64688 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef from a region in Argentina located 

north of Patagonia South and Patagonia 

North B, referred to as Northern 

Argentina. 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

required to be received on or before 

October 28, 2014. We are reopening the 

comment period on Docket No. APHIS– 

2014–0032 for an additional 60 days. 

We will also accept all comments 

received between October 29, 2014 (the 

day after the close of the original 

comment period) and the date of this 

document. This action will allow 

interested persons additional time to 

prepare and submit comments. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781– 

7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 

136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.4. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of 

October 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25936 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–TP–0007] 

RIN: 1904–AD17 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Ceiling Fan Light Kits 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR), the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to 

revise its test procedures for ceiling fan 

light kits (CFLKs). DOE proposes to 

update the current test procedures 

(appendix V) by replacing references to 

ENERGY STAR test procedures with 

references to DOE lamps test procedures 

for medium screw base lamps and to 

industry test procedures for pin-based 

fluorescent lamps. DOE also proposes to 

establish new test procedures (appendix 

V1) that would support amendments to 

CFLK energy conservation standards 

that are currently being considered by 

DOE. Specifically, these new test 

procedures would establish an efficacybased metric for all lamps packaged 

with CFLKs and for CFLKs with 

integrated solid-state lighting circuitry. 

DOE proposes that CFLKs with lamp 

types without corresponding DOE test 

procedures would be tested using 

current industry test procedures for 

those lamp types. This NOPR also 

clarifies the energy conservation 

standards for ceiling fan light kits by 

replacing references to ENERGY STAR 

with tables that contain the specific 

performance requirements from the 

ENERGY STAR documents. Finally, 

DOE also addresses standby and offmode power consumption and provides 

updated guidance related to accent 

lighting in CFLKs. DOE is also 

announcing a public meeting to discuss 

and receive comments on the content 

presented in this rulemaking. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold two public 

meetings on November 18, 2014 and 

November 19, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., in Washington, DC. The 

meeting will also be broadcast as a 

webinar. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the 

public meeting, but no later than 

January 14, 2015. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting on 

November 18 will be held at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. The 

public meeting on November 19 will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 6E–069, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

For additional information about 

attending the meeting, see section V of 

this document, ‘‘Public Participation.’’ 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Test Procedures 

for CFLKs and provide docket number 

EE–2014–BT–TP–0007 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

number 1904–AD17. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: CFLK2014TP0007@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–5B, 

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. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V of this document, ‘‘Public 

Participation.’’ 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP0007. This Web page will contain a link 

to the docket for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for information on how 

to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email: 

ceiling_fan_light_kits@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6111. Email: 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64689 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

3 DOE has published a framework document and 

preliminary analysis for amending energy 

conservation standards for CFLKs. Further 

information is available at www.regulations.gov 

under Docket ID: EERE–2012–BT–STD–0045. 

4The framework document and public meeting 

information are available online at regulations.gov, 

docket number EERE–2012–BT–STD–0045 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE2012-BT-STD-0045-0001. 

A. Amendments to Existing Test 

Procedures 

1. Test Procedures for CFLKs Packaged 

With Medium Screw Bases 

2. Test Procedures for CFLKs Packaged 

With Pin-Based Fluorescents 

3. Clarifications to Energy Conservation 

Standard Text at 10 CFR 430.32(s) 

4. Clarifications for Accent Lighting 

B. Amendments To Implement Efficacy 

Metric For All CFLKs 

1. Proposed Metric 

2. Proposed Test Procedure 

C. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

D. Effective Date and Compliance Date for 

Amended Test Procedures 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

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 Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To 

Speak and Prepared General Statements 

for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309, as codified), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, a program covering the 

ceiling fan light kits (CFLKs) that are the 

focus of this notice.2 (42 U.S.C. 6291(5), 

6293(b)(16)(A)(ii), 6295(ff)(2)–(5)) 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products must 

follow in order to produce data that is 

used for (1) certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA, and (2) making 

representations about the efficiency of 

those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 

these test requirements to determine 

whether products comply with any 

relevant standards established under 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures that DOE 

must follow when prescribing or 

amending test procedures for covered 

products. EPCA provides, in relevant 

part, that any test procedures prescribed 

or amended under this section must be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use and must not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

In addition, if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

it must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to 

amend a test procedure, DOE must 

determine to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

product’s measured energy efficiency as 

determined under the existing test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE 

determines that the amended test 

procedures would alter the measured 

efficiency of a covered product, DOE 

must amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard accordingly. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

The existing energy conservation 

standards for CFLKs were established by 

EPACT 2005 and later amended by 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)) Specifically, 

EPACT 2005 established and set 

separate energy conservation standards 

for three groups of CFLKs: (1) those with 

medium screw base sockets (hereafter 

‘‘product class 1’’), (2) those with pinbased sockets for fluorescent lamps 

(hereafter ‘‘product class 2’’), and (3) all 

other CFLKs not included in product 

class 1 or 2 (hereafter ‘‘product class 

3’’). (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)–(4)) In a 

technical amendment published on 

October 18, 2005, DOE codified the 

statute’s requirements for the first two 

groups of CFLKs, those with medium 

screw base sockets and with pin-based 

sockets for fluorescent lamps. 70 FR 

60413. For the third group of CFLKs, 

EPACT 2005 specified that the 

prescribed standard for these CFLKs 

would become effective only if DOE 

failed to issue a final rule on energy 

conservation standards for CFLKs by 

January 1, 2007. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)(4)(C)) Because DOE did not 

issue a final rule on standards for CFLKs 

by the statutory deadline, on January 11, 

2007, DOE published a technical 

amendment that codified the statute’s 

requirements for product class 3 CFLKs. 

72 FR 1270. Another technical 

amendment to reflect the statutory 

requirements on March 3, 2009 (74 FR 

12058) added a provision that CFLKs 

with sockets for pin-based fluorescent 

lamps must be packaged with lamps to 

fill all sockets. 

EPCA allows DOE to amend energy 

conservation standards for CFLKs any 

time after January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)(5)) In a separate rulemaking 

proceeding, DOE is considering 

amending energy conservation 

standards for CFLKs (hereafter the ‘‘ECS 

rulemaking for CFLKs’’).3 DOE initiated 

that rulemaking by publishing a Federal 

Register notice announcing a public 

meeting and availability of the 

framework document on March 15, 

2013. 78 FR 16443. DOE held a public 

meeting to discuss the framework 

document for the CFLK standards 

rulemaking on March 22, 2013.4

Additionally, the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Pub. L. 110–140, amended 

EPCA to require that at least once every 

7 years, DOE conduct an evaluation of 

all covered products and either amend 

the test procedures (if the Secretary 

determines that amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements of 

42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) or publish a 

determination in the Federal Register 

not to amend them. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A))) Pursuant to this 

requirement, DOE must review the test 

procedures for CFLKs not later than 

December 19, 2014 (i.e., 7 years after the 

enactment of EISA 2007). Thus, the final 

rule resulting from this rulemaking will 

satisfy the requirement to review the 

test procedures for CFLKs within 7 

years of the enactment of EISA 2007. 

For test procedures of covered 

products that do not fully account for 

standby mode and off mode energy 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64690 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5On December 8, 2006, DOE published a final 

rule in the Federal Register for test procedures for 

CFLKs. 71 FR 71340. 

6ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE 

that establishes a voluntary rating, certification, and 

labeling program for highly energy efficient 

consumer products and commercial equipment. 

Information on the program is available at: http:// 

www.energystar.gov. 

7Solid-state lighting or ‘‘SSL’’ refers to a class of 

lighting technologies based on semiconductor 

materials. Light emitting diodes (LEDs) are the most 

common type of SSL on the market today. 

consumption, EISA 2007 directs DOE to 

amend its test procedures to account for 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, if technically feasible. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) If integrated test 

procedures are technically infeasible, 

DOE must prescribe separate standby 

mode and off mode test procedures for 

the covered product, if technically 

feasible. Id. EISA 2007 also amended 

EPCA to require that any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

adopted after July 1, 2010, incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

into a single standard if feasible, or 

otherwise adopt a separate standard for 

such energy use for that product, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

DOE’s current test procedures for CFLKs 

contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix V; 10 CFR 429.33; and 10 

CFR 430.23.5 DOE proposes to (1) clarify 

that lamp efficacy measurements to 

meet existing CFLK energy conservation 

standards should be made according to 

DOE lamp test procedures, where they 

exist; (2) replace references to outdated 

ENERGY STAR 6 requirements in 

appendix V with references to the latest 

versions of industry standards; and (3) 

replace references to ENERGY STAR 

requirements in existing CFLK 

standards contained in 10 CFR 430.32(s) 

with the specific requirements. DOE has 

tentatively concluded that these 

proposed amendments will not affect 

any measurements required to comply 

with existing standards. DOE also 

proposes to modify previously issued 

guidance regarding accent lighting in 

CFLKs to specify that such light sources 

in CFLKs must be tested and are subject 

to standards. 

In order to support the ongoing ECS 

rulemaking for CFLKs, DOE also 

proposes to adopt a single efficiency 

metric measured in lumens per watt 

(hereafter, ‘‘efficacy’’), that would be 

applicable to all product classes. DOE 

proposes, where possible, to determine 

the CFLK efficiency by measuring the 

efficacy of the lamp(s) packaged with 

the CFLK (hereafter, ‘‘lamp efficacy’’) 

and require using existing DOE lamp 

test procedures. Where it is technically 

infeasible to measure lamp efficacy (e.g., 

for CFLKs with integrated solid-state 

lighting 7 circuitry), DOE proposes to 

determine CFLK efficiency by 

measuring the efficacy of the CFLK itself 

(hereafter, ‘‘luminaire efficacy’’). For 

those lamp types used in CFLKs that do 

not have corresponding DOE test 

procedures, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference current 

industry standard test procedures. 

Further, DOE proposes to establish a 

new appendix V1 that will specify test 

procedures for CFLKs packaged with 

lamp types for which DOE test 

procedures do not exist and for CFLKs 

packaged with inseparable light sources 

that require luminaire efficacy. Because 

these proposed amendments will likely 

change the measured values required to 

comply with the existing CFLK 

standards for CFLKs in product classes 

2 and 3, DOE proposes the use of the 

new appendix V1 and associated 

updates to the regulations be required 

concurrent with the compliance date of 

standards established by the ongoing 

ECS rulemaking for CFLKs. 78 FR 

16443. 

This notice also addresses DOE’s 

requirement to account for standby 

mode and off-mode power consumption 

in test procedures that support energy 

conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A) and (3)) DOE believes 

that CFLKs do not consume power in off 

mode and consume power in standby 

mode only if they are controlled via 

remote control. DOE proposes that the 

standby mode energy consumption of 

CFLKs be accounted for under the 

efficiency metric for ceiling fans rather 

than under the CFLK efficiency metric. 

The rationale for this approach is that 

control of the CFLK is initiated through 

the ceiling fan because the standby 

sensor and controller are nearly always 

shared between the ceiling fan and the 

CFLK, and the remote control receiver is 

essentially always installed in the 

ceiling fan housing. 

III. Discussion 

A. Amendments To Existing Test 

Procedures 

The current DOE standards for CFLKs 

in product class 1 (those with medium 

base sockets) (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)) use 

the efficacy of the lamp(s) packaged 

with the CFLK (lumens emitted per watt 

consumed [lm/W]) as the measure of 

CFLK efficiency. The current DOE 

standards for CFLKs in product class 2 

(pin-based sockets for fluorescent 

lamps) (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(3)) use the 

efficacy of the lamp and ballast 

system(s) (lm/W) (hereafter ‘‘system 

efficacy’’) packaged with the CFLK as 

the measure of CFLK efficiency. The 

standard for product class 3 is based on 

maximum allowable operating wattage, 

which is regulated as a design standard 

that requires including a wattage limiter 

in these products. Accordingly, DOE has 

not established test procedures for 

product class 3 CFLKs. 72 FR 1270. 

The current DOE test procedures for 

product class 1 CFLKs incorporate by 

reference sections 3 and 4 of the ‘‘CFL 

Requirements for Testing’’ of the 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Compact Fluorescent Lamps,’’ 

Version 3.0, which in turn references 

the Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America (IES) LM–66–00 test 

procedures for lamp efficacy testing (IES 

LM–66–00, ‘‘Electrical and Photometric 

Measurements of Single-Ended Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps’’). The current DOE 

test procedures for product class 2 

CFLKs incorporate by reference sections 

3 and 4 of the ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Residential Light 

Fixtures,’’ Version 4.0, which also 

reference IES LM–66–00 and IES LM–9– 

99 for system efficacy testing, 

depending on lamp type. Table 1 

summarizes the current metrics and test 

procedures for CFLKs. 

TABLE 1—CFLKS EFFICIENCY METRICS AND REFERENCE TEST PROCEDURES BY PRODUCT CLASS

Product class Efficiency or 

design metric Industry test procedures incorporated into DOE’s regulations 

1 (CFLKs with medium screw 

base sockets).

Lamp efficacy (lm/W) .... ‘‘CFL Requirements for Testing’’ of the ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Compact Fluorescent Lamps,’’ Version 3.0, which references IES LM–66–00 

for lamp efficacy measurements. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64691 

TABLE 1—CFLKS EFFICIENCY METRICS AND REFERENCE TEST PROCEDURES BY PRODUCT CLASS—Continued 

Product class Efficiency or 

design metric Industry test procedures incorporated into DOE’s regulations 

2 (CFLKs with pin-based fluorescent sockets).System efficacy (lm/W) ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Residential Light Fixtures,’’ Version 

4.0, which references IES LM–66–00 and IES LM–9–99 for system efficacy 

measurements. 

3 (All other CFLKs) ..................... Wattage ......................... N/A. 

The ENERGY STAR program 

procedures incorporated into the DOE 

test procedures for CFLKs, and the IES 

test procedures referenced therein, are 

no longer current. DOE’s regulations 

incorporate Version 3.0 of the ‘‘ENERGY 

STAR Program Requirements for 

Compact Fluorescent Lamps,’’ which 

was replaced by Version 4.3. Further, on 

September 30, 2014, Version 4.3 was 

replaced by ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Lamps Version 1.0’’ 

(finalized on August 28, 2013). Version 

4.0 of the ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Residential Light 

Fixtures’’ has been replaced by the 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Luminaires Version 1.2.’’ Moreover, 

the IES test procedures referenced in 

these ENERGY STAR test procedures 

have been updated. For example, the 

current version of IES LM–66 is the 

2011 version (IES LM–66–11), whereas 

the version referenced in the current 

DOE test procedures is the 2000 version 

(IES LM–66–00). 

Because these procedures referenced 

in the DOE test procedures for CFLKs, 

and the IES test procedures referenced 

therein, are no longer current, DOE is 

proposing to update the CFLK test 

procedures to reference existing DOE 

lamp test procedures for covered lamps. 

For those lamp types without a 

corresponding DOE test procedure, DOE 

proposes to reference the latest industry 

standard test procedures and also add 

clarifications to existing sampling 

requirements. This NOPR also presents 

updates to prior DOE guidance related 

to accent lighting. 

As described in section I, when DOE 

amends test procedures, it must 

consider to what extent the proposed 

test procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency as determined under 

the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) For CFLKs this requirement 

only applies to CFLKs with medium 

screw base sockets and pin-based 

sockets for fluorescent lamps—the only 

CFLK product classes with test 

procedures, both of which DOE is 

proposing to amend. These amendments 

are discussed further in the sections that 

follow. 

1. Test Procedures for CFLKs Packaged 

With Medium Screw Bases 

For CFLKs with medium screw base 

sockets, the current DOE test procedures 

reference the ‘‘CFL Requirements for 

Testing’’ of the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps,’’ Version 3.0, which 

in turn reference the Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America 

(IES) LM–66–00 test procedures for 

lamp efficacy testing. DOE proposes to 

replace the reference to the ENERGY 

STAR specification with a reference to 

the current DOE test procedures for 

medium screw base compact fluorescent 

lamps (located at 10 CFR 430, subpart 

B, appendix W), which references IES 

LM–66–11. DOE analyzed the potential 

differences in the methodologies 

incorporated by reference in the current 

and proposed test procedures (i.e., LM– 

66–00 for the existing test procedure 

and LM–66–11 for the proposed test 

procedure). DOE found that there are 

subtle, clarification-type differences 

between the two methods, but that the 

measurement of efficacy is the same. 

Thus, DOE believes that any differences 

in the test procedures would be unlikely 

to yield differences in the measured 

values of lamp efficacy for CFLKs with 

medium screw base sockets. In addition, 

DOE’s proposal would eliminate an 

extra layer of documents referenced. 

Thus, for CFLKs packaged with medium 

screw base lamps, DOE proposes to 

reference appendix W, the DOE test 

procedure for medium base compact 

fluorescent lamps (MBCFLs) and 10 CFR 

429.35, DOE’s sampling requirements 

for MBCFLs. DOE proposes to 

implement this change by removing the 

current test specifications for CFLKs 

packaged with medium screw bases 

from appendix V and amending 10 CFR 

429.33 and 10 CFR 430.23 to reference 

respectively, 10 CFR 429.35 and 

appendix W for CFLKs packaged with 

medium screw base compact fluorescent 

lamps. DOE requests comments on the 

proposed changes for existing test 

procedures for CFLKs packaged with 

medium screw base lamps. 

2. Test Procedures for CFLKs Packaged 

With Pin-Based Fluorescent Lamps 

DOE also proposes to update the test 

procedure for CFLKs with pin-based 

sockets for fluorescent lamps. The 

current DOE test procedures for CFLKs 

with pin-based sockets for fluorescent 

lamps reference the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Residential 

Light Fixtures,’’ Version 4.0, which in 

turn references IES LM–66–00 (for 

compact fluorescent lamps [CFLs]) and 

IES LM–9–99 (for all other fluorescent 

lamps). DOE proposes to remove the 

ENERGY STAR references and update 

the test procedures with direct 

references to the current industry test 

procedures, namely IES LM–66–11 and 

IES LM–9–09. The ENERGY STAR 

program requirements specify that the 

efficacy of the lamp should be measured 

using the ballast with which it is 

packaged rather than a reference ballast. 

DOE notes that although both IES LM– 

66–11 and IES LM–9–09 specify that 

lamps with external ballasts (e.g., pinbased fluorescent lamps) be tested on a 

reference ballast, they also contain 

provisions that allow for such lamps to 

be tested on commercially available 

ballasts, rather than on a reference 

ballast when it is desirable to measure 

the performance (e.g., system efficacy) 

of a specific lamp ballast platform. 

Because changing the current test 

procedure to require measurement of 

pin-based fluorescent lamps on a 

reference ballast would result in a 

change in measured values, DOE 

proposes to specify in appendix V that 

system efficacy testing of pin-based 

fluorescent lamps be conducted with 

ballasts that are packaged with CFLKs. 

Further, DOE found that there are 

subtle, clarification-type differences 

between IES LM–66–00 and IES LM– 

66–11 and between IES LM–9–99 and 

LM–9–09 but that the general 

measurement of system efficacy is the 

same. Thus, DOE believes that any 

differences in the current and proposed 

test procedures would be unlikely to 

yield differences in the measured values 

of system efficacy for CFLKs with pinbased fluorescent lamps but would 

eliminate an extraneous layer of 

reference documents. DOE therefore 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64692 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/ceilingfanlk_

faq_2010-07-16.pdf. 

9Ceiling Fan and Ceiling Fan Light Kits 

Framework Document (http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045- 

0001) and Notice of Public Meeting, Federal 

Register, 78 FR 16443 (March 15, 2013) (http://

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE2012-BT-STD-0045-0002). 

10A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits 

(Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–STD–0045). This 

notation indicates that the statement preceding the 

reference is included in document number 37 in the 

docket for the ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits 

energy conservation standards rulemaking, at page 

2. 

proposes to amend appendix V to 

reference IES LM–66–11 and IES LM–9– 

09, as applicable, depending on the type 

of pin-based lamp that is packaged with 

the CFLK. 

DOE notes that EPCA requires CFLK 

test procedures to be based on the test 

procedures referenced in the ENERGY 

STAR specifications for ‘‘Residential 

Light Fixtures and Compact Fluorescent 

Light Bulbs’’, as in effect on August 8, 

2005. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)(A)(ii)) DOE 

believes it will remain in compliance 

with this requirement after updating 

references as described above, as the 

older industry standards referenced in 

the ENERGY STAR version and the 

latest versions of these industry 

standards have not changed 

substantively. 

DOE requests comments on the 

proposed changes for existing test 

procedures for CFLKs packaged with 

pin-based fluorescent lamps. 

3. Clarifications to Energy Conservation 

Standard Text at 10 CFR 430.32(s) 

CFLK energy conservation standards 

are codified in 10 CFR 430.32(s). 

Currently the text in 10 CFR 430.32(s) 

refers to the ENERGY STAR Program 

requirements for Compact Fluorescent 

Lamps version 3, for standards 

applicable to CFLKs packaged with 

medium screw base lamps and the 

ENERGY STAR Program requirements 

for Residential Light Fixtures, version 

4.0, for standards applicable to CFLKs 

packaged with pin-based fluorescent 

lamps. To state more clearly the 

minimum requirements for these 

products, DOE proposes to replace the 

references to ENERGY STAR with tables 

that contain the specific performance 

requirements from the ENERGY STAR 

documents. 

For CFLKs packaged with medium 

screw base CFLs the standards table 

would include the efficacy, lumen 

maintenance at 1,000 hours, lumen 

maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, 

rapid cycle stress, and lifetime 

requirements specified in the ENERGY 

STAR Program requirements for 

Compact Fluorescent Lamps, version 3. 

For CFLKs packaged with medium 

screw base light sources other than 

CFLs, the standards table would include 

the efficacy requirements specified in 

the ENERGY STAR Program 

requirements for Compact Fluorescent 

Lamps, version 3. For CFLKs packaged 

with pin-based fluorescent lamps, the 

standards table would include the 

system efficacy in the ENERGY STAR 

Program requirements for Residential 

Light Fixtures version 4.0. DOE requests 

comment on replacing references to 

ENERGY STAR documents with the 

specific requirements from the ENERGY 

STAR documents referenced in CFLK 

energy conservation standards, codified 

at 10 CFR 430.32(s). 

4. Clarifications for Accent Lighting 

DOE previously issued guidance on 

accent lighting used in CFLKs in a test 

procedure technical amendment (71 FR 

71347 [December 8, 2006]), and 

recorded this guidance for easier 

reference in its Guidance and 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Web 

site.8 In this guidance DOE stated, ‘‘DOE 

does not consider ceiling fan accent 

lighting that is not a significant light 

source to be part of the 190-watt 

limitation.’’ Because it is difficult to 

quantitatively define ‘‘a significant light 

source’’ in a CFLK as it may vary 

depending on the application in which 

it is used and may require a subjective 

determination of what provides accent 

lighting versus overall illumination, 

DOE believes that this may result in 

inconsistency in the application of 

CFLK standards. Therefore, DOE 

proposes to withdraw the current 

guidance on accent lighting 30 days 

after the publication of the final rule. 

DOE proposes to consider all lighting 

packaged with any CFLK to be subject 

to energy conservation requirements. 

DOE requests comment on its 

withdrawal of current guidance on 

accent lighting in CFLKs and proposal 

to consider all lighting packaged with 

any CFLKs to be subject to energy 

conservation requirements. 

B. Amendments To Implement an 

Efficacy Metric for All CFLKs 

In this document DOE also proposes 

to include amendments to the CFLK test 

procedures that would expand the 

efficacy metric to all covered CFLKs in 

support of the amended standards being 

considered as part of the ongoing ECS 

rulemaking for CFLKs. In that 

rulemaking, DOE is proposing to require 

that all covered CFLKs meet minimum 

efficacy requirements, as is currently 

required for CFLKs in product class 1 

and product class 2. 78 FR 16443. Thus, 

DOE proposes to establish a new 

appendix V1 and amend 10 CFR 429.33 

and 10 CFR 430.23 to provide test 

procedures to measure the lamp efficacy 

of each basic model of a lamp type 

packaged with a CFLK and to measure 

the luminaire efficacy of each basic 

model of CFLK with integrated SSL 

circuitry. For CFLKs with both 

consumer replaceable lamps and 

integrated SSL circuitry, DOE proposes 

that each of the components 

individually must be tested for lamp or 

luminaire efficacy as applicable. DOE 

proposes that the use of the new 

appendix V1 and associated updates 

would be required concurrent with the 

compliance date of standards 

established by the ongoing ECS 

rulemaking for CFLKs. The following 

sections describe the change in metric 

for certain CFLKs and how DOE 

proposes measuring lamp and luminaire 

efficacy. 

1. Proposed Metric 

As noted previously, DOE’s current 

CFLK energy conservation standards 

establish minimum CFLK efficiency in 

three different ways depending on 

product class: Lamp efficacy for product 

class 1, system efficacy for product class 

2, and wattage for product class 3. This 

variation makes it difficult for 

consumers to compare the efficiency of 

different types of CFLKs. DOE is 

therefore proposing amendments to the 

CFLK test procedures to use a single 

metric (efficacy) to quantify the energy 

efficiency of all CFLKs. To the extent 

technologically feasible, DOE proposes 

to use lamp efficacy as the measure of 

efficiency, as described in this section. 

In the public comments received in 

response to the framework document for 

the CFLK standards rulemaking,9

stakeholders described problems with 

the current regulatory structure for 

product class 3 CFLKs. Hunter Fan 

Company (Hunter) argued that wattage 

limiters are prone to failure, thereby 

significantly increasing the costs 

associated with product warrantees. 

(Hunter Fan Company, No. 37 at p. 2).10

A survey commissioned by the 

American Lighting Association (ALA) 

and submitted to DOE found that the 

added warranty cost due to servicing the 

failures of wattage limiters averaged 

$46.43 per claim. (ALA, No. 39 at p. 21). 

DOE is sensitive to the concerns 

raised by stakeholders and recognizes 

that the maximum wattage limit 

approach currently prescribed for 

product class 3 CFLKs has limitations. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64693 

11 DOE published a NOPR on April 9, 2012 (77 

FR 21038), a supplemental NOPR on June 3, 2014 

(79 FR 32019), and a second supplemental NOPR 

on June 26, 2014 (79 FR 36242). Information on the 

LED lamps test procedure can be found at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011- 

BT-TP-0071. 

Unlike efficacy, wattage alone gives no 

indication of the amount of lighting 

service (lumens) delivered per unit of 

power consumed (watts). Because 

consumers have traditionally associated 

wattage with brightness, consumers may 

erroneously believe that a product with 

a low wattage rating does not produce 

adequate light. Furthermore, DOE 

acknowledges the cost concerns and 

technology problems associated with 

wattage limiters that stakeholders 

raised. DOE further notes that wattage 

limiters are a potential failure point for 

CFLKs and may create design challenges 

for some CFLKs because of the physical 

space they require. Finally, DOE notes 

that wattage limiters may be 

unnecessary in CFLKs that use lighting 

technologies that are inherently high 

efficiency and/or wattage limiting. 

As a result of these concerns, DOE 

proposes replacing wattage with efficacy 

as the metric for all CFLKs, including 

those currently in product class 3. 

Efficacy more accurately captures the 

efficiency of a light source by expressing 

the light output relative to the input 

power. The efficacy metric is 

universally used by lighting industry 

organizations (e.g., the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association 

and the Illuminating Engineering 

Society) and governmental bodies (e.g., 

DOE, ENERGY STAR, California Energy 

Commission) to quantify and 

characterize the efficiency of both lamps 

and luminaires. Therefore, DOE 

proposes requiring efficacy, expressed 

in lumens per watt, as the efficiency 

metric for all CFLKs. For CFLKs with 

externally ballasted lamps (also known 

as non-integrated lamps), DOE proposes 

shifting from the current approach, 

which uses system efficacy as measured 

on the ballast packaged with the CFLK 

(appendix V), to one that uses lamp 

efficacy, as measured on a reference 

ballast. 

As described in the preceding 

paragraphs, DOE proposes to use lamp 

efficacy as the basis of its energy 

efficiency standards for CFLKs where 

technically feasible. Where that is not 

possible (e.g., for CFLKs with integrated 

solid-state lighting circuitry), DOE 

proposes to use luminaire efficacy. DOE 

requests comments on its proposal to 

use lamp efficacy when technically 

feasible and otherwise luminaire 

efficacy to determine the efficiency of 

CFLKs. 

2. Proposed Test Procedure 

DOE notes that the large majority of 

CFLKs currently on the market are 

packaged with lamps for which DOE or 

industry test procedures exist. In this 

NOPR, DOE proposes test procedure 

updates to require an efficacy metric for 

all light sources packaged with CFLKs. 

For these test procedure updates, DOE 

also proposes to reference existing DOE 

test procedures and to reference 

industry standard test procedures only 

where DOE test procedures do not exist. 

As noted above, DOE proposes to 

minimize the overall lamps testing 

burden and update the CFLK test 

procedures by replacing references to 

ENERGY STAR test procedures with 

references to existing DOE lamp test 

procedures, where applicable. CFLKs 

that are packaged with lamps that have 

already been tested per DOE lamp test 

procedures may not require additional 

testing. For CFLKs with lamp types that 

do not have a corresponding current 

DOE test procedure, DOE proposes to 

reference current test procedures of the 

IES. The IES periodically updates its 

test procedures. Under the proposed 

approach, DOE would incorporate by 

reference a specific version of an IES 

test procedure (e.g., LM–79–08). In a 

future rulemaking, DOE may consider 

updating references to more recent 

versions of IES test procedures, if they 

exist; however, the required version 

would not change absent DOE 

rulemaking, even if the IES publishes an 

update to the test procedure. 

Further, DOE is currently engaged in 

two test procedure rulemakings for lamp 

types that are used in CFLKs. 

Specifically, DOE is amending appendix 

W to update existing test procedures for 

medium base compact fluorescent 

lamps and to include test procedures for 

additional CFL metrics and CFL types, 

including externally-ballasted CFLs (i.e., 

non-integrated CFLs). DOE has also 

proposed a new appendix BB setting 

forth test procedures for integrated LED 

lamps.11 DOE expects both of these 

appendices would be effective by the 

time that the new CFLK test procedure 

implementing a single efficacy metric 

for CFLKs (i.e., appendix V1 and 

associated CFR updates) would be 

effective. Therefore, DOE references 

these proposed appendices in the 

proposed amendments to the CFLK test 

procedures. 

DOE notes that some CFLKs with 

solid-state lighting have designs for 

which it is not technically feasible to 

measure lamp efficacy without 

destructive disassembly of the CFLK 

circuitry and, even where it is possible 

to disassemble the lighting in a nondestructive manner, measurements may 

not be accurate or consistent 

representations of the light source 

efficacy. This applies to two cases: (1) 

CFLKs that have SSL drivers and/or 

light sources (e.g., an LED array or 

module) that are not consumer 

replaceable, and (2) CFLKs that have 

SSL drivers and light sources that are 

consumer replaceable, but the SSL 

driver and light source are separated by 

additional intermediate circuitry within 

the CFLK (e.g., wiring between a 

replaceable driver and a replaceable 

light source). DOE refers to these 

designs—which have light sources, 

drivers, or intermediate circuitry that is 

integrated into the CFLK—as ‘‘CFLKs 

with integrated SSL circuitry’’ and 

proposes to evaluate the efficiency of 

these CFLKs by measuring their 

luminaire efficacy. 

DOE considered alternative 

approaches to quantifying CFLK 

efficiency for certain CFLKs with 

integrated SSL circuitry to determine if 

it was feasible to measure lamp efficacy, 

rather than luminaire efficacy, but 

determined that it is not. Specifically, 

some CFLK designs may have SSL light 

sources that are consumer replaceable 

(i.e., to facilitate repairs and 

maintenance) but LED drivers that are 

hardwired in the CFLK. For this 

scenario, DOE explored whether lamp 

efficacy could be measured on the 

consumer replaceable SSL light source 

using a ‘‘reference driver’’ in much the 

same way that reference ballasts are 

used for measuring the lamp efficacy of 

certain pin-based CFLs. However, SSL 

light sources do not have industryspecified reference drivers in the 

manner that CFLs have reference 

ballasts and, therefore, this method 

could result in varying efficacy 

measurements of the light source. 

Similarly, for designs with consumer 

replaceable SSL light sources and 

drivers, DOE considered measuring 

lamp efficacy of the combined consumer 

replaceable components, but this 

approach may also result in varying 

measurements of the light source 

efficacy depending on the additional 

SSL components packaged with the 

CFLK. Additionally, these types of 

measurements are outside the stated 

scope of IES LM–79–08, which 

addresses only luminaires and 

integrated LED lamps. 

In the ongoing ECS rulemaking for 

CFLKs, DOE is considering that each 

lamp and/or integrated light source 

packaged with the CFLK meet 

prescribed minimum efficacy 

requirements. 78 FR 16443. For CFLKs 

that utilize multiple lamp models, DOE 

proposes that each lamp model be tested 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64694 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

according to the corresponding lamp 

test procedure. For CFLKs that have 

both consumer replaceable lamps and 

integrated SSL circuitry, DOE proposes 

that the lamp efficacy of the consumer 

replaceable lamps be measured and that 

the luminaire efficacy of the CFLK 

integrated SSL circuitry be measured 

after the consumer replaceable lamps 

are removed. Each component would 

individually be required to meet the 

minimum standard. For CFLKs with 

dimmable lighting, DOE proposes that 

active mode testing be conducted at full 

power. 

Table 2 summarizes the proposed 

active mode test procedures for 

determining efficacy. 

TABLE 2—PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES FOR CFLKS BASED ON LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY

Lighting technology Lamp or luminaire 

efficacy measured Referenced test procedure 

Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) .................................................... Lamp Efficacy ......................................... Appendix W to Subpart B of 10 

CFR 430. 

Other (non-CFL) fluorescent lamps .................................................... Lamp Efficacy ......................................... IES LM–9–09. 

Integrated LED lamps ......................................................................... Lamp Efficacy ......................................... Appendix BB to Subpart B of 10 

CFR 430. 

All Other SSL lamps ........................................................................... Lamp Efficacy ......................................... IES LM–79–08. 

CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry .................................................. Luminaire Efficacy .................................. IES LM–79–08. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to measure luminaire efficacy 

for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry 

and to measure lamp efficacy for all 

other types of CFLKs. 

DOE requests comment on its 

assessment that it is technically 

infeasible to measure the lamp efficacy 

of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry 

either because it would require 

destructive disassembly of the CFLK or 

measurement of consumer replaceable 

light source and driver, which would 

not result in valid representations of the 

light source efficacy. 

DOE requests comment on its 

approach to testing CFLKs that have 

both consumer replaceable lamps and 

integrated SSL circuitry. 

C. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

As required by statute, DOE is 

addressing standby mode and off mode 

power consumption in this NOPR. 

EPCA defines ‘‘standby mode’’ as ‘‘the 

condition in which an energy-using 

product—(I) is connected to a main 

power source; and (II) offers 1 or more 

of the following user-oriented or 

protective functions: (aa) To facilitate 

the activation or deactivation of other 

functions (including active mode) by 

remote switch (including remote 

control), internal sensor, or timer. (bb) 

Continuous functions, including 

information or status displays 

(including clocks) or sensor-based 

functions.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) EPCA defines ‘‘off 

mode’’ as ‘‘the condition in which an 

energy-using product—(I) is connected 

to a main power source; and (II) is not 

providing any standby or active mode 

function.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii)) 

ALA provided comments on the 

framework document of the ongoing 

ECS rulemaking for CFLKs indicating 

that a ceiling fan without a wireless 

remote does not consume energy in off 

mode, and a ceiling fan with a wireless 

remote control has an average power 

consumption of 1.4 W in standby mode. 

(ALA, 39 at pg.13). 

Based on a review of specification 

sheets of CFLKs on the market and data 

provided by ALA, DOE believes that 

CFLKs do not consume power in off 

mode, and that only CFLKs offering the 

functionality of a wireless remote 

control may consume power in standby 

mode. Because the standby sensor and 

controller nearly always provide 

functionality shared between the ceiling 

fan and the CFLK, DOE proposed in the 

framework document to account for the 

energy consumption in standby mode 

under the ceiling fan efficiency metric 

rather than under the CFLK efficiency 

metric. 78 FR 16443. 

Further efforts to address standby 

energy usage in the CFLK test procedure 

may produce test results that are 

unnecessarily confusing to the 

consumer. If standby power were 

incorporated into a single efficiency 

metric, a CFLK with standby energy 

usage would have a different efficacy 

from the lamps packaged with it. 

Furthermore, two CFLKs with the same 

lamps, one with and one without a 

remote control, would have different 

efficacy ratings. This could be confusing 

to consumers and potentially 

misleading since remote controls often 

include dimmers, which may reduce 

active mode power consumption by 

allowing consumers to run lamps at less 

than full power. Additionally, DOE is 

concerned that requiring standby power 

testing for CFLKs in addition to standby 

power testing for ceiling fans would 

impose an unnecessary testing burden 

on manufacturers, given that the 

standby power consumption is shared 

between the ceiling fan and the CFLK, 

has its genesis in the ceiling fan, and 

can be captured in the ceiling fan test 

procedure alone. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that standby 

energy usage for CFLKs is adequately 

addressed in the ceiling fan test 

procedure. For these reasons, DOE is not 

proposing a test procedure for standby 

mode power consumption for CFLKs in 

this NOPR. DOE requests comment on 

its approach to addressing standby 

power consumption in CFLKs. 

D. Effective Date and Compliance Date 

for Amended Test Procedures 

The effective date for any amended 

test procedures is 30 days after 

publication of any final test procedures 

in the Federal Register. (5 U.S.C. 553) 

The compliance date for the amended 

test procedures specified for appendix V 

would be 180 days after publication of 

the test procedure final rule in the 

Federal Register. The compliance date 

for appendix V1 would be concurrent 

with the ongoing ECS rulemaking for 

CFLKs. Manufacturers would be 

permitted to make representations based 

on testing in accordance with appendix 

V1 early, if such representations would 

demonstrate compliance with any 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64695 

12Although NAICS 335121, ‘‘Residential Electric 

Lighting Fixture Manufacturing’’ could also apply 

to CFLK manufacturers, DOE chose a NAICS code 

that applied to both ceiling fans and light kits 

because CFLK manufacturers are generally also 

ceiling fan manufacturers. 

13The American Lighting Association, list of 

Manufacturers & Representatives (Available at: 

http://www.americanlightingassoc.com/Members/

Resources/Manufacturers-Representatives.aspx). 

14The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 

the U.S. Department of Energy, ENERGY STAR 

Ceiling Fans—Product Databases for Ceiling Fans 

(Available at: http://www.energystar.gov/

index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_

product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=CF). 

15The California Energy Commission, Appliance 

Database for Ceiling Fans (Available at: http://

www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/QuickSearch.aspx). 

16The Federal Trade Commission, Appliance 

Energy Databases for Ceiling Fans (Available at: 

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/eande/

appliances/ceilfan.htm). 

17The Department of Energy, Compliance 

Certification Database (Available at: http://

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996) requires 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IFRA) for any rule 

that by law must be proposed for public 

comment and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such 

rule that an agency adopts as a final 

rule, unless the agency certifies that the 

rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. A 

regulatory flexibility analysis examines 

the impact of the rule on small entities 

and considers alternative ways of 

reducing negative effects. Also, 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 DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site at: http://energy.gov/ 

gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed this proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. The proposed rule prescribes the 

test procedure amendments that would 

be used to determine compliance with 

energy conservation standards for 

CFLKs. 

DOE analyzed the burden to small 

manufacturers in both the context of the 

proposed modifications to the existing 

CFLK test procedures made in appendix 

V and associated CFR sections, as well 

as the in the context of the proposed test 

procedures to implement an efficacy 

metric for all covered CFLKs by 

establishing appendix V1 and amending 

associated CFR sections. With respect 

amendments to existing CFLK test 

procedures, DOE determined that 

proposed changes would not have a 

material impact on small U.S. 

manufacturers because the proposed 

changes would not alter the test 

procedures themselves, but rather, how 

they would be referenced. 

Consequently, DOE certifies that the 

proposed testing procedure 

amendments would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities and 

the preparation of an IRFA is not 

warranted for these amendments. 

With respect to proposed test 

procedures to implement an efficacy 

metric for all covered CFLKs, DOE 

found that because the proposed 

amendments would require efficiency 

performance testing of certain CFLKs 

that had not required testing previously, 

all manufacturers, including a 

substantial number of small 

manufacturers, would experience a 

financial burden associated with new 

testing requirements. Therefore, the 

preparation of an IRFA is required for 

these amendments. DOE has transmitted 

a copy of this IRFA to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has set a size threshold for 

manufacturers, 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, 

30849 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 

FR 53533, 53545 (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 http://www.sba.gov/sites/

default/files/files/Size_Standards_

Table.pdf. CFLK manufacturing is 

classified under NAICS code 335210,12

‘‘Small Electrical Appliance 

Manufacturing.’’ SBA sets a threshold of 

750 employees or less for an entity to be 

considered a small business for this 

category. 

DOE conducted a focused inquiry into 

small business manufacturers of 

products covered by this rulemaking. To 

identify CFLK manufacturers, DOE 

reviewed ALA’s list of ceiling fan 

manufacturers,13 the ENERGY STAR 

Product Databases for Ceiling Fans,14

the California Energy Commission’s 

Appliance Database for Ceiling Fans,15

the Federal Trade Commission’s 

Appliance Energy Database for Ceiling 

Fans,16 and DOE’s Compliance 

Certification Database.17 DOE then 

reviewed these data to determine 

whether the entities met the SBA’s 

definition of a ‘‘small business 

manufacturer’’ of CFLKs and screened 

out companies that do not offer 

products subject to this rulemaking, do 

not meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business,’’ or are foreign-owned and 

operated. Based on this review, and 

using data on the companies for which 

DOE was able to obtain information on 

the numbers of employees, DOE 

estimates that there are between 25 and 

35 small business CFLK manufacturers 

in the U.S. DOE invites interested 

parties to comment on the number of 

small business manufacturers of CFLKs. 

Based on the analysis described in the 

remainder of this section, DOE expects 

the proposed test procedures to 

implement an efficacy metric for all 

covered CFLKs to increase direct testing 

costs to small CFLK manufacturers, but 

that the savings from eliminating the 

design standard that requires wattage 

limiters for product class 3 CFLKs will 

likely more than offset these costs. DOE 

believes that, in sum, typical small 

manufacturers are likely to benefit 

financially from the proposed changes, 

as detailed below. 

CFLK testing costs may also be 

impacted by the concurrent ceiling fans 

test procedure rulemaking, which has 

proposed a change in scope that could 

increase the number of CFLKs requiring 

testing. Specifically, in that rulemaking 

DOE is proposing to reinterpret the 

definition of ceiling fans to include 

hugger fans. If this proposed 

reinterpretation is adopted, products 

that provide light from hugger fans 

would fall under that statutory 

definition of CFLKs (42 U.S.C. 6291(50)) 

and, therefore, be subject to CFLK 

standards. If manufacturers use different 

CFLKs on their hugger fans than on 

their other ceiling fans, this could 

increase test burden. This IRFA 

therefore presents costs under two 

scenarios: One in which hugger fans are 

not included in the definition of ceiling 

fans, and another in which they are 

included. 

DOE requires testing each basic model 

of a product to establish compliance 

with energy conservation standards. 

Products included in a single basic 

model must have essentially identical 

electrical, physical, and functional 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64696 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18 DOE estimated that between 15% and 40% of 

the CFLK market in 2019 would be CFLKs with 

integrated SSL circuitry. The lower bound of the 

estimated range was based on the reference case 

projection of LED penetration in Navigant 

Consulting, Inc.’s report, Energy Savings Potential 

for Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination 

Applications, U.S. Department of Energy, January 

2012. Half of the LED penetration from that report 

was assumed to come from CFLKs with integrated 

SSL circuitry and the other half from LED lamps. 

The higher bound of the estimated range was based 

on manufacturer estimates of the market share of 

integral-LED CFLKs in 2018 from manufacturer 

interviews. For this analysis, DOE assumed a 

rounded mid-point value: That 27% of all CFLKs 

would have integrated SSL circuitry (30% of CFLKs 

in product class 3). 

characteristics that affect energy 

efficiency. Because the efficiency of 

CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry is 

based on luminaire efficacy, variation in 

light kit designs will likely impact 

efficiency and result in a greater number 

of basic models for these types of 

CFLKs. Many aesthetic features that 

affect the optics of CFLKs with 

integrated SSL circuitry also affect their 

luminaire efficacy and, therefore, would 

require a new basic model. For CFLKs 

with consumer replaceable lamps, 

efficiency is based on lamp efficacy and 

will likely not be impacted by the 

design of the light kit, and thus the 

number of basic models may be limited 

for these types of CFLKs. Because these 

CFLKs require lamp testing, changes in 

luminaire optics, like lens choice, 

would not affect the measured efficacy, 

and therefore would not require a new 

basic model. For these CFLKs, 

manufacturers would be able to limit 

the testing burden by using the same 

lamp model for many CFLK models 

and/or by obtaining appropriate lamp 

test results from their lamp supplier(s). 

To provide a framework for DOE’s 

analysis, Table 3 summarizes the market 

share of different current CFLK product 

classes that would be affected by the 

proposed changes in testing 

requirements and avoided wattage 

limiter costs. The market share 

projections in Table 3 are for the 

expected compliance year of the 

ongoing ECS rulemaking for CFLKs 

(2019), when testing costs would be 

highest because both existing and new 

basic models need to be tested; in 

subsequent years testing would only be 

required on new basic models because 

manufacturers already would have 

tested existing basic models. 

TABLE 3—PROJECTIONS OF CFLK MARKET SHARES IN 2019 FOR THE CURRENT PRODUCT CLASSES

[Excluding Hugger Fans] 

Product 

class * 

Percent of 

market in 2019 Current testing required Proposed future testing New testing costs? 

Savings from 

removal of 

wattage limiter 

under 

proposal? 

1 ............... 10 100% lamp efficacy ........................... 100% lamp efficacy ........................... No .................... No. 

3 ............... 90 None .................................................. 70% lamp efficacy ............................. Yes ................... Yes. 

30% luminaire efficacy ....................... Yes ................... Yes. 

* Product class 2 (light kits with pin-based sockets) is ignored for purposes of this analysis because its market share is insignificant, at less 

than 1 percent. 

As shown in Table 3, the proposed 

test procedures do not affect testing 

burden for product class 1, because no 

new testing requirements are proposed 

for this product class; additionally, no 

savings related to wattage limiters are 

realized. Product class 2 (light kits with 

pin-based sockets) is ignored for 

purposes of this analysis because its 

market share is insignificant, at less 

than 1 percent. DOE assumes that 30 

percent of product class 3 (socket types 

other than medium or pin-based) will 

transition to CFLKs with integrated SSL 

circuitry (requiring luminaire efficacy 

measurements) by 2019, while the 

remaining 70 percent will transition to 

CFLKs requiring lamp efficacy 

measurements.18 Although testing 

burden would increase for product class 

3 under the proposal, because the test 

procedures would be new for this class, 

removing the wattage limiter 

requirement would offset these costs. 

If DOE changes its interpretation to 

include hugger fans in the scope of 

ceiling fans, this would effectively 

increase the size of the CFLK market by 

about 15 percent, and would be 

expected to lead to a corresponding 

increase in testing burden. That 

decision is outside of the scope of this 

rulemaking, and is therefore not the 

focus of this IRFA. This IRFA focuses on 

the additional testing costs and the 

avoided wattage limiter costs expected 

to result from the proposed CFLK test 

procedure amendments, and it 

considers these cost-benefit impacts for 

two cases: Case 1 does not include 

huggers in the scope of ceiling fans, 

while case 2 does include huggers in the 

scope of ceiling fans. 

Table 4 summarizes the results of 

DOE’s IRFA analysis for the two cases. 

In addition to presenting the estimated 

additional testing costs and the reduced 

wattage limiter costs that would result 

for the proposed amendments to CFLK 

test procedures, the table presents the 

assumptions underlying the calculations 

and intermediate results such as the 

estimated number of CFLKs sold by 

typical small CFLK manufacturers in the 

U.S. The table notes describe how DOE 

generated the inputs. The final results 

are rounded to two significant digits. 

TABLE 4—COST-BENEFIT IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES IN APPENDIX V1 FOR TYPICAL SMALL

MANUFACTURERS

Case 1 

no hugger 

fans 

Case 2 

with hugger 

fans 

Total Annual CFLK Shipments 1 .......................................................................................................................... 19,000,000 21,850,000 

Percent of Shipments Attributed to Small Manufacturers 2 ................................................................................. 15% 15% 

Number of Small Manufacturers Producing CFLKs 2 .......................................................................................... 30 30 

Number of CFLKs Sold by Typical Small Manufacturers 3 ................................................................................. 95,000 109,250 

Number of Basic Models Sold by Typical Small Manufacturer 4 ........................................................................ 15 17 

Units Sold per Basic Model 3 ............................................................................................................................... 6,333 6,426 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64697 

TABLE 4—COST-BENEFIT IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES IN APPENDIX V1 FOR TYPICAL SMALL

MANUFACTURERS—Continued 

Case 1 

no hugger 

fans 

Case 2 

with hugger 

fans 

Percent of Market Requiring New Lamp Testing 5 .............................................................................................. 63% 64% 

Percent of Market Requiring New Luminaire Testing 5 ....................................................................................... 27% 27% 

Percent of Market Benefitting for Removal of Wattage Limiter 5 ........................................................................ 90% 90% 

Percent of Basic Models Requiring New Lamp Efficacy Testing 6 ..................................................................... 50% 50% 

Average Number of New Lamp Tests Required per Typical Small Manufacturer 3 ........................................... 4.7 5.4 

Average Number of New Luminaire Tests Required per Small Manufacturer 3 ................................................. 4.1 4.7 

Testing cost per Basic Lamp Model 7 .................................................................................................................. $3,000 $3,000

Testing cost per Basic Luminaire Model 8 ........................................................................................................... $750 $750 

Cost of a Wattage Limiter 9 ................................................................................................................................. $1.50 $1.50 

Total 1st Year Cost of Additional Testing per Typical Small Manufacturer as a Result of CFLK Test Procedure Amendments 3 .......................................................................................................................................... $17,000 $20,000 

Total Annual Savings from Wattage Limiter Removal per Typical Small Manufacturer as a Result of CFLK 

Test Procedure Amendments 3 ........................................................................................................................ $130,000 $150,000 

(1)This estimate is based on historical shipments of low-volume ceiling fans (LVCF) derived from: (1) Data from Appliance magazine’s Statistical Review from the period 1991–2006, (2) data from Energy Star Annual Reports from the period 2003–2011, (3) and data purchased from 

NPD Research Group from 2007–2011. CFLK shipments are assumed to be 88% of LVCF shipments based on sales of LVCFs with and without 

CFLKs. Shipments in 2019 are based on a stock turnover model that accounts for replacements of retired units in existing stock, installations in 

new construction, and the addition of CFLKs to existing buildings. 

(2)The estimate is based on market shares of CFLK brands derived from NPD Research Group and limited publicly available data on small 

CFLK businesses. 

(3)This value is calculated from other values in this table. 

(4)This estimate is based on a review of manufacturer Web sites. 

(5)For the no-hugger fans case, these values follow from the market breakdown shown in Table 3. For the hugger-fans case, the ‘‘Percent of 

Market’’ values in Table 3 were adjusted to account for a 15% increase in market size associated with CFLKs on hugger fans, assuming that 

70% of the hugger CFLKs use lamps only and 30% are integral SSL. 

(6)This estimate is based on the assumption that for 50% of lamp models used in CFLKs, appropriate test results will be available, precluding 

the need for additional testing. 

(7)This estimate assumes 10 lamp samples tested at $300 per test. 

(8)This estimate assumes 2 luminaire samples tested at $375 per test. 

(9)This estimate conservatively is based on the low end of wattage limiter prices available for sale on the Internet. 

DOE estimates that the proposed test 

procedures would increase direct testing 

costs by approximately $17,000 to 

$20,000 for a typical small manufacturer 

in the first year of required compliance, 

depending on whether hugger fans are 

excluded or included in the definition 

of ceiling fans. DOE expects testing 

costs to be lower in subsequent years as 

testing would only be needed for newly 

introduced basic models of CFLKs since 

existing basic models would already 

have the necessary test results for 

certification. DOE estimates that the 

elimination of wattage limiters would 

yield a typical small manufacturer 

approximately $110,000 to $130,000 in 

reduced manufacturing costs in that 

year. 

The degree to which testing costs are 

offset by savings from the elimination of 

the wattage limiter requirement depends 

significantly on the number of CFLKs 

produced per basic model. That is, 

testing costs are fixed per basic model, 

but the costs associated with the wattage 

limiter requirement increase in direct 

proportion with the total number of 

CFLKs subject to the requirement. As 

shown in Table 4, DOE estimates that 

small manufacturers typically produce 

about 6,300 to 6,400 CFLKs per basic 

model per year, and that they are likely 

to see a net financial benefit from the 

proposed changes provided that they 

produce more than approximately 850 

CFLK units per basic model. 

In summary, DOE notes that the 

estimated savings of the proposed test 

procedures greatly exceed the estimated 

costs to small manufacturers. While 

these estimates are based on a number 

of projections and assumptions which 

have inherent uncertainties, given the 

degree to which projected savings 

exceed projected costs, DOE tentatively 

concludes that the test procedures 

proposed to implement an efficacy 

metric for all covered CFLKs will not 

increase compliance costs for small 

manufacturers of CFLKs. DOE requests 

input on its tentative conclusion that 

the test procedures proposed in 

appendix V1 will not increase 

compliance costs for small 

manufacturers of CFLKs. 

In developing amendments to the 

CFLK test procedures, DOE has 

attempted to avoid conflicts with other 

rules and regulations. Certain CFLKs 

utilize lamps that are subject to DOE 

standards and test procedures as 

specified in lamp rulemakings. As 

described in preceding sections, to 

avoid conflicts with existing DOE 

regulations, the test procedures 

proposed in this NOPR reference 

existing test procedures for these types 

of CFLKs. DOE is not aware of any other 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with these test procedures. 

DOE considered alternatives to the 

proposed test procedures for CFLKs 

with integrated SSL circuitry to 

determine if it was feasible to measure 

lamp efficacy rather that luminaire 

efficacy. Specifically, DOE explored the 

possibility of testing the consumer 

replaceable SSL light sources drivers for 

CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry 

rather testing the entire CFLK. DOE 

explored the possibility of adopting IES 

LM–82, ‘‘Characterization of LED Light 

Engines and LED Lamps for Electrical 

and Photometric Properties as a 

Function of Temperature,’’ for CFLKs 

with integrated SSL circuitry. Such a 

method would potentially reduce 

testing costs (particularly if the same 

LED module and driver were used in 

multiple basic models of CFLKs) and 

would yield test procedures more 

analogous to the test procedures 

proposed for all other CFLK types. DOE 

believes this approach is not technically 

feasible, however, because: (1) DOE 

could not be certain that test results of 

the LED module and driver would 

accurately represent the performance of 

the system when it was installed in the 

CFLK because the CFLK could provide 

heat sinking to the LED module in a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64698 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

manner that affected performance; and 

(2) it was not clear that it would be 

possible to test for compliance without 

destructively altering the product being 

tested because in some CFLK designs 

LED modules and drivers are highly 

integrated into the CFLK. Furthermore, 

DOE was not able to determine if such 

an approach would increase or decrease 

testing burden. 

DOE also considered alternatives to 

the proposed test procedures for 

measuring lamp efficacy. Specifically, 

DOE considered maintaining the current 

design standard that requires wattage 

limiters for certain types of CFLKs. As 

discussed previously, DOE tentatively 

concluded that the test procedures 

proposed will not increase compliance 

costs and are in fact more likely to 

decrease compliance cost because of the 

cost savings from eliminating the 

wattage limiter requirement. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of CFLKs must certify 

to DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. To certify compliance, 

manufacturers must first obtain test data 

for their products according to the DOE 

test procedures including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures on the date that compliance 

is required. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

CFLKs. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

test procedure amendments for CFLKs 

to measure more accurately the energy 

consumption of these products. DOE 

has determined that this rule falls into 

a class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this proposed rule 

would amend the existing test 

procedures without affecting the 

amount, quality, or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, would not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

When reviewing existing regulations 

or promulgating new regulations, 

section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64699 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined today’s 

proposed rule according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

these requirements do not apply 

because the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year. 

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 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 agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s proposed rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

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 OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action to amend 

the test procedure for measuring the 

energy efficiency of CFLKs is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed rule would incorporate 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standards: IES 

LM–66–2011, ‘‘IES Approved Method 

Electrical and Photometric 

Measurements of Single-Ended Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps’’ and IES LM–79– 

2008, ‘‘IES Approved Method Electrical 

and Photometric Measurements of 

Solid-State Lighting Products.’’ The 

Department has evaluated these 

standards and is unable to conclude 

whether they fully comply with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA, (i.e., that they were developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

DOE will consult with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As 

explained in the ADDRESSES section, 

foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/66. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their 

systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests To 

Speak and Prepared General Statements 

for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make a follow-up contact, if needed. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64700 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

Please note that foreign nationals 

participating in the public meeting are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures which require advance 

notice prior to attendance at the public 

meeting. If a foreign national wishes to 

participate in the public meeting, please 

inform DOE of this fact as soon as 

possible by contacting Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 so that the 

necessary procedures can be completed. 

DOE requires visitors to have laptops 

and other devices, such as tablets, 

checked upon entry into the building. 

Please report to the visitor’s desk to 

have devices checked before proceeding 

through security. 

Due to the REAL ID Act implemented 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), there have been recent 

changes regarding ID requirements for 

individuals wishing to enter Federal 

buildings from specific states and U.S. 

territories. Driver’s licenses from the 

following states or territory will not be 

accepted for building entry and one of 

the alternate forms of ID listed below 

will be required. 

DHS has determined that regular 

driver’s licenses (and ID cards) from the 

following jurisdictions are not 

acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: 

Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and 

Washington. 

Acceptable alternate forms of PhotoID include: U.S. Passport or Passport 

Card; an Enhanced Driver’s License or 

Enhanced ID-Card issued by the states 

of Minnesota, New York or Washington 

(Enhanced licenses issued by these 

states are clearly marked Enhanced or 

Enhanced Driver’s License); a military 

ID or other Federal government issued 

Photo-ID card. 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public 

meeting, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings as 

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking 

until the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. If you do not 

want your personal contact information 

to be publicly viewable, do not include 

it in your comment or any 

accompanying documents. Persons 

viewing comments will see only first 

and last names, organization names, 

correspondence containing comments, 

and any documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and confidential commercial or 

financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business 

Information (CBI)). Comments 

submitted through regulations.gov 

cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments 

received through the Web site will 

waive any CBI claims for the 

information submitted. For information 

on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 

Business Information section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English, and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64701 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

One copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE requests comments on the 

proposed changes for existing test 

procedures for CFLKs packaged with 

medium screw base lamps. 

2. DOE requests comments on the 

proposed changes for existing test 

procedures for CFLKs packaged with 

pin-based fluorescent lamps. 

3. DOE requests comment on 

replacing references to ENERGY STAR 

documents with the specific 

requirements from the ENERGY STAR 

documents referenced in CFLK energy 

conservation standards, codified in 10 

CFR 430.32(s) 

4. DOE requests comment on its 

withdrawal of current guidance on 

accent lighting in CFLKs and proposal 

to consider all lighting packaged with 

all CFLKs to be subject to energy 

conservation requirements. 

5. DOE requests comments on its 

proposal to use lamp efficacy when 

technically feasible and otherwise 

luminaire efficacy to determine the 

efficiency of CFLKs. 

6. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to measure luminaire efficacy 

for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry 

and to measure lamp efficacy for all 

other types of CFLKs. 

7. DOE requests comment on its 

assessment that it is technically 

infeasible to measure the lamp efficacy 

of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry 

either because it would require 

destructive disassembly of the CFLK or 

measurement of consumer replaceable 

light source and driver, which would 

not result in valid representations of the 

light source efficacy. 

8. DOE requests comment on its 

approach to testing CFLKs that have 

both consumer replaceable lamps and 

integrated SSL circuitry. 

9. DOE requests comment on its 

approach to addressing standby power 

consumption in CFLKs. 

10. DOE invites interested parties to 

comment on the number of small 

business manufacturers of CFLKs. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Confidential business information, 

Energy conservation, Household 

appliances, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 27, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 

forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.33 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 429.33 Ceiling fan light kits. 

(a) Sampling plan for selection of 

units for testing. 

(1) The requirements of § 429.11 are 

applicable to ceiling fan light kits, 

except that, for ceiling fan light kits 

subject to a design standard, each unit 

must meet the design standard; and 

(2) For each basic model of ceiling fan 

light kit, the following requirements are 

applicable for compliance with the 

January 1, 2007 energy conservation 

standards: 

(i) For ceiling fan light kits with 

medium screw base sockets that are 

packaged with compact fluorescent 

lamps, the represented values of each 

basic model of lamp packaged with the 

ceiling fan light kit shall be determined 

in accordance with § 429.35. 

(ii) For ceiling fan light kits with 

medium screw base sockets that are 

packaged with integrated light-emitting 

diode lamps, the represented values of 

each basic model of lamp packaged with 

the ceiling fan light kit shall be 

determined in accordance with § 429.56 

[proposed at 79 FR 36242 (June 26, 

2014)]. 

(iii) For ceiling fan light kits with pinbased sockets that are packaged with 

fluorescent lamps, the represented 

values shall be determined in 

accordance with the sampling and 

statistical requirements in § 429.35. 

(iv) For ceiling fan light kits with 

medium screw base sockets that are 

packaged with incandescent lamps, the 

represented values of each basic model 

of lamp packaged with the ceiling fan 

light kit shall be determined in 

accordance with § 429.27. 

(v) For ceiling fan light kits with 

sockets or packaged with lamps other 

than those described in paragraph 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64702 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(a)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section, 

each unit must comply with the 

applicable design standard in 

§ 430.32(s)(4). 

(3) For each basic model of ceiling fan 

light kit, the following requirements are 

applicable for compliance with 

amended energy conservation 

standards, if established: 

(i) For ceiling fan light kits packaged 

with compact fluorescent lamps, the 

represented values of each basic model 

of lamp shall be determined in 

accordance with § 429.35. 

(ii) For ceiling fan light kits packaged 

with general service fluorescent lamps, 

the represented values of each basic 

model of lamp shall be determined in 

accordance with § 429.27. 

(iii) For ceiling fan light kits packaged 

with incandescent lamps, the 

represented values of each basic model 

of lamp shall be determined in 

accordance with § 429.27. 

(iv) For ceiling fan light kits packaged 

with integrated LED lamps, the 

represented values of each basic model 

of lamp shall be determined in 

accordance with § 429.56. 

(v) For ceiling fan light kits packaged 

with other fluorescent lamps (not 

compact fluorescent lamps or general 

service fluorescent lamps), the 

represented values of each basic model 

of lamp shall be determined in 

accordance with the sampling and 

statistical requirements in § 429.35. 

(vi) For ceiling fan light kits packaged 

with other SSL lamps (not integrated 

LED lamps), the represented values of 

each basic model of lamp shall be 

determined in accordance with the 

sampling and statistical requirements in 

§ 429.56. 

(vii) For each basic model of ceiling 

fan light kit with integrated SSL 

circuitry, a sample of sufficient size 

shall be randomly selected and tested to 

ensure that any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

lower of: 

A. The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; Or, 

B. The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.90, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n-1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B). 

* * * * * 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 4. Section 430.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing paragraph (l)(2); 

■ b. Redesignating (l)(3), (l)(4) and (l)(5) 

as (l)(2), (l)(3) and (l)(4); 

■ c. Amending paragraph (n)(2) by 

removing ‘‘and appendix R to subpart 

B’’ and adding in its place, ‘‘and 

appendices R, V and V1 of subpart B’’; 

and 

■ d. Adding new paragraphs (n)(8) and 

(n)(9) 

■ e. Removing (t)(1); and 

■ f. Redesignating (t)(2) as (t)(1) and 

reserving paragraph (t)(2). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(8) IES LM–66–11, (‘‘IES LM–66’’), 

IES Approved Method for the Electrical 

and Photometric Measurement of 

Single-Ended Compact Fluorescent 

Lamps, approved April 11, 2011; IBR 

approved for appendix V to subpart B. 

(9) IES LM–79–08, (‘‘IES LM–79’’), 

IES Approved Method for the Electrical 

and Photometric Measurement of SolidState Lighting Products, approved 

December 31, 2007; IBR approved for 

appendix V1 to subpart B. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 430.23 is amended by 

revising paragraph (x) to read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(x) Ceiling fan light kits. 

(1) For each ceiling fan light kit that 

is required to comply with the energy 

conservation standards as of January 1, 

2007: 

(i) For a ceiling fan light kit with 

medium screw base sockets that is 

packaged with compact fluorescent 

lamps, measure lamp efficacy, lumen 

maintenance at 1,000 hours, lumen 

maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, 

rapid cycle stress test, and time to 

failure in accordance with paragraph (y) 

of this section. 

(ii) For a ceiling fan light kit with 

medium screw base sockets that is 

packaged with integrated LED lamps, 

measure lamp efficacy in accordance 

with paragraph (dd) of this section. 

(iii) For a ceiling fan light kit with 

pin-based sockets that is packaged with 

fluorescent lamps, measure system 

efficacy in accordance with section 4 of 

appendix V of this subpart. Express 

system efficacy in lumens per watt and 

round to the nearest tenth of a lumen 

per watt. 

(iv) For a ceiling fan light kit with 

medium screw base sockets that is 

packaged with incandescent lamps, 

measure lamp efficacy in accordance 

with paragraph (r) of this section. 

(2) For each ceiling fan light kit that 

is required to comply with amended 

energy conservation standards, if 

established: 

(i) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged 

with compact fluorescent lamps, 

measure lamp efficacy, lumen 

maintenance at 1,000 hours, lumen 

maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, 

rapid cycle stress test, and time to 

failure in accordance with paragraph (y) 

of this section. 

(ii) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged 

with general service fluorescent lamps, 

measure lamp efficacy in accordance 

with paragraph (r) of this section. 

(iii) For a ceiling fan light kit 

packaged with incandescent lamps, 

measure lamp efficacy in accordance 

with paragraph (r) of this section. 

(iv) For a ceiling fan light kit 

packaged with integrated LED lamps, 

measure lamp efficacy in accordance 

with paragraph (dd) of this section. 

(v) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged 

with other fluorescent lamps (not 

compact fluorescent lamps or general 

service fluorescent lamps), packaged 

with other SSL lamps (not integrated 

LED lamps) or with integrated SSL 

circuitry, measure efficacy in 

accordance with section 3 of appendix 

V1 of this subpart. Express each result 

in lumens per watt and round to the 

nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Appendix V to Subpart B of Part 

430 is revised to read as follows: 

Appendix V to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fan 

Light Kits With Pin-Based Sockets for 

Fluorescent Lamps 

After [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and prior to 

[DATE 180 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31OC14.072</GPH> EP31OC14.073</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64703 

THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], manufacturers must make any 

representations with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency of ceiling fan light kits with 

pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps in 

accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to this Appendix V or the 

procedures in Appendix V as it appeared at 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix V, in 

the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised 

as of January 1, 2014. After [DATE 180 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE], manufacturers must make any 

representations with respect to energy use or 

efficiency of ceiling fan light kits with pinbased sockets for fluorescent lamps in 

accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to this appendix to demonstrate 

compliance with the energy conservation 

standards at 10 CFR 430.32(s)(3). 

Alternatively, manufacturers may make 

representations based on testing in 

accordance with appendix V1, provided that 

such representations demonstrate 

compliance with the amended energy 

conservation standards. Manufacturers must 

make any representations with respect to 

energy use or efficiency in accordance with 

whichever version is selected for testing. 

1. Scope: 

This appendix contains test requirements 

to measure the energy performance of ceiling 

fan light kits (CFLKs) with pin-based sockets 

that are packaged with fluorescent lamps. 

2. Definitions 

2.1. Input power means the actual total 

power used by all lamp(s) and ballast(s) of 

the CFLK during operation, expressed in 

watts (W) and measured using the lamp and 

ballast packaged with the CFLK. 

2.2. Lamp ballast platform means a pairing 

of one ballast with one or more lamps that 

can operate simultaneously on that ballast. 

Each unique combination of manufacturer, 

basic model numbers of the ballast and 

lamp(s), and the quantity of lamps that 

operate on the ballast, corresponds to a 

unique platform. 

2.3. Lamp lumens means a measurement of 

luminous flux measured using the lamps and 

ballasts shipped with the CFLK, expressed in 

lumens. 

2.4. System efficacy means the ratio of 

measured lamp lumens to measured input 

power, expressed in lumens per watt, and is 

determined for each unique lamp ballast 

platform packaged with the CFLK. 

3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions: 

(a) The test apparatus and instruction for 

testing pin-based fluorescent lamps packaged 

with ceiling fan light kits that have pin-based 

sockets must conform to the following 

requirements: 

Any lamp satisfying this description: must conform to the requirements of: and be tested on the lamp ballast platform packaged 

with the CFLK, as allowed in: 

Compact fluorescent lamp .......... sections 4.0–11.0 of IES LM–66–11 (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3).

section 7.0 of IES LM-66-11 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). 

Any other fluorescent lamp ........ sections 3.0—6.0 of IES LM–9–09 (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3).

section 5.4 of IES LM–9–09 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). 

4. Test Measurement and Calculations: 

Measure system efficacy as follows and 

express the result in lumens per watt: 

Lamp type Method 

Compact fluorescent lamp ....................... Measure system efficacy according to IES LM–66–11 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). Use 

of a goniophotometer is not permitted. 

Any other fluorescent lamp ..................... Measure system efficacy according to IES LM–9–09 (incorporated by reference; see § 430.3). Use of 

a goniophotometer is not permitted. 

5. Rounding 

Round system efficacy for the individual 

test unit to the nearest tenth of a lumen per 

watt. 

■ 7. Appendix V1 is added to Subpart 

B of Part 430 to read as follows: 

Appendix V1 to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fan 

Light Kits Packaged With Other 

Fluorescent Lamps (Not Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps or General Service 

Fluorescent Lamps), Packaged With 

Other SSL Lamps (Not Integrated LED 

Lamps), or With Integrated 

SSLCircuitry 

Note: Any representations about the energy 

use or efficiency of any ceiling fan light kit 

packaged with other fluorescent lamps (not 

compact fluorescent lamps or general service 

fluorescent lamps), packaged with other SSL 

lamps (not integrated LED lamps), or with 

integrated SSL circuitry made on or after the 

compliance date of any amended energy 

conservation standards must be made in 

accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to this appendix. 

1. Scope 

This appendix establishes the test 

requirements to measure the energy 

efficiency of all ceiling fan light kits (CFLKs) 

packaged with other fluorescent lamps (not 

compact fluorescent lamps or general service 

fluorescent lamps), packaged with other SSL 

lamps (not integrated LED lamps), or with 

integrated SSL circuitry. Measure all lighting 

associated with these CFLKs according to the 

test procedures in this appendix. 

2. Definitions 

2.1. Other (non-CFL and non-GSFL) 

fluorescent lamp means a low-pressure 

mercury electric-discharge lamp in which a 

fluorescing coating transforms some of the 

ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury 

discharge into light, including but not 

limited to circline fluorescent lamps, and 

excluding any compact fluorescent lamp and 

any general service fluorescent lamp. 

2.2. Other SSL products means solid-state 

lighting lamps that are not integrated LED 

lamps or CFLKs with integrated SSL 

circuitry, as defined in this section. ‘‘Other 

SSL products’’ includes integrated LED 

lamps with non-ANSI-standard bases (e.g., 

Zhaga interfaces). 

2.3. CFLK with integrated SSL circuitry 

means a CFLK that has light sources, drivers, 

or intermediate circuitry, such as wiring 

between a replaceable driver and a 

replaceable light source, that are not 

consumer replaceable. 

2.4. Consumer replaceable means items 

such as lamps or ballasts which a typical 

consumer could replace with relative ease, 

without the cutting of wires, use of a 

soldering iron, or damage to or destruction of 

the CFLK. 

2.5. Solid-State Lighting (SSL) means 

technology where light is emitted from a 

solid object—a block of semiconductor— 

rather than from a filament or plasma, as in 

the case of incandescent and fluorescent 

lighting. This includes inorganic lightemitting diodes (LEDs) and organic lightemitting diodes (OLEDs). 

3. Test Conditions and Measurements 

For any CFLK that utilizes consumer 

replaceable lamps, measure the lamp efficacy 

of each basic model of lamp packaged with 

the CFLK. For any CFLK only with integrated 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64704 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

SSL circuitry, measure the luminaire efficacy 

of the CFLK. For any CFLK that includes 

both consumer replaceable lamps and 

integrated SSL circuitry, measure both the 

lamp efficacy of each basic model of lamp 

packaged with the CFLK and the luminaire 

efficacy of the CFLK with all consumer 

replaceable lamps removed. Measurements 

should be taken at full light output. Use of 

a goniophotometer is prohibited. For each 

test, use the test procedures in the table 

below. 

Lighting technology Lamp or luminaire efficacy measured Referenced test 

procedure 

Other (non-CFL and non-GSFL) fluorescent lamps ...................................... Lamp Efficacy ....................................................... IES LM–9–09. 

Other SSL products ....................................................................................... Lamp Efficacy ....................................................... IES LM–79–08. 

CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry ............................................................. Luminaire Efficacy ................................................ IES LM–79–08. 

4. Rounding 

Round lamp efficacy and/or luminaire 

efficacy for the individual test unit to the 

nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. 

■ 6. Section 430.32 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (s)(2) and (s)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(s) * * * 

* * * * * 

(2)(i) Ceiling fan light kits with 

medium screw base sockets 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2007, must be packaged with screwbased lamps to fill all screw base 

sockets. 

(ii) The screw-based lamps required 

under paragraph (2)(i) of this section 

must— 

(A) Be compact fluorescent lamps that 

meet or exceed the following 

requirements or be as described in 

paragraph (2)(ii)(B) of this section: 

Factor Requirements 

Rated Wattage (Watts) & Configuration 1 ................................................................................................ Minimum Initial Lamp Efficacy (lumens 

per watt) 2

Bare Lamp: 

Lamp Power <15 ............................................................................................................................... 45.0 

Lamp Power ≥15 ............................................................................................................................... 60.0 

Covered Lamp (no reflector): 

Lamp Power <15 ............................................................................................................................... 40.0 

15≤Lamp Power <19 ......................................................................................................................... 48.0 

19≤Lamp Power <25 ......................................................................................................................... 50.0 

Lamp Power ≥25 ............................................................................................................................... 55.0 

With Reflector: 

Lamp Power <20 ............................................................................................................................... 33.0 

Lamp Power ≥20 ............................................................................................................................... 40.0 

Lumen Maintenance at 1,000 hours ........................................................................................................ ≥ 90.0% 

Lumen Maintenance at 40 Percent of Lifetime ........................................................................................ ≥ 80.0% 

Rapid Cycle Stress Test .......................................................................................................................... At least 5 lamps must meet or exceed 

the minimum number of cycles. 

Lifetime ..................................................................................................................................................... ≥ 6,000 hours for the sample of lamps. 

1 Use rated wattage to determine the appropriate minimum efficacy requirements in this table. 

2 Calculate efficacy using measured wattage, rather than rated wattage, and measured lumens to determine product compliance. Wattage and 

lumen values indicated on products or packaging may not be used in calculation. 

(B) Light sources other than compact 

fluorescent lamps that have lumens per 

watt performance at least equivalent to 

comparably configured compact 

fluorescent lamps meeting the energy 

conservation standards in paragraph 

(2)(ii)(A) of this section. 

(3) Ceiling fan light kits manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2007, with pinbased sockets for fluorescent lamps 

must use an electronic ballast and be 

packaged with lamps to fill all sockets. 

These lamp ballast platforms must meet 

the following requirements: 

Factor Requirement 

System Efficacy Per Lamp Ballast Platform in Lumens Per Watt (lm/w) ≥ 50 lm/w for all lamp types below 30 total listed lamp watts. 

≥ 60 lm/w for all lamp types that are ≤ 24 inches and ≥ 30 total listed 

lamp watts. 

≥ 70 lm/w for all lamp types that are > 24 inches and ≥ 30 total listed 

lamp watts. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64705 

1This part was originally titled Part B. It was 

redesignated Part A in the United States Code for 

editorial reasons. 

2All 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). 

3 DOE must issue simultaneously a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) identical to the DFR. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–25935 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0049] 

RIN 1904–AD38 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Procedures, Interpretations, and 

Policies for Consideration of New or 

Revised Energy Conservation 

Standards for Consumer Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, DOE. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: Through this RFI, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) is 

commencing a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking to consider amending its 

‘‘Process Improvement Rule,’’ with 

specific focus to clarify its process 

related to the promulgation of direct 

final rules (DFRs). The issues for 

discussion and public comment in this 

RFI include those raised in recent 

litigation concerning energy 

conservation standards for gas furnaces, 

central air conditioners and heat pumps, 

which has since been settled. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information responding to this RFI 

submitted no later than December 30, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2014–BT–STD–0049 or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

1904–AD38, by any of the following 

methods. 

1. Email: 

ConsumerProducts2014STD0049@

ee.doe.gov. Include the RIN (1904– 

AD38) in the subject line of the message. 

Submit electronic comments in 

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 

ASCII file format, and avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption. 

2. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disk (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

3. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. If possible, please submit all 

items on a CD, in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number and/or RIN for this 

rulemaking. No facsimiles (faxes) will 

be accepted. 

Docket: A link to the docket Web page 

can be found at: http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0049. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this rulemaking on the 

www.regulations.gov site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

contain instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 

287–1692. Email: John.Cymbalsky@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Johanna Hariharan, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: 

Johanna.Hariharan@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment and review other 

public comments, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment and 

Information 

A. Interested Persons 

B. Adverse Comments 

C. Recommended Standard 

III. Public Participation 

Appendix A: Material Submitted by Entities 

Participating in Litigation 

A. HARDI Letter (October 9, 2014) 

B. AHRI Letter (October 10, 2014) 

C. ACCA Letter (October 10, 2014) 

I. Authority and Background 

The Department of Energy’s appliance 

standard program is conducted pursuant 

to Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (Pub. L. 

94–163, 42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq. 

‘‘EPCA’’). Under EPCA,2 the energy 

conservation program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards, and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. In 1987, EPCA 

was amended to establish by law 

national efficiency standards for certain 

appliances and a schedule for DOE to 

conduct rulemakings to periodically 

review and update these standards. 

National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act, Pub. L. 100–12 

(1987). The standards must be designed 

to ‘‘achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must ‘‘result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

DOE typically prescribes energy 

conservation standards by informal, 

notice-and-comment, rulemaking 

proceedings, consistent with the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

and EPCA. DOE has codified this 

process in its regulations at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A through a 

final rule promulgated on July 15, 1996, 

titled ‘‘Procedures, Interpretations and 

Policies for Consideration of New or 

Revised Energy Conservation Standards 

for Consumer Products’’ (‘‘Process 

Improvement Rule’’). 61 FR 36974. 

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110–140) 

amended EPCA, in relevant part, to 

grant DOE authority to issue a direct 

final rule (DFR) to establish energy 

conservation standards. A DFR is a 

rulemaking proceeding in which an 

agency issues a final rule without an 

opportunity for prior public comment. 

DOE may issue a DFR upon receipt of 

a joint proposal from a group of 

‘‘interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view,’’ provided DOE determines the 

energy conservation standards 

recommended in the joint proposal 

conform with the requirements of 42 

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

6295(p)(4)(A)) Simultaneous with the 

issuance of a DFR, DOE must also issue 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

containing the same energy 

conservation standards in the DFR. 

Following publication of the DFR, DOE 

must solicit public comment for a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS