Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68331 

§ 94.22 Restrictions on importation of beef 

and ovine meat from Uruguay. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) beef 

and ovine meat from Uruguay may be 

exported to the United States under the 

following conditions: 

(a) The meat is beef or ovine meat 

from animals that have been born, 

raised, and slaughtered in Uruguay. 

(b) Foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been diagnosed in Uruguay within the 

previous 12 months. 

(c) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that originate from premises 

where foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been present during the lifetime of any 

bovines and sheep slaughtered for the 

export of beef and ovine meat to the 

United States. 

(d) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that were moved directly from the 

premises of origin to the slaughtering 

establishment without any contact with 

other animals. 

(e) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that received ante-mortem and 

post-mortem veterinary inspections, 

paying particular attention to the head 

and feet, at the slaughtering 

establishment, with no evidence found 

of vesicular disease. 

(f) The meat consists only of bovine 

parts or ovine parts that are, by standard 

practice, part of the animal’s carcass 

that is placed in a chiller for maturation 

after slaughter. The bovine and ovine 

parts that may not be imported include 

all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves, 

and internal organs. 

(g) All bone and visually identifiable 

blood clots and lymphoid tissue have 

been removed from the meat. 

(h) The meat has not been in contact 

with meat from regions other than those 

listed as free of foot-and-mouth disease 

and rinderpest under § 94.1(a). 

(i) The meat comes from carcasses 

that were allowed to maturate at 40 to 

50 °F (4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 24 

hours after slaughter and that reached a 

pH below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the 

end of the maturation period. 

Measurements for pH must be taken at 

the middle of both longissimus dorsi 

muscles. Any carcass in which the pH 

does not reach less than 6.0 may be 

allowed to maturate an additional 24 

hours and be retested, and, if the carcass 

still has not reached a pH of less than 

6.0 after 48 hours, the meat from the 

carcass may not be exported to the 

United States. 

(j) An authorized veterinary official of 

the Government of Uruguay certifies on 

the foreign meat inspection certificate 

that the above conditions have been 

met. 

(k) The establishment in which the 

bovines and sheep are slaughtered 

allows periodic on-site evaluation and 

subsequent inspection of its facilities, 

records, and operations by an APHIS 

representative. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0372) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of 

November 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27285 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047] 

RIN 1904–AC57 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Request for Exclusion of 100 Watt R20 

Short Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

From Energy Conservation Standards 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for certain 

commercial and industrial equipment 

and various consumer products, 

including incandescent reflector lamps 

(IRLs). The U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) received a petition from the 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association requesting the initiation of 

a rulemaking to exclude from coverage 

under EPCA standards a certain type of 

IRL marketed for use in pool and spa 

applications. Specifically, the lamp at 

issue is a 100-watt R20 short (having a 

maximum overall length of 3 and 5⁄8 or 

3.625 inches) IRL (‘‘R20 short lamp’’). 

DOE published this petition and a 

request for comment in the Federal 

Register on December 23, 2010. From its 

evaluation of the petition and careful 

consideration of the public comments, 

DOE decided to grant the petition for 

rulemaking. DOE published a request 

for information in the Federal Register 

on September 8, 2011, followed by a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 31, 2012. Based on data 

gathered by DOE and the comments it 

received on these notices, DOE excludes 

R20 short lamps from coverage under 

the EPCA energy conservation 

standards. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

December 16, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, comments, 

and other supporting documents/

materials, is available for review at 

regulations.gov. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the regulations.gov 

index. However, some documents listed 

in the index, such as those containing 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

The docket Web page can be found on 

regulations.gov, under docket number 

EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047, at: 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047. The 

regulations.gov Web page will contain 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

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

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email: 

incandescent_reflector_lamps@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: 

celia.sher@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

III. General Discussion 

A. Authority 

B. R20 Short Lamp Special Application 

Design and Impact on Energy Savings 

1. Special Application of R20 Short Lamps 

a. R20 Short Lamp Design for Special 

Applications 

b. Marketing and Distribution Channels of 

R20 Short Lamps 

2. Impact on Energy Savings 

C. Availability of R20 Short Lamp Special 

Characteristics in Substitutes 

1. Improved R20 Short Lamp 

2. 60 W PAR16 Lamp 

3. LED Lamps 

4. Consumer Use of Substitute Products 

IV. Conclusion 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68332 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1All 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). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

3 Information regarding the 2009 Lamps Rule can 

be found at on regulations.gov, docket number 

EERE–2006–STD–0131 at www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0131 and on 

DOE’s Building and Technologies Web page for 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/product.aspx/productid/58. 

4Prior to the enactment of EISA 2007, this 

definition applied to lamps with a diameter that 

exceeds 2.75 inches. EISA 2007 modified this 

definition to make it applicable to IRLs with a 

diameter that exceeds 2.25 inches. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291 et 

seq.), as amended,1 prescribes energy 

conservation standards for certain 

commercial and industrial equipment 

and various consumer products, 

including incandescent reflector lamps 

(IRLs). The National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

petitioned the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) to undertake a rulemaking 

to exclude from coverage under energy 

conservation standards a certain type of 

IRL that is marketed for use in pool and 

spa applications. 75 FR 80731 (Dec. 23, 

2010). Specifically, the lamp at issue is 

a 100-watt (W) R20 short (having a 

maximum overall length [MOL] of 3 and 

5⁄8 [or 3.625] inches) lamp that falls 

within the voltage range of covered IRLs 

(hereafter ‘‘R20 short lamp’’). A review 

for exclusion is authorized under 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(E), which allows the 

Secretary, by rule, to exclude from the 

terms ‘‘fluorescent lamp’’ and 

‘‘incandescent lamp’’ any lamp for 

which standards would not result in 

significant energy savings because such 

lamp is designed for special 

applications or has special 

characteristics not available in 

reasonably substitutable lamp types. 

Based on its review for exclusion 

discussed in this rule, DOE determined 

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

R20 short lamps should be excluded 

from coverage under the applicable 

energy conservation standards for IRLs. 

Under EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) 

allows for exclusion of a lamp for which 

standards would not result in significant 

energy savings because it is designed for 

special applications. Thus, DOE 

assessed the impact of the application of 

R20 short lamps on the potential energy 

savings from standards for these lamps. 

The characteristics of R20 short lamps, 

as well as their distribution channels 

and marketing, indicate that they are 

designed for pool and spa applications. 

DOE determined that because the R20 

short lamps serve a very small market, 

they will not result in significant energy 

savings under the applicable 

conservation standards. 

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) 

allows exclusion based on 

unavailability of reasonably 

substitutable lamp types. Therefore, 

DOE analyzed the characteristics of R20 

short lamps to determine if reasonable 

substitutes were commercially available. 

The most likely commercially available 

substitute lamp required a modification 

to the fixture lens in order to maintain 

the same light distribution. Therefore, 

DOE concluded that the special 

characteristics of an R20 short lamp are 

not available in a reasonably 

substitutable lamp type. 

Therefore, under 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E), DOE excludes R20 short 

lamps from coverage of energy 

conservation standards based on the 

determination that energy savings are 

not significant due to R20 short lamps’ 

use in special applications and their 

having special characteristics not 

available in reasonably substitutable 

lamp types. Accordingly, DOE modifies 

the definition of ‘‘Incandescent reflector 

lamp’’ to include an exemption for R20 

short lamps and adds a definition for 

‘‘R20 short lamp’’ in 10 CFR 430.2. 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part B of EPCA established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles,2 a program covering most 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), including the types of IRLs 

that are the subject of this rulemaking. 

In particular, amendments to EPCA in 

the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 

1992), Public Law 102–486, established 

energy conservation standards for 

certain classes of IRLs and authorized 

DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles 

to determine whether those standards 

should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1), 

6295(i)(1) and (3)–(4)) DOE completed 

the first cycle of amendments by 

publishing a final rule in July 2009 

(hereafter ‘‘2009 Lamps Rule’’). 74 FR 

34080 (July 14, 2009).3 Standards 

adopted in the 2009 Lamps Rule will 

hereafter be referred to as the ‘‘July 2012 

standards.’’ 

The EPAct 1992 amendments to EPCA 

also added as covered products certain 

IRLs with wattages of 40 W or higher 

and established energy conservation 

standards for these IRLs. Section 

322(a)(1) of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), 

Public Law 110–140, subsequently 

expanded EPCA’s definition of 

‘‘incandescent reflector lamp’’ to 

include lamps with a diameter between 

2.25 and 2.75 inches.4 (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(C)(ii)) This addition made R20 

lamps (having a diameter of 20⁄8, or 2.5, 

inches) covered products subject to 

EPCA’s standards for IRLs. 

Although these lamps are covered 

products, 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) gives 

DOE the authority to exclude these 

lamps upon a determination that 

standards ‘‘would not result in 

significant energy savings because such 

lamp is designed for special 

applications or has special 

characteristics not available in 

reasonably substitutable lamp types.’’ 

B. Background 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), provides, 

among other things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency 

shall give an interested person the right 

to petition for the issuance, amendment, 

or repeal of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) 

Pursuant to this provision of the APA, 

NEMA petitioned DOE for a rulemaking 

to exclude a type of IRL from coverage 

of energy conservation standards. 

Specifically, NEMA sought exclusion 

for R20 short lamps marketed for use in 

pools and spas. These lamps are sold in 

jurisdictions that allow pools and spas 

to be supplied with 120-volt (V) 

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

As stated in the previous section II.A, 

amendments to EPCA in EISA 2007 

expanded EPCA’s definition of IRLs to 

include smaller diameter lamps, such as 

the R20 lamps that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii)) 

The related statutory standards required 

compliance on June 15, 2008—180 days 

after the date of enactment of EISA 

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

Although R20 short lamps were 

required to comply with these 

standards, noncompliant R20 short 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68333 

5The FTC published a final rule in the Federal 

Register on July 19, 2010, which updated its 

regulations regarding its definition of general 

service incandescent lamp to reflect the definitional 

changes provided in EISA 2007. 75 FR 41696, 

41713–41714. These changes were effective July 19, 

2011, at which time the amendments were reflected 

in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

6NEMA’s petition and associated comments can 

be found at regulations.gov under Docket No. 

EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047, at www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047. 

7A notation in the form ‘‘Earthjustice and NRDC, 

No. 15 at p. 1’’ identifies a written comment that 

DOE has received and has included in the docket 

of this rulemaking. This particular notation refers 

to a comment: (1) Submitted by Earthjustice and 

NRDC; (2) in document number 15 of the docket; 

and (3) on page 1 of that document. 

lamps remained on the market until 

September 2010 because the 

manufacturers of these lamps 

mistakenly believed the lamps were 

excluded from coverage. 75 FR at 80732 

(Dec. 23, 2010). The manufacturers had 

relied upon the Federal Trade 

Commission’s (FTC’s) labeling rule, 16 

CFR Part 305, which, until July 19, 

2011, published the previous lamp 

definitions from the EPAct 1992 

amendments of EPCA.5 Before July 19, 

2011, the FTC labeling regulations 

treated IRLs as general service 

incandescent lamps (GSILs), and 

erroneously continued to define GSILs 

as not including lamps specifically 

designed for ‘‘[s]wimming pool or other 

underwater service.’’ 16 CFR 

305.3(m)(3) (2010) This exclusion was 

eliminated from EPCA by section 321 of 

EISA 2007. Upon realization that the 

FTC definitions were incorrect and the 

R20 short lamps were subject to energy 

conservation standards, the 

manufacturers removed the product 

from the market. Subsequently, in 

November 2010, NEMA submitted its 

petition to exclude R20 short lamps 

from coverage under EPCA standards. 

DOE published the petition in the 

Federal Register on December 23, 2010, 

and requested public comment. 75 FR 

80731. 

In the petition, NEMA asked for a 

rulemaking to exclude R20 short lamps 

from coverage of energy conservation 

standards, as well as a stay of 

enforcement pending that rulemaking. 

As grounds for the petition, NEMA 

stated that R20 short lamps qualify for 

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

which allows the Secretary to exclude a 

fluorescent or incandescent lamp ‘‘as a 

result of a determination that standards 

for such lamp would not result in 

significant energy savings because such 

lamp is designed for special 

applications or has special 

characteristics not available in 

reasonably substitutable lamp types.’’ In 

its petition, NEMA contended that a 

rulemaking would find that energy 

conservation standards for R20 short 

lamps would not result in significant 

energy savings and that the lamp was 

designed for special applications or has 

special characteristics not available in 

substitute lamp types. Specifically, 

NEMA argued that because the lamp has 

a particular MOL and is specially 

designed to meet underwater 

illumination requirements of pool and 

spa manufacturers (including 

designated beam spread and lumen 

output), there are no substitute products 

on the market for this application. 75 FR 

at 80732 (Dec. 23, 2010). 

Additionally, NEMA asserted that 

having energy conservation standards 

for this lamp type would lead to its 

unavailability in the United States. To 

the best of NEMA’s and manufacturers’ 

knowledge, the decision of the two 

manufacturers of R20 short lamps to 

withdraw the product from the market 

had already resulted in its current 

unavailability. 75 FR at 80732–80733 

(Dec. 23, 2010). 

After reviewing NEMA’s petition and 

all comments received in response,6

DOE concluded it has the legal authority 

to grant exclusions for IRLs under 42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) and initiated a 

rulemaking to make a determination on 

exclusion. DOE granted NEMA’s 

petition for a rulemaking in a request for 

information (RFI) published in the 

Federal Register on September 8, 2011, 

announcing its decision and requesting 

more information on this product. 76 FR 

55609. The RFI stated that DOE granted 

the petition for a rulemaking pursuant 

to the requirements specified in section 

6291(30)(E), and would also grant a stay 

of enforcement pending the outcome of 

the rulemaking. In the RFI, DOE also 

specifically asked for comment on (1) 

the potential for unregulated R20 short 

lamps to be used as substitutes for other 

lamps subject to energy conservation 

standards; (2) whether the distinctive 

features, pricing, and applicationspecific labeling and marketing of R20 

short lamps provide a sufficient 

deterrent to their use in other 

applications; (3) the availability of 

substitute lamps that would meet both 

energy conservation standards and 

relevant pool and spa application 

requirements; and (4) the technological 

feasibility of R20 short lamps complying 

with the prescribed energy conservation 

standards and also meeting relevant 

pool and spa application requirements. 

76 FR at 55614. 

DOE reviewed all comments received 

in response to the RFI and conducted an 

analysis on the exclusion of R20 short 

lamps that included market research 

and manufacturer interviews. DOE then 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal 

Register addressing comments and 

stating DOE’s proposal to exclude R20 

short lamps from energy conservation 

standards. 77 FR 76959 (Dec. 31, 2012). 

California Investor Owned Utilities, the 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San 

Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern 

California Edison, (hereafter the ‘‘CA 

IOUs’’); Earthjustice and the National 

Resources Defense Council (hereafter 

‘‘Earthjustice and NRDC’’); and NEMA 

responded to the proposal and DOE 

considered these additional comments 

when developing this final rule. DOE’s 

responses to these comments and the 

final analysis on the determination of 

exclusion of R20 short lamps from 

energy conservation standards are 

discussed in the following section. 

III. General Discussion 

A. Authority 

In response to the NOPR, DOE 

received comment from Earthjustice and 

NRDC regarding DOE’s authority to 

exclude R20 short lamps under 42 

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

NRDC referred to their previous 

comments made in response to NEMA’s 

petition, that section 6291(30)(E) can 

only apply to lamps for which 

significant energy savings would not be 

captured under future standards; the 

language of the provision (i.e., ‘‘would 

not result’’) does not permit DOE to 

apply it retroactively to lamps with 

existing standards. (Earthjustice and 

NRDC, No. 15 at p. 1; 7 Earthjustice and 

NRDC, No. 8 at p. 1) 

As stated in the NOPR and RFI, the 

plain language of section 6291(30)(E) 

gives DOE the authority to exclude 

certain lamps for which standards 

would not result in significant energy 

savings. DOE does not believe this 

section applies only to standards that 

have not yet taken effect. Under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3), DOE is already barred 

from adopting standards for any product 

for which the standards would not 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. Therefore, section 6291(30)(E) 

would be rendered redundant and 

superfluous, if it applied only to 

products for which standards are not yet 

in effect. Instead, DOE finds that section 

6291(30)(E) contains no time bar for 

undertaking a rulemaking action to 

address a lamp for which standards 

would not result in significant energy 

savings because it is designed for 

special applications or has special 

characteristics not available in 

substitutable lamp types. Given the 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68334 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

broad and growing coverage of DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

lamps, DOE believes that Congress 

intended section 6291(30)(E) to provide 

a mechanism to address both those 

lamps covered by existing standards, as 

well as new lamps subsequently 

developed to which standards would 

otherwise apply. 76 FR at 55611 (Sept. 

8, 2011); 77 FR at 76961 (December 31, 

2012). 

Earthjustice and NRDC disagreed that 

section 6291(30)(E) would be redundant 

if not applicable to standards that 

already require compliance. Earthjustice 

and NRDC commented that section 

6291(30)(E) retains a separate relevance 

from section 6295(o)(3) because it 

enables DOE to exclude lamps from 

statutory standards that do not yet 

apply, whereas section 6295(o)(3) only 

applies to DOE’s adoption of standards 

via rulemakings. (Earthjustice and 

NRDC, No. 8 at pp. 1–2) 

The language in section 6291(30)(E) 

does not explicitly condition exclusions 

from coverage of standards based on the 

authority under which the standards 

were developed. Interpreting section 

6291(30)(E) as applying to only statutory 

standards in order to distinguish it from 

section 6295(o)(3) would limit the scope 

of section 6291(30)(E). The language in 

section 6291(30)(E) does not indicate 

that it was Congress’s intent to limit the 

Secretary’s authority of exemption. 

Therefore, DOE concluded it has the 

authority under section 6291(30)(E) to 

consider excluding R20 short lamps 

from energy conservation standards. 

Based on this authority, DOE assessed 

whether the lamps qualify for exclusion 

under each criterion set forth in section 

6291(30)(E), and discusses its 

assessment in the following sections. 

B. R20 Short Lamp Special Application 

Design and Impact on Energy Savings 

As mentioned in the previous 

sections, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E), 

DOE may determine to exclude a 

fluorescent or incandescent lamp 

provided standards for the lamp would 

not result in significant energy savings 

because the lamp is designed for special 

applications. DOE first established that 

R20 short lamps serve a special 

application by analyzing their design 

features and their marketing and 

distribution channels, and then 

evaluated the impact on energy savings 

from standards for R20 short lamps. 

1. Special Application of R20 Short 

Lamps 

a. R20 Short Lamp Design for Special 

Applications 

NEMA’s original petition stated that 

the R20 short lamp was specifically 

designed to meet the underwater 

illumination requirements of pool and 

spa part manufacturers. NEMA stated 

that the R20 short lamp’s MOL, heat 

shield, filament, lumen output, and 

beam spread indicate the lamp was 

specifically designed for its application. 

75 FR at 80733 (Dec. 23, 2010) Through 

interviews with lamp manufacturers 

and pool and spa part manufacturers, 

DOE was able to confirm that the R20 

short lamp’s MOL of 3 and 5⁄8 inches is 

required for compatibility with pool and 

spa fixtures; the heat shield is necessary 

for operation in a high temperature 

environment; and the lumen output 

range between 637 and 1022 lumens, 

and beam spread between 70 and 123 

degrees are designed to satisfy consumer 

preferences, as well as building codes 

and standards specific for pool and spa 

applications. DOE also found that the 

filament in R20 short lamps is 

specifically placed to achieve the 

required beam spread. However, DOE 

concluded that filament placement does 

not stand on its own as a requirement 

for pools and spas, but is rather 

encompassed within the requirement for 

a specific beam spread. NEMA agreed 

with this list of special characteristics, 

affirming that they are representative of 

the R20 short lamp, and that there are 

no additional features to address. 

(NEMA, No. 14 at pp. 1) Because the 

described R20 short lamp characteristics 

are designed to meet requirements 

specific to pools and spas, DOE believes 

that R20 short lamps are designed for a 

special application. For more discussion 

on R20 short lamp features, see section 

III.C. 

b. Marketing and Distribution Channels 

of R20 Short Lamps 

In addition to design features, DOE 

also analyzed marketing literature and 

distribution channels for R20 short 

lamps when determining if R20 short 

lamps are designed for special 

applications. DOE found R20 short 

lamps are marketed and clearly 

packaged in a way that indicates the 

lamps are specifically for pool and spa 

use. Through lamp manufacturer 

interviews and research using publicly 

available information, DOE found that 

R20 short lamp manufacturers do not 

sell lamps directly to consumers. The 

commercial market is supplied through 

catalog warehouses; maintenance 

supply; maintenance, repair, operations 

(MRO) distributors; and pool and spa 

distributors. The residential market is 

primarily supplied through pool and 

spa distributors, which include large 

retail pool outlets and online retailers. 

Additionally, a small portion of 

products are sold to online retailers for 

pool and spa replacement parts, 

electrical distributors for direct 

installation in new pool construction, 

and hospitality and specialty lighting 

suppliers (e.g., medical equipment 

retail) for use with pools and spas. 

Therefore, DOE concluded that the 

application-specific packaging and nontraditional distribution channels 

indicate R20 short lamps are intended 

for pool and spa applications. 

Based on the application-specific 

design characteristics of the R20 short 

lamp and the marketing and nontraditional distribution channels used 

by these lamp types, DOE concluded 

that R20 short lamps are designed for 

pool and spa applications. Pursuant to 

section 6291(30)(E), DOE then 

proceeded to determine whether 

standards for the lamp would not result 

in significant energy savings because the 

lamp is designed for a special 

application. 

2. Impact on Energy Savings 

As part of its analysis to determine 

the impact of standards for R20 short 

lamps on energy savings, DOE evaluated 

the market share of R20 short lamps put 

forth by NEMA. In its petition, NEMA 

stated there are only two known 

manufacturers of the 100 W R20 short 

lamp in the United States. Both 

manufacturers submitted their 

confidential R20 short lamps 2009 

shipment data to NEMA. In interviews, 

these lamp manufacturers commented 

that the shipment data from 2009 is 

representative of the R20 short lamp 

market before they stopped making the 

lamp available to consumers in 2010. 

For comparison, NEMA used an 

adjusted estimate of covered IRL 

shipments from the 2009 Lamps Rule. In 

the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE estimated 

the shipments of covered IRLs to be 181 

million units in the year 2005. Based on 

a decline in shipments of all IRLs in 

2009, NEMA assumed covered IRLs 

would also decline, but estimated the 

shipments to still remain above 100 

million. Based on a minimum of 100 

million and a maximum of 181 million 

shipments of covered IRLs, NEMA 

calculated that the shipments of R20 

short lamps represented significantly 

less than 0.1 percent of 2009 shipments 

of covered IRLs. 75 FR at 80733 (Dec. 

23, 2010). 

In interviews conducted for the 

NOPR, DOE independently obtained 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68335 

8The appendices can be found on 

regulations.gov, under docket number EERE–2010– 

BT–PET–0047, at www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047. 

shipment information from lamp 

manufacturers that confirmed NEMA’s 

estimate of R20 short lamps being 

significantly less than 0.1 percent of 

2009 shipments of covered IRLs. 

Therefore, DOE determined this to be an 

accurate assessment of the R20 short 

lamp market share and concluded that 

less than 0.1 percent of covered IRLs 

indicated a small market share for R20 

short lamps. (More information on R20 

short lamp energy use can be found in 

appendix B of this final rule.8) 

As well as assessing the existing 

market share, DOE also analyzed the 

potential for growth due to market 

migration of R20 short lamps. NEMA 

stated that with the R20 short lamp’s 

small market share, specialized 

distribution chains, and typically high 

price point, their exclusion from 

standards does not present any 

significant loss in energy savings. 

(NEMA, No. 14 at pp. 2, 3) Earthjustice 

and NRDC referred to their previous 

comments made in response to the RFI, 

stating that they remain concerned that 

exempted R20 short lamps will migrate 

to applications other than pools and 

spas. (Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 15 at 

p. 1) The CA IOUs also referred to 

comments on the subject submitted for 

the RFI. Specifically, they reiterated that 

the size of R20 short lamps allows them 

to be used in applications other than 

pool and spa lighting, and that R20 

short lamps are not necessarily more 

expensive than other small diameter 

IRLs and an increase in their production 

could allow manufacturers to achieve 

some economies of scale and lower 

prices further. The CA IOUs stated that 

DOE did not sufficiently address these 

two points in the NOPR. (CA IOUs, No. 

16 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees that R20 short lamps’ 

MOL does not physically prohibit their 

use in other applications. Further, DOE 

had received information from lamp 

manufacturers stating that the end-user 

price varies, but typically ranges from 

$12 to $25. DOE market research also 

indicated a large variation, finding 

prices ranging from as low as $2 to as 

high as $34. Therefore, DOE 

acknowledges that the price of R20 short 

lamps can be competitive with other 

IRLs. However, R20 short lamps are sold 

through specialized distribution 

channels where they are marketed and 

packaged specifically for pool and spa 

applications. Additionally, even when 

R20 short lamps were perceived to be 

unregulated, there was no evidence of 

market migration to other applications. 

For these reasons, even though physical 

constraints may not limit their use in 

other applications and they may be sold 

at low prices, the substitution of R20 

short lamps in general applications is 

highly unlikely. 

The CA IOUs stated that while R20 

lamps are sold through specific 

distribution channels, and are therefore 

unlikely to be purchased for use outside 

of the pool and spa lighting market, 

there are no rules to prevent 

manufacturers from selling R20 short 

lamps outside these distribution 

channels in the future. (CA IOUs, No. 16 

at p. 1) The CA IOUs also noted that as 

consumers do more shopping online, 

historically hard lines between different 

distribution channels become 

increasingly blurred, and consumers 

have greater access to products being 

sold through a variety of merchants. (CA 

IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 1–2) 

Overall, DOE did not find an 

indication of a potential trend towards 

selling R20 short lamps through general 

application channels. With few 

exceptions, DOE found that the majority 

of R20 short lamps available online are 

on Web sites selling specialty and pool 

and spa lighting or equipment. 

Therefore, even via online channels, 

R20 short lamps are still generally sold 

through designated, niche Web sites. 

Also, as noted in the NOPR, lamp 

manufacturers stated in interviews that 

the R20 short lamp market is primarily 

for replacement lamps and, therefore, 

historically has shown very little growth 

or decline. 77 FR at 76963 (December 

31, 2012). Further, despite the fact that 

lamp manufacturers have not 

considered the lamps as regulated, the 

market share has remained extremely 

low and there has been no evidence of 

market migration. In addition to being 

found primarily through designated 

distribution channels, the lamps’ 

packaging indicates they are specifically 

for pool and spa applications. 

The CA IOUs also commented that 

even though R20 short lamps may 

currently be appropriately labeled for 

use in pools and spas only, there are no 

guidelines to ensure that consumers use 

them only in pool and spa applications. 

(CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 1) Further, the 

CA IOUs stated that although R20 short 

lamps have not become a loophole 

previously, the new energy conservation 

standards for IRLs set by the 2009 

Lamps Rule have required compliance 

since July 2012. The CA IOUs 

contended that because these standards 

increased existing lumen per watt (lm/ 

W) standards for covered products, they 

provide greater incentive for excluded 

lamp types to become loopholes. The 

CA IOUs stressed that exclusion of R20 

short lamps from standards is now more 

likely to result in significant loss of 

energy savings through market 

migration towards these products. (CA 

IOUs, No. 16 at p. 2) 

DOE finds it unlikely that consumers 

will seek out R20 short lamps packaged 

and labeled for use in pool and spa 

applications as replacements for any 

general service lighting impacted by the 

standards adopted by the 2009 Lamps 

Rule. The definition of R20 short lamp, 

as added by this final rule to 10 CFR 

430.2, requires that they be designed, 

labeled, and marketed specifically for 

pool and spa applications. DOE believes 

the use of R20 short lamps in other 

applications despite their packaging and 

marketing materials is improbable as 

consumers are unable to purchase R20 

short lamps at typical retail outlets such 

as large home improvement stores. As 

noted in section III.B.1.b, the majority of 

R20 short lamps are purchased from 

pool and spa distributors and specialty 

retail stores, and are not available where 

general service IRLs are typically sold. 

In its interviews with manufacturers for 

various lighting regulations, DOE has 

consistently received feedback that 

when replacing lamps, consumers 

attempt to replace the same lamp that 

was previously installed. It is not 

typical consumer behavior to seek out 

alternative lamp types from unrelated 

niche application lighting. Therefore, 

DOE concluded that the R20 short lamp 

market has limited potential for growth, 

and it is unlikely the lamps will migrate 

to general lighting applications. 

Because the specialty application of 

the R20 short lamps results in a small 

market share and limited potential for 

growth for these lamps, DOE concluded 

that the exclusion of R20 short lamps 

would not significantly impact the 

energy savings resulting from energy 

conservation standards. 

C. Availability of R20 Short Lamp 

Special Characteristics in Substitutes 

DOE may also exclude a lamp because 

its special characteristics are not 

available in reasonably substitutable 

lamp types. 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E) To 

determine whether an exclusion was 

acceptable based on this condition, DOE 

identified the special characteristics of 

R20 short lamps and determined 

whether these characteristics existed in 

other lamp types that would qualify as 

reasonable substitutes. 

DOE considered a lamp characteristic 

special if, without it, the R20 short lamp 

would not be able to provide the special 

application for which it was designed 

(i.e., use in pools and spas). Therefore, 

even if the lamp characteristic was not 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68336 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

9For a full list of exclusions see 10 CFR 

430.32(n)(6)(ii). 

10Appendix A from the NOPR can be found on 

regulations.gov, under docket number EERE–2010– 

BT–PET–0047, at www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010–BT-PET-0047. 

unique to the R20 short lamp, it was 

deemed special if it was required for the 

lamp to function in pools and spas. DOE 

identified the following set of features 

that in combination allow the lamp to 

be used in a specialty application: 

• Shortened MOL: An MOL of 3 and 5⁄8 inches or less; 

• Heat Shield: A shield reflecting 

radiant energy from the lamp base; 

• Beam Spread: A beam angle 

between 70 and 123 degrees; 

• Lumen Output: A lumen output 

between 637 and 1,022 lumens; and 

• Illumination: 0.5 W per square foot 

of water surface area or the equivalent. 

DOE evaluated lamps that could serve 

as potential substitutes by determining 

whether they contained all of the above 

noted special characteristics of R20 

short lamps. DOE notes that a 

reasonable substitute lamp may also 

need to be Underwriters Laboratories 

(UL) listed for applicable pool and 

lighting fixtures in order to prevent 

voiding fixture manufacturer warranties. 

As stated in the NOPR, based on 

interviews with pool and spa part 

manufacturers, DOE finds that 

reasonable substitutes will not 

encounter barriers when obtaining a UL 

listing. 77 FR at 76964–76965 

(December 31, 2012). 

DOE surveyed the market and 

conducted manufacturer interviews to 

identify several commercially available 

lamps that were marketed or considered 

by manufacturers as potential 

substitutes for an R20 short lamp. These 

lamps included a more efficacious 

halogen-based R20 short lamp, a smaller 

diameter IRL, the 60 W PAR16, and 

certain light-emitting diode (LED) 

lamps. When analyzing each of the 

likely replacements, DOE focused on 

whether they possessed the special 

characteristics of the R20 short lamp. 

In the NOPR, DOE tentatively 

concluded that there were no reasonably 

substitutable lamp types currently 

available that offered the special 

characteristics of R20 short lamps. 

NEMA agreed that there are no 

reasonable substitute lamp designs for 

this application that meet energy 

efficiency regulations and pass safety 

and performance requirements for this 

lamp type. NEMA stressed that should 

inferior substitutes be forced on the 

market purely due to energy efficiency 

goals, the existing relationship between 

the R20 short lamps and the devices that 

use them would not be replicated, 

which could create a potential safety 

and liability risk. Further, NEMA noted 

that its members have attempted to 

design substitute lamps using improved 

energy performance solutions, only to 

have the products fail testing across the 

greater range of requirements, including 

energy conservation standards, safety 

requirements, and form factors. NEMA 

asserted that if it were possible to make 

substitute lamps, its members would 

have made them. (NEMA, No. 14 at 

p. 3) 

However, the CA IOUs and 

Earthjustice and NRDC recommended 

that DOE further examine the possibility 

of a reasonable substitute for R20 short 

lamps. (Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 15 

at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 2–4) DOE 

responds to their specific comments and 

presents its final assessment in the 

following sections. 

1. Improved R20 Short Lamp 

Currently, R20 short lamps use 

incandescent technology and do not 

meet previous energy conservation 

standards or the existing standards 

adopted in the 2009 Lamps Rule that 

required compliance in July 2012. In the 

NOPR, DOE investigated the potential of 

improving the efficacy of R20 short 

lamps using halogen capsules, also 

called halogen burners, known to 

improve the efficacy of IRLs. Halogen 

capsules consist of a small diameter, 

fused quartz envelope filled with a 

halogen molecule that surrounds the 

lamp’s filament. Through teardowns, 

testing, calculations, and interviews, 

DOE’s NOPR analysis concluded that 

although it is potentially feasible to 

incorporate a halogen burner into an 

R20 short lamp, the expected 

improvement in efficacy would not be 

enough to meet or exceed the July 2012 

standards. 

The CA IOUs urged DOE to undertake 

a more rigorous analysis of the 

achievable efficacy of R20 short lamps 

with halogen burners. They requested 

more detail on DOE’s modeling 

approach and why DOE was unable to 

model a more efficacious halogen-based 

R20 lamp. As efficacy generally 

increases with lamp wattage, and none 

of the special characteristics were 

reported to affect efficacy, the CA IOUs 

found it unlikely that the modeled 75 W 

halogen R20 short lamp with a singleended burner had a theoretical efficacy 

of only 10.3 lm/W. Specifically, they 

noted that the 45 W halogen R20 lamp 

used by DOE to scale to a 75 W halogen 

R20 short lamp would be compliant 

with the existing energy conservation 

standards and therefore, presumably 

have a minimum efficacy of 14.0 lm/W. 

Similarly, the CA IOUs questioned that 

the modeled 75 W halogen R20 short 

lamp with a double-ended burner had a 

theoretical efficacy of only 13.8 lm/W. 

(CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 2) 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE modeled 

efficacies at 75 W for an R20 short lamp 

in two scenarios, one using single-ended 

burner technology, and the second using 

double-ended burner technology. DOE 

developed these lamps by scaling from 

commercially available lamps. DOE 

selected a 45 W halogen R20 lamp with 

a single-ended burner that had a rated 

efficacy of 9.3 lm/W. Because the 

selected lamp is excluded 9 from the 

existing standards for IRLs specified in 

10 CFR 430.32(n)(5), it is not required 

to meet the minimum standard of 14.0 

lm/W as assumed by the CA IOUs. 

When this lamp was scaled to a 75 W 

lamp with a single-ended burner, the 

efficacy improved to 10.3 lm/W. (More 

information on the scaling methodology 

can be found in appendix A of the 

NOPR.10) 

To model the R20 short lamp with a 

double-ended burner, DOE used the 

tested double-ended burner efficacy for 

a standards-compliant 60 W PAR30 

short lamp and added an average 

reflector efficiency factor of 62.2 

percent, based on tested reflector 

efficiencies of R20 lamp types, to 

calculate an efficacy of 13.5 lm/W. 

When scaled to a 75 W lamp with a 

double-ended burner, the resulting 

efficacy improved to 13.8 lm/W. (More 

information on the scaling methodology 

can be found in appendix A of the 

NOPR.) 

Therefore, as expected, in both 

scenarios the efficacies of the scaled 

higher wattage lamps were greater than 

the efficacies of the lower-wattage lamps 

from which they were scaled. However, 

because the lower-wattage lamp used to 

model an R20 short lamp with a singleended burner is excluded from existing 

standards and has a lower efficacy than 

14.0 lm/W, the modeled lamp would 

not necessarily meet current standards. 

Similarly, while a standards-compliant 

lamp’s burner efficiency was used to 

model an R20 short lamp with a doubleended burner, the inclusion of an Rshaped reflector efficiency allows for 

the possibility that the modeled lamp 

would not be compliant to standards. 

The CA IOUs also questioned whether 

using the Illuminating Engineering 

Society of North America (IESNA) 

scaling equations alone can sufficiently 

capture the full range of benefits from 

moving to more efficient halogen 

burners. The CA IOUs gave the example 

of there possibly being some 

temperature advantages to using 

halogen or halogen infrared (HIR) 

burners due to less waste heat 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68337 

11Please note that the referenced lamp is 

excluded from the existing IRL standards specified 

in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(5). See 10 CFR 430.32(n)(6)(ii) 

for a list of exclusions. 

12For a full list of exclusions see 10 CFR 

430.32(n)(6)(ii). 

13Appendix A can be found on regulations.gov, 

under docket number EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047, at 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010- 

BT-PET-0047. 

14For a full list of exclusions see 10 CFR 

430.32(n)(6)(ii). 

15Appendix A can be found on regulations.gov, 

under docket number EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047, at 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2010- 

BT-PET-0047. 

generation. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 2– 

3) The improved R20 short lamps are 

modeled using a set of industryaccepted IESNA equations. DOE 

believes these equations offer an 

accurate theoretical assessment of lamp 

performance based on a relationship 

between lifetime, lumens, and wattage. 

Stakeholders recommended 

additional modeling scenarios in order 

to explore other pathways to a more 

efficacious R20 short lamp. The CA 

IOUs questioned DOE’s decision to base 

the modeled R20 short lamp with a 

double-ended burner on a PAR30 short 

lamp with a double-ended burner, as its 

efficacy had to be discounted to account 

for the different reflector shape. The CA 

IOUs suggested DOE base the analysis 

on the 40 W Philips Halogena Energy 

Saver R20 lamp with a double-ended 

burner, so there would be no need to 

adjust the results for reflector efficiency. 

The CA IOUs also noted that the Philips 

Halogena R20 lamp has an efficacy of 

14.25 lm/W, making it compliant with 

standards.11 (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs further recommended that 

DOE consider modeling the theoretical 

double-ended burner lamp with a higher 

efficiency reflector (as opposed to the 

average reflector efficiency for R20 

lamps), given that the primary goal of 

the analysis is to determine achievable 

efficiency improvements for the 

product. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 2) The 

CA IOUs had also noted that it might be 

possible to redesign other aspects of the 

lamp to better support halogen burners. 

(CA IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 2–3) 

Earthjustice and NRDC similarly 

encouraged DOE to seek additional 

information on the technical feasibility 

of improving the efficacy of R20 short 

lamps. (Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 15 

at p. 1) In this final rule, taking into 

consideration the preceding 

recommendations from stakeholders, 

DOE modeled the performance of R20 

short lamps utilizing HIR technology 

and also a more efficient reflector to 

determine if an improved R20 short 

lamp could be a viable substitute. 

DOE identified commercially 

available HIR R20 lamps with singleended or double-ended burners to use in 

modeling an HIR R20 short lamp with 

performance characteristics comparable 

to a 100 W incandescent R20 short 

lamp. While the specific Philips lamp 

suggested by the CA IOUs was no longer 

listed in their catalog, DOE was able to 

identify a currently available HIR R20 

lamp with a double-ended burner with 

the same efficacy. Including this lamp, 

DOE identified a 40 W HIR R20 lamp 

with a single-ended burner, two 40 W 

HIR R20 lamps with double-ended 

burners, and one 45 W HIR R20 lamp 

with a double-ended burner. 

DOE then performed teardowns to 

determine the dimensional 

compatibility of the identified HIR R20 

lamps’ halogen capsules with an R20 

short lamp. Based on the dimensions of 

the burners and the R20 short lamp, 

DOE concluded that it is not possible to 

fit the double-ended halogen burners 

found in commercially available HIR 

R20 lamps in an R20 short lamp; it is 

possible, however, to fit the singleended burner. Therefore, for this final 

rule, DOE used the HIR R20 lamp with 

a single-ended burner to model a more 

efficacious R20 short lamp. Because 

DOE could not identify a double-ended 

HIR R20 lamp with a capsule that was 

dimensionally compatible with an R20 

short lamp, DOE continued to use the 60 

W HIR PAR30 short lamp tested for the 

NOPR to model an HIR R20 short lamp 

with a double-ended burner. A doubleended burner is more efficient than a 

single-ended burner because it has the 

lead wire outside of the capsule, where 

it does not interfere with the reflectance 

of energy from the capsule wall back to 

the capsule filament. This limits the loss 

of energy and raises the filament 

temperature, resulting in an increase in 

lamp efficacy. 

To model an HIR R20 short lamp with 

a single-ended burner, DOE tested the 

efficacy of the identified 120 V, 40 W 

HIR R20 lamp with the dimensionally 

compatible single-ended burner. Using 

the IESNA equations relating lifetime, 

lumens, and wattage, DOE scaled the 

lumen output of the 40 W lamp in three 

scenarios, with the lumen output 

reasonably close to the minimum, 

maximum, and average lumen output of 

the desired range (637 and 1,022 

lumens). Typically R20 short lamps 

have a lifetime of 2,000 or 2,500 hours. 

For this analysis, DOE assumed the 

maximum rated lifetime of 2,500 hours. 

Through these scaling calculations, DOE 

found that in the average lumen output 

scenario, the efficacy of the R20 short 

lamp could potentially be improved to 

meet the July 2012 standards with the 

use of HIR technology and a singleended burner. For the maximum lumen 

output scenario the efficacy of the 

modeled lamp did not meet the July 

2012 standards. In order to achieve the 

minimum lumen output, the modeled 

lamp wattage was reduced to lower than 

45 W, thereby excluding the lamp from 

existing standards for IRLs specified in 

10 CFR 430.32(n)(5).12 For more 

information on the improved efficacy 

calculations, see appendix A of this 

final rule.13

To determine the efficacy of an HIR 

R20 lamp with a double-ended burner, 

DOE revised the scaling analysis 

conducted for the NOPR by analyzing in 

addition to an average efficiency 

reflector, a more efficient reflector. DOE 

utilized the NOPR test results of the 

burner efficiency of a 120 V, 60 W 

PAR30 short lamp with a double-ended 

burner that is dimensionally compatible 

with an R20 short lamp. Using the 

IESNA equations relating lifetime, 

lumen output, and wattage, DOE first 

scaled the lumen output of the 60 W 

lamp with the average reflector 

efficiency in three scenarios, with the 

lumen output reasonably close to the 

minimum, maximum, and average 

lumen output of the desired range (637 

and 1,022 lumens). DOE again assumed 

the maximum rated lifetime of R20 short 

lamps (2,500 hours). DOE found for the 

average lumen output and maximum 

lumen output scenarios that the efficacy 

of the modeled R20 short lamp with 

average reflector efficiency would not 

meet the July 2012 standards. However, 

DOE found for the minimum lumen 

output scenario, the efficacy of the R20 

short lamp could potentially be 

improved to meet the July 2012 

standards with the use of HIR 

technology with a double-ended burner. 

As suggested by the CA IOUs, DOE 

then conducted the same analysis for 

the 60 W lamp with a higher efficiency 

reflector. DOE found for the average 

lumen output and maximum lumen 

output scenarios that the efficacy of the 

R20 short lamp could potentially be 

improved to meet the July 2012 

standards with the use of HIR 

technology with a double-ended burner 

and improved reflector. In order to 

achieve the minimum lumen output, the 

modeled lamp wattage was reduced to 

lower than 45 W, thereby excluding the 

lamp from existing standards for IRLs 

specified in 10 CFR 430.32(n)(5).14 For 

more information on the improved 

efficacy calculation, see appendix A of 

this final rule.15

DOE notes that there is uncertainty 

associated with the theoretical modeling 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68338 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

16Note that, as modeled, the lamps have the 

necessary lumen output, but DOE is uncertain of 

the impact of a shorter reflector length. 

assessment. The modeled lamps reflect 

a standard R20 reflector shape rather 

than a short R20 reflector shape. Thus, 

the modeled lamp efficacies were based 

on R20 lamps with a longer MOL than 

the R20 short lamp’s 3.625 inches. DOE 

compared standard length and long 

length halogen lamps that had the same 

shape, diameter, lifetime, voltage, and 

wattage, and could find no consistent 

relationship between lamp length and 

efficacy. Therefore, it is unknown how 

shortening the length of the reflector 

would impact the efficacy of the 

modeled lamps. 

Even given this uncertainty, DOE 

evaluated whether the standardscompliant R20 short lamps based on the 

modeling described above could also 

include the special characteristics of the 

R20 short lamp. (See section III.C.) First, 

DOE believes that a heat shield could be 

included in the improved R20 short 

lamp as they are included in most 

commercially available halogen IRLs. 

Next, DOE also determined that because 

the HIR capsules were dimensionally 

compatible with an R20 short lamp, the 

shortened MOL is retained. The 

addition of an HIR capsule would, 

however, affect the lumen output and 

beam spread. Based on its theoretical 

modeling, DOE determined that an HIR 

R20 short lamp may have a lumen 

output within the established range for 

an R20 short lamp of 637 to 1,022 

lumens.16 However, because the 

position of the filament impacts the 

beam angle, DOE anticipates that the 

beam angle could be affected by the use 

of a halogen capsule. Because standardscompliant R20 short lamps are not 

commercially available, DOE is unable 

to confirm the beam angle of R20 short 

lamps that utilize an HIR capsule. 

However, DOE believes that the HIR R20 

short lamps would likely meet the 0.5 

watts per square foot of water surface 

area or equivalent illumination 

requirements because the theoretical 

lamps could deliver higher lumen 

output with reduced input wattage 

compared to the R20 short lamp. 

Through the modeling assessment, 

DOE determined that the efficacy of an 

R20 short lamp could potentially be 

improved through the use of HIR 

technology. However, DOE cannot be 

certain of the improvement in efficacy 

due to the fact that the commercially 

available lamps from which the more 

efficacious R20 short lamps were scaled 

did not have the same reflector length 

as the R20 short lamp. Moreover, it is 

not clear that the more efficacious R20 

short lamp would be able to achieve the 

combination of the special 

characteristics because HIR technology 

has not yet been incorporated in a 

commercially available R20 short lamp. 

Therefore, the modeled efficacy and 

performance characteristics of the HIR 

R20 short lamp could be affected by 

adjustments required to accommodate 

these features. Thus, DOE was unable to 

conclude, based on its modeling, 

whether an improved R20 short lamp 

could be compliant with standards and 

also include all the special 

characteristics of a R20 short lamp. 

If DOE concluded that the special 

characteristics of R20 short lamps 

prohibit the lamps from reaching 

efficacy levels achievable by other R20 

lamps, the CA IOUs suggested DOE use 

the relationship between these lamp 

characteristics and efficacy to scale the 

existing standards to accommodate R20 

short lamps, instead of granting a full 

exception from standards. (CA IOUs, 

No. 16 at p. 3) The authority of this 

rulemaking is based on 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E), which is limited to 

determining whether or not lamp types 

should be excluded from energy 

conservation standards. 42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(E) does not grant DOE the 

authority to establish unique energy 

conservation standards for these lamps. 

2. 60 W PAR16 Lamp 

In addition to analyzing HIR R20 

short lamps as a reasonable substitute, 

DOE also analyzed 60 W PAR16 lamps. 

In the NOPR, DOE determined that the 

60 W PAR16 lamp must be partnered 

with a fixture with an optimized LED 

lens to achieve the appropriate beam 

angle and does not contain all of the 

special characteristics of a R20 short 

lamp by itself. 77 FR at 76966–67 

(December 31, 2012). NEMA agreed that 

the 60 W PAR16 lamp is therefore not 

an acceptable substitute for R20 short 

lamps. NEMA allowed that 60 W PAR16 

lamps may provide adequate lumens 

and meet total illumination 

requirements without an additional 

lens, but emphasized that their beam 

angle does not provide the same total 

illumination throughout the pool or spa. 

NEMA further clarified that because 60 

W PAR16 lamps produce a targeted 

cone of light output, areas of the pool 

or spa where the lamp fixture is not 

directed would not be illuminated, 

creating safety issues. Additionally, 

NEMA noted that the R20 short lamp 

has been optimized for the fixture and 

the application, as corroborated by 

DOE’s analysis, and a substitute, lowerwattage lamp would not provide the 

same service. (NEMA, No. 14 at p. 2) 

For this final rule, DOE again 

evaluated the 60 W PAR16 lamp and 

found no change in its characteristics. 

Therefore, DOE maintains that because 

the 60 W PAR16 lamp alone cannot 

achieve the required beam spread for 

R20 short lamps, the lamp is not a 

reasonable substitute. 

3. LED Lamps 

In the NOPR, DOE also evaluated 

whether commercially available LED 

lamps could serve as reasonable 

substitutes for R20 short lamps. DOE 

determined that because they do not 

have the required special characteristics 

of R20 short lamps, specifically lumen 

output and beam spread, they are not 

reasonable substitutes. Furthermore, 

DOE did not consider LED lamp and 

fixture replacements as reasonable 

substitutes because they require more 

than the lamp to be replaced. 77 FR at 

76967 (December 31, 2012). 

Earthjustice and NRDC and the CA 

IOUs encouraged DOE to seek 

additional information on compliant 

LED lamps that could be reasonable 

substitutes. (Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 

15 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 3) 

Specifically, the CA IOUs commented 

that LED technology has advanced 

rapidly in recent years, and LED light 

sources increasingly are used in many 

different applications. The CA IOUs 

stated that they have found several 

examples of commercially available 

pool and spa LED lamps sold by online 

retailers that could be alternatives to 

R20 short lamps. While these products 

are currently more expensive, the CA 

IOUs contended that they offer energy 

cost savings, longer lifetimes, and lower 

maintenance costs. The CA IOUs also 

noted that LED lamp costs are forecasted 

to fall quickly in the coming years as 

LED technology continues to mature. 

(CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 3) 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE had 

conducted market research to identify 

any commercially available LED lamps 

determined to be compatible with the 

R20 short lamp fixture and to have the 

required special characteristics of R20 

short lamps. For this final rule, DOE 

updated its market analysis and verified 

the conclusions of the NOPR 

assessment; DOE did not find any LED 

lamps that had the necessary 

requirements of lumen output or beam 

spread. 

The CA IOUs remarked that while 

DOE acknowledged that the PAR16 and 

LED replacement lamps are currently 

being used, DOE still claimed that these 

lamps should not be considered 

substitute products because neither 

lamp type is demonstrating full 

equivalency in terms of lumen output 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68339 

17Southern California Edison. Commercial LED 

Pool Lamps. December 2010. Southern California 

Edison Design and Engineering Services Customer 

Service Business Unit:.Rosemead, CA. Report No. 

ET10SCE1130. Available here: www.etcc-ca.com/

images/stories/et10sce1130_-_commercial_led_

pool_lighting.pdf. 

18 Ibid, page 34. 

19 Ibid, page 38. 

20 Ibid, pages 35–36. 

21 Ibid, page 36. 

and/or measured light distribution. The 

CA IOUs suggested this reasoning is not 

applicable when comparing LED to 

incandescent lighting in pool and spa 

applications. Pool and spa LEDs can be 

designed to provide cooler light 

compared to incandescent lamps, with 

higher intensity at shorter wavelengths 

within the spectrum of visible light. The 

CA IOUs explained that water has a 

higher optical absorption coefficient at 

longer wavelengths, which effectively 

acts as a filter that allows more cool 

light than warm light to pass through. 

Therefore, LED lamps need fewer total 

lumens to light a pool and will provide 

more even illumination with fewer ‘‘hot 

spots’’ than incandescent lighting. For 

these reasons, the CA IOUs argued that 

comparisons of lumen output and light 

distribution for pool and spa lighting 

should not be based on raw 

measurements of the light source 

outside of the fixture. (CA IOUs, No. 16 

at p. 3) 

In support of this argument, the CA 

IOUs referred to a 2010 emerging 

technology study wherein they 

evaluated the performance of 

incandescent and LED lamps in pool 

and spa lighting applications.17 The CA 

IOUs stated that the study measured the 

light output and distribution of R20 

lamps and several LED replacement 

products (both lamps and fixtures) at 

the surface of a pool, and generally 

found the quality of light provided by 

the LED products was superior in terms 

of brightness and evenness of 

distribution. The CA IOUs also noted 

that LED pool and spa lighting products 

have probably continued to improve in 

the three years since this study was 

completed. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at p. 3) 

DOE reviewed the study referenced by 

the CA IOUs to further assess the 

possibility of LED lamps as a reasonable 

substitute for R20 short lamps. The 

study did find that uniformity and light 

levels improved relative to incandescent 

lighting in pools, but mainly for 

replacements of both lamp and fixture. 

For direct replacement LED lamps, the 

study noted that while they had the 

potential to improve uniformity, the 

results were less constant and in some 

cases poorer than those of the 

preexisting incandescent lighting.18

Further, the study stated that direct 

replacement LED lamps tend to fall in 

the ‘‘one size fits all’’ category, limiting 

their ability to provide the performance 

needed in certain applications.19 As 

noted previously, DOE concluded the 

criteria for a reasonable substitute must 

be met by the lamp alone. Based on the 

study, the direct replacement lamps 

tested did not consistently meet light 

levels compared to incandescent 

lighting. 

The CA IOUs suggested that the ‘‘blue 

filter’’ effect causes the underwater 

performance of lumens to differ from 

the absolute lumen output as measured 

outside the underwater fixture. Thus, 

using measured lumens as a criterion to 

identify a reasonable substitute is 

unsuitable for this application. (CA 

IOUs, No. 16 at pp. 3–4) However, the 

study noted that the influence of the 

‘‘blue filter’’ effect on pool lighting is 

proportional to pool size. The effect is 

greater in larger pools where light must 

travel long distances, than in spas where 

light travels shorter distances.20 The 

variation in this phenomenon makes it 

problematic to develop an accurate and 

consistent light level metric. Further, a 

light level metric based on this effect 

cannot be used to determine 

replacements for all R20 short lamps, as 

the blue filter effect is not significant in 

small pools. Hence, lumen output 

remains a more consistent and reliable 

metric of gauging the suitability of a 

replacement lamp for the R20 short 

lamp in all pool and spa applications, 

and can be applied across technologies, 

including LED lamps. 

Finally, the study acknowledged that 

LED pool lighting systems would have 

difficulty meeting the 0.5 W per square 

foot or equivalent illumination building 

code requirement. The study suggested 

that building code requirements should 

be modified to account for the spectral 

distribution of lumens rather than the 

total lumen output.21 However, DOE 

must base its criteria for reasonable 

substitutes in this rulemaking on 

existing requirements. 

For this final rule, DOE again 

evaluated commercially available LED 

lamps to determine whether they meet 

the special characteristics of R20 short 

lamps. DOE did not find an LED lamp 

that comprised all the necessary 

characteristics to serve as a reasonable 

substitute for an R20 short lamp. DOE 

also examined information provided by 

stakeholders regarding the potential 

improvement in pool and spa lighting 

by replacing incandescent with LED 

technology. However, because this 

improvement is attributable to 

replacement of lamp and fixture rather 

than only the lamp, DOE could not 

consider it in its evaluation of LEDs as 

reasonable substitutes for R20 short 

lamps. Further, DOE concluded that 

while there may be different ways to 

measure the illumination of a pool or 

spa, the lumen output range identified 

as a special characteristic for R20 short 

lamps remains a reliable metric that can 

be applied across technologies and for 

all types of pools and spas. 

4. Consumer Use of Substitute Products 

The CA IOUs noted that R20 short 

lamps have not been manufactured 

since 2010. In the meantime, PAR16 

lamps and LED products have been 

successfully installed in new and 

existing pool and spa fixtures without 

noticeable negative impacts to 

consumers. The CA IOUs further cited 

their experience implementing rebate 

programs for LED pool lighting, noting 

that consumers have expressed a high 

degree of satisfaction when replacing 

their existing R20 short lamps with 

LEDs. The CA IOUs affirmed that in 

their experience, consumers are not able 

to distinguish small differences in the 

beam angle or distribution of light, 

particularly when the lamps are behind 

a lens and under water. An additional 

interview the CA IOUs conducted with 

a major distributor of pool lighting 

products also confirmed these findings 

of consumer satisfaction. (CA IOUs, No. 

16 at p. 3) 

DOE evaluated lamps as reasonable 

substitutes using a set of criteria 

described in the beginning of section 

III.C. The fact that consumers can 

physically replace R20 short lamps with 

PAR16 or LED lamps does not 

automatically mean they are reasonable 

substitutes. Rather, the necessary 

criteria for a reasonable substitute lamp 

are based on special characteristics of 

the R20 short lamp identified in this 

analysis. 

The CA IOUs called attention to the 

fact that for new fixtures the question of 

light source equivalency is a non-issue, 

and R20 short lamp fixtures do not offer 

any unique functionality that cannot be 

met by other light sources. As new 

fixtures are sold together with the lamps 

they were designed for, fixture 

manufacturers are able to customize 

their lenses based on the source of 

lighting being used. (CA IOUs, No. 16 at 

p. 3) DOE acknowledges that a lamp and 

fixture replacement could adequately 

meet pool and spa lighting needs. 

However, as the scope of this 

rulemaking covers only the R20 short 

lamp itself, and not pool and spa 

fixtures, DOE must assess reasonable 

substitutes for the lamp alone. 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68340 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Conclusion 

DOE has established that R20 short 

lamps were designed for pool and spa 

applications based on industry need and 

consumer preference. The design 

requirements included a wide beam 

spread, high lumen output, and 

adequate illumination; a heat shield to 

withstand the high operating 

temperatures of spas; and a shortened 

MOL, allowing the lamp to fit in 

underwater pool or spa fixtures. 

Further, DOE has determined that the 

majority of R20 short lamps are 

purchased from pool and spa 

distributors and specialty retail stores, 

and are not available where IRLs are 

typically sold for general lighting 

applications. R20 short lamps are also 

marketed and clearly packaged in a way 

that indicates the lamps are specifically 

for use in pools and spas. Therefore, 

DOE has concluded that R20 short 

lamps are designed for pool and spa 

applications. Due to the special 

application of R20 short lamps, DOE 

assessed the impact on energy savings 

from the exclusion of these lamps from 

energy conservation standards. As R20 

short lamps have a small market share 

and limited potential for growth, DOE 

determined that the regulation of R20 

short lamps would not result in 

significant energy savings. 

DOE also evaluated lamps that could 

serve as potential substitutes by 

analyzing their ability to replicate the 

specialized characteristics of the R20 

short lamp, specifically a shortened 

MOL, heat shield, high lumen output, 

wide beam spread, and adequate 

illumination. DOE concluded that there 

are no reasonably substitutable lamp 

types currently commercially available 

that offer the special characteristics of 

R20 short lamps. 

Based on the assessments of this final 

rule, DOE determined that R20 short 

lamps should be excluded from energy 

conservation standards. DOE’s analysis 

found that energy conservation 

standards for R20 short lamps would 

not result in significant energy savings 

because the lamps are designed for 

special applications and have special 

characteristics not available in 

reasonably substitutable lamp types. 

Therefore, under section 6291(30)(E), 

DOE excludes R20 short lamps from 

energy conservation standards by 

modifying the definition of 

‘‘Incandescent reflector lamp’’ and 

adding a new definition for ‘‘R20 short 

lamp’’ in 10 CFR 430.2, as set forth in 

the regulatory text of this rule. 

In response to the definition of R20 

short lamp proposed in the NOPR, 

Earthjustice and NRDC commented that 

DOE should ensure the definition 

includes each of the identified special 

characteristics of R20 short lamps, 

including the incorporation of a heat 

shield, a beam angle between 70 and 

123 degrees, and a minimum light 

output of 900 lumens. Earthjustice and 

NRDC stated that DOE should either add 

these criteria to the text of the R20 short 

lamp definition or clarify in the 

preamble of this final rule that the 

requirement that an R20 short lamp be 

‘‘designed . . . specifically for pool and 

spa applications’’ includes the 

satisfaction of these three criteria. 

(Earthjustice and NRDC, No. 15 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees with Earthjustice and 

NRDC on the importance of the special 

characteristics of R20 short lamps and 

has stated in section III.C of this final 

rule that each of these characteristics is 

required for the R20 short lamp to 

provide the special application for 

which it was designed. DOE believes the 

definition for R20 short lamp added to 

10 CFR 430.2, which specifies the 

wattage, MOL, and requires that the 

lamp must be designed, labeled, and 

marketed specifically for pool and spa 

applications, sufficiently identifies the 

lamps designated for exclusion. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

Today’s regulatory action has been 

determined to not be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 

(Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) is not required to review 

this action. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 

is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, OIRA has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s final rule is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(RFA) for any rule that by law must be 

proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the rule, if 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. As required by 

Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

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

gc/office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed today’s rulemaking 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. This rulemaking sets no 

standards; it only determines that 

exclusion from standards is warranted 

for R20 short lamps. DOE certifies that 

this rulemaking will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68341 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis for this certification is as follows. 

For manufacturers of R20 short lamps, 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has set a size threshold, which 

defines those entities classified as 

‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of 

the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as 

amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 

5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 

121.The size standards are listed by 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. R20 short 

lamp manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 335110, ‘‘Electric Lamp Bulb 

and Part Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets 

a threshold of 1,000 employees or less 

for an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. DOE 

identified two small business 

manufacturers of R20 short lamps. 

Amendments to EPCA in EPAct 1992 

established the current energy 

conservation standards for certain 

classes of IRLs. On July 14, 2009, DOE 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register that amended these standards, 

with a compliance date of July 14, 2012. 

74 FR 34080. In that rulemaking, DOE 

concluded that the standards would not 

have a substantial impact on small 

entities and, therefore, did not prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis. 74 FR at 

34174–34175 (July 14, 2009). On the 

basis of the foregoing and because this 

rulemaking to establish an exclusion 

from standards decreases regulatory 

burden, DOE certifies that this 

rulemaking will have no significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared an RFA for this 

final rule. DOE transmitted the 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This rulemaking, which establishes an 

exclusion from energy conservation 

standards for R20 short lamps, would 

impose no new information or record 

keeping requirements. Accordingly, the 

OMB clearance is not required under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, DOE has determined that this 

final rule fits within the category of 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. 

L. 91–190, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, the rulemaking amends an 

existing rule without changing its 

environmental effect, and, therefore, is 

covered by Categorical Exclusion (CX) 

A5 found in 10 CFR part 1021, subpart 

D, appendix A. Therefore, as DOE has 

made a CX determination for the 

rulemaking, DOE does not need to 

prepare an Environmental Assessment 

or Environmental Impact Statement. 

DOE’s CX determination is available at 

http://cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of today’s final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Section 3(b) of Executive Order 

12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

amended regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

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

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68342 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE examined today’s rulemaking 

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate, nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year. Instead, the rule 

excludes R20 short lamps from 

standards, thereby eliminating any 

existing associated compliance costs. 

Accordingly, no further assessment or 

analysis is required under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under guidelines established 

by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

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

today’s final rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that today’s 

regulatory action, which excludes R20 

short lamps from energy conservation 

standards, is not a significant energy 

action because the exclusion from 

standards is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as such by the 

Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the final rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions. 70 FR 2667 (Jan. 14, 

2005). 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 7, 

2013. 

David T. Danielson, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. In § 430.2, revise the definition for 

‘‘Incandescent reflector lamp’’ and add 

the definition for ‘‘R20 short lamp,’’ in 

alphabetical order, to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Incandescent reflector lamp 

(commonly referred to as a reflector 

lamp) means any lamp in which light is 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68343 

1 78 FR 6855 (Jan. 31, 2013). 

2Section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban 

Development Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C. 1701x(e), 

requires that homeownership counseling provided 

under programs administered by HUD can be 

provided only by organizations or individuals 

certified by HUD as competent to provide 

homeownership counseling. Section 106(e) also 

requires HUD to establish standards and procedures 

for testing and certifying counselors. 

3These two pathways are specified in 

§ 1024.20(a)(1)(i) and (ii), respectively. 

4 78 FR 6865 (Jan. 31, 2013). 

5RESPA and § 1024.20(a)(1) refer to counseling 

entities as Homeownership Counseling 

Organizations. HUD refers to them as HUDapproved Housing Counseling Agencies. 

Homeownership Counseling Organizations as 

referred to in § 1024.20(a)(1) and this rule are 

considered HUD-approved Housing Counseling 

Agencies. 

6Available at: http://data.hud.gov/housing_

counseling.html. 

produced by a filament heated to 

incandescence by an electric current, 

which: contains an inner reflective 

coating on the outer bulb to direct the 

light; is not colored; is not designed for 

rough or vibration service applications; 

is not an R20 short lamp; has an R, PAR, 

ER, BR, BPAR, or similar bulb shapes 

with an E26 medium screw base; has a 

rated voltage or voltage range that lies 

at least partially in the range of 115 and 

130 volts; has a diameter that exceeds 

2.25 inches; and has a rated wattage that 

is 40 watts or higher. 

* * * * * 

R20 short lamp means a lamp that is 

an R20 incandescent reflector lamp that 

has a rated wattage of 100 watts; has a 

maximum overall length of 3 and 5/8, or 

3.625, inches; and is designed, labeled, 

and marketed specifically for pool and 

spa applications. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–27248 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1024 

RIN 3170–AA37 

Homeownership Counseling 

Organizations Lists Interpretive Rule 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule describes data 

instructions for lenders to use in 

complying with the requirement under 

the High-Cost Mortgage and 

Homeownership Counseling 

Amendments to the Truth in Lending 

Act (Regulation Z) and Homeownership 

Counseling Amendments to the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act 

(RESPA Homeownership Counseling 

Amendments) Final Rule to provide a 

homeownership counseling list using 

data made available by the Bureau or 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). 

DATES: This rule is effective January 10, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Ross, Special Assistant; Joseph 

Devlin, Counsel; Office of Regulations, 

at (202) 435–7700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In January 2013, pursuant to the 

Dodd-Frank Act, Public Law 111–203, 

124 Stat. 1375 (2010), the Bureau issued 

the High-Cost Mortgage and 

Homeownership Counseling 

Amendments to the Truth in Lending 

Act (Regulation Z) and Homeownership 

Counseling Amendments to the Real 

Estate Settlement Procedures Act 

(RESPA Homeownership Counseling 

Amendments) Final Rule (2013 HOEPA 

Final Rule).1 The 2013 HOEPA Final 

Rule implemented numerous DoddFrank Act requirements. Section 1450 of 

the Dodd-Frank Act amended section 

5(c) of the Real Estate Settlement 

Procedures Act (RESPA) to require 

lenders to provide federally related 

mortgage loan applicants with a 

‘‘reasonably complete or updated list of 

homeownership counselors who are 

certified pursuant to section 106(e) of 

the Housing and Urban Development 

Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(e)) and 

located in the area of the lender.’’ 2 The 

RESPA Homeownership Counseling 

Amendments implements this section 

1450 amendment in Regulation X 

§ 1024.20(a). 

In implementing this Dodd-Frank Act 

requirement, § 1024.20(a)(1) requires 

lenders to provide the loan applicant 

with a written list of homeownership 

counseling organizations that provide 

relevant services in the loan applicant’s 

location. The Bureau specified two 

compliance methods for obtaining this 

list: (1) using a tool developed and 

maintained by the Bureau on its Web 

site, and (2) using data made available 

by the Bureau or HUD, provided that the 

data is used in accordance with 

instructions provided with the data.3

The Bureau noted the use of the data in 

accordance with these instructions 

would produce a list consistent with 

what would have been generated if the 

tool had been used.4 This rule interprets 

§ 1024.20(a)(1) of the RESPA 

Homeownership Counseling 

Amendments, including describing 

those data instructions. 

The Bureau’s tool, as discussed in 

§ 1024.20(a)(1)(i), follows these data 

instructions. 

II. List and Data Instructions 

This rule interprets the § 1024.20(a)(1) 

requirement for lenders to provide a list 

of homeownership organizations and to 

obtain the list from data made available 

by the Bureau or HUD, provided the 

data is used in accordance with 

instructions provided with the data.5

This rule describes instructions for 

lenders to use in complying with the 

§ 1024.20(a)(1)(ii) requirement to 

generate a list of homeownership 

counseling organizations by using data 

provided by the Bureau or HUD. 

HUD currently provides this data. 

HUD maintains a free and publicly 

available application programming 

interface (API) containing data on HUDapproved housing counseling agencies 

(HUD API). Although it appears on this 

site that a token is required to utilize 

this data, credentials are not required to 

access and use the data. These data 

instructions are designed to be applied 

with publicly available homeownership 

counselor agency data from HUD,6 as 

referenced in § 1024.20(a)(1)(ii). The 

Bureau will make a summary of the data 

instructions available on the Bureau’s 

Web site, along with a link to the 

publicly available housing counseling 

agency data. 

A. Number of Homeownership 

Counselors To Appear on List 

Section 1024.20(a)(1) requires lenders 

to provide a written list of 

homeownership counseling 

organizations. Consistent with 

§ 1024.20(a)(1), lenders comply with 

this requirement when they provide a 

list of ten HUD-approved housing 

counseling agencies. The tool 

maintained by the Bureau will generate 

a list of ten HUD-approved housing 

counseling agencies. A list generated by 

the lender under § 1024.20(a)(1)(ii) 

complies with § 1024.20(a)(1) when the 

same number of counseling agencies 

(ten) are provided. Listing ten housing 

counseling agencies ensures fairness 

and equity among housing counseling 

agencies, by offering borrowers a 

thorough and diverse list of counseling 

options. 

B. Location by Zip Code 

Section 1024.20(a)(1) requires lenders 

to provide a written list of 

homeownership counseling 

organizations in the loan applicant’s 

location. As the Bureau discussed in the 

RESPA Homeownership Counseling 

Amendments, lenders comply with 

§ 1024.20(a)(1), when they use the 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES