUs’ 

assessment of the potential for 

unregulated R20 short lamps to migrate 

to other markets and create a loophole 

in energy conservation standards. NEEA 

and the Energy Efficiency Organizations 

both argued that a similar situation 

occurred when bulged reflector (BR) 

lamps were excluded from EPACT 

1992’s IRL standards and subsequently 

went from being a relatively unknown 

product to comprising more than 40 

percent of the market. (NEEA, 5.1 at p. 

2–3) 

DOE requests comments on the 

potential for unregulated R20 short 

lamps to be used as substitutes for other 

lamps covered by energy conservation 

standards. Specifically, DOE requests 

further information on whether or not 

the distinctive features, pricing, and 

spa-specific labeling and marketing of 

R20 short lamps would provide a 

sufficient deterrent to their use in other 

applications. 

C. Special Utility of R20 Short Lamps 

and Unavailability of Substitutes 

In the rulemaking, DOE will consider 

whether the R20 short lamp is designed 

for special applications or has special 

characteristics not available in 

reasonably substitutable lamp types. 

NEMA asserted that R20 short lamps are 

used for a unique specification in hot 

tub spas and that there are currently no 

substitute products on the market for 

this application. 75 FR 80731, 80733 

(Dec. 23, 2010). Pentair, a spa 

manufacturer, agreed, noting that its 

underwater spa lights are often used in 

public pools and spas regulated by local 

building codes that specify a wattageper-square-foot-of-water-surface-area 

ratio to ensure adequate and safe 

lighting levels. Pentair asserted that 

there is no reflector type lamp with a 

medium base socket and required 

equivalent wattage that can be 

substituted for existing installations of 

the effected model of lighting for Pentair 

spas. (NEMA, No. 2.1 at p. 1) 7 DOE 

requests comments on the availability of 

substitute lamps that would meet both 

energy conservation standards and 

relevant spa application requirements. 

In its petition, NEMA also indicated 

that it may not be possible to make R20 

short lamps compliant with standards. 

NEMA noted that limited fixture space 

in hot tub spas requires a ‘‘short’’ lamp 

with a MOL of 35⁄8 inches. However, the 

lamp must also have a wide beam 

spread to provide diffuse illumination. 

Further, the lamps must have a heat 

shield to protect against high 

temperatures damaging the cement that 

joins the base of the lamp to the glass 

envelope. 75 FR 80731, 80732 (Dec. 23, 

2010). Current energy conservation 

standards for a 100W IRL require a 

minimum average lamp efficacy of 14 

lumens per watt, while R20 short lamps 

produce 9 or 10 lumens per watt. NEMA 

stated that it is not possible to increase 

the lumen output without increasing the 

MOL, because a more-efficient filament 

would operate at a higher temperature 

which could cause the lamp to burst. 

NEMA further stated in its petition that 

a hotter-burning lamp in an underwater 

fixture could lead to other potential 

safety hazards. Additionally, a moreefficient filament could considerably 

shorten lamp life, which would be 

unacceptable in spa applications. Id. 

However, the CA IOUs challenged 

NEMA’s assertion that size and thermal 

constraints render it impossible to make 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55614 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 174 / Thursday, September 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

8 ‘‘PAR’’ denotes parabolic aluminized reflector 

lamp type, and ‘‘20’’ is the diameter in 1⁄8 inches 

increments, which translates to 2.5 inches. 

R20 short lamps more efficient while 

also meeting spa application 

requirements. The CA IOUs contended 

that despite size and thermal 

limitations, there are commerciallyavailable small diameter lamps that 

have high efficiency, long life, and wide 

beam spreads. Further, the CA IOUs 

noted that these lamps use single-ended 

and double-ended halogen burners that 

improve energy efficiency while still 

meeting size requirements of spa lamps 

and providing sufficient lumens. (CA 

IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 3) The CA IOUs cited 

examples such as: (1) The Philips 40W 

Halogena Energy Saver, an R20 halogen 

lamp with a double-ended halogen 

burner, lamp life of 3,000 hours, 540 

lumen output and wide (flood) beam 

spread; and (2) the Philips 70W 

Halogena Energy Saver with doubleended burner, lamp life of 3,000 hours, 

and 1600 lumen output. (CA IOUs, No. 

3.1 at p. 2–3) The Energy Efficiency 

Organizations also cite the same 

examples. (Energy Efficiency 

Organizations, No. 4.1 at p. 3) The CA 

IOUs also gave the example of a PAR20 8

lamp, which typically does not have 

MOLs exceeding 35⁄8 inches, and does 

have a lamp life of 3,000 hours, a wide 

variety of beam spreads, and the ability 

to accommodate single-ended halogen 

burners that would improve efficiency. 

(CA IOUs, No. 3.1 at p. 2) NEEA 

concurred with the CA IOUs on this 

matter. (NEEA, 5.1 at p. 2) DOE requests 

comments on the technical feasibility of 

making R20 short lamps compliant with 

the energy conservation standards and 

also meeting relevant spa application 

requirements. In particular, DOE 

requests any technical data indicating 

that high temperatures would damage 

the cement that joins the base of the 

lamp to the glass envelope and/or the 

feasibility of increasing the lumen 

output without increasing the MOL 

using a more-efficient filament. DOE 

also requests comment on whether other 

technologies such as compact 

fluorescent lamp (CFL) or light-emitting 

diode (LED) could meet spa application 

requirements. 

D. Request for Information 

Although, DOE welcomes comments 

on all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE 

is particularly interested in receiving 

comments, information, and 

recommendations on the following 

issues for the purpose of determining 

whether R20 short lamps meet the 

statutory criteria for exclusion from 

coverage set forth under 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E): 

1. DOE seeks comments on the 

potential for unregulated R20 short 

lamps to be used as substitutes for other 

lamps covered by energy conservation 

standards. 

2. DOE seeks comments on whether or 

not the distinctive features, pricing, and 

spa-specific labeling and marketing of 

R20 short lamps provide a sufficient 

deterrent to their use in other 

applications; 

3. DOE requests further information 

on the availability of substitute lamps 

that would meet both energy 

conservation standards and relevant spa 

application requirements, particularly 

whether CFLs or LEDs could serve as 

substitutes; and 

4. DOE requests further information 

on the technical feasibility of making 

R20 short lamps compliant with the 

prescribed energy conservation 

standards and also meeting relevant spa 

application requirements. In particular, 

DOE is interested in any technical data 

indicating that high temperatures would 

damage the cement that joins the base 

of the lamp to the glass envelope and/ 

or the feasibility of increasing the lumen 

output without increasing the MOL 

using a more-efficient filament. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 

2011. 

Kathleen Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–22813 Filed 9–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0971; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–CE–030–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific 

Aerospace Limited Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for Pacific 

Aerospace Limited Models FU24–954 

and FU24A–954 airplanes modified 

with an unapproved hopper lid 

modification. This proposed AD results 

from mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) 

originated by an aviation authority of 

another country to identify and correct 

an unsafe condition on an aviation 

product. The MCAI describes the unsafe 

condition as: 

Investigation of a recent Cresco 08–600 

accident identified a risk of the hopper lid 

interfering with the opening of the canopy in 

the event of an emergency landing. The pilot 

was prevented from opening the canopy by 

the hopper lid in the fully forward open 

position. This AD is issued due to the fact 

that the hopper lid installation on the 

accident aircraft was an unapproved 

modification and the Fletcher FU24 hopper 

installation is a similar design to the Cresco 

08–600. 

The proposed AD would require actions 

that are intended to address the unsafe 

condition described in the MCAI. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl 

Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4146; fax: (816) 

329–4090; e-mail: 

karl.schletzbaum@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS