25.8

(8-89)

EFG (07-90)

United States Government

memorandum

DATE: -Mareh 9 ' 9n y^ ,_o

REPLY TO

ATTN OF : Michael McCabe

SUBJECT: Technical Corrections to Section 123 of the Energy policy Act of 1992

TO: Robert Rabben

9

Department of Energy

EE --0 T -qIf -° o t

The Office of Codes and Standards was contacted recently by Leslie Black of the Senate Committee

on Energy and Natural Resources concerning technical corrections to Section 123 of the Energy

Policy Act of 1992 (PL 102-486). This office has reviewed section 123 of the Energy Policy Act

of 1992 and is proposing the following technical corrections. These corrections resolve

inconsistencies with paragraphs of the Act regarding general service fluorescent lamps, general

service incandescent lamps and covered product.

The definition of general service fluorescent lamp, section 321(30)(B) of the Act, uses a definition

for fluorescent lamp, section 321((30)(A), which is limited to only four fluorescent lamps. By this

definition, no other fluorescent lamps could be considered for efficiency standards. This limitation

is contrary to the requirement in section 325(i)(5) to consider standards applicable to additional

general service fluorescent lamps (for example, lengths other than 4 or 8 feet.) This requirement

will be impossible to implement with the present definition of fluorescent lamp. Codes and

Standards recommends that the word "only" be removed from the last phrase in the first sentence

in section 321(30)(A).

There is also no coverage , section 322(a)( 14), for medium base compact fluorescent lamps. This

inconsistency will not allow DOE to promulgate test procedures for medium base compact

fluorescent lamps because there is no authority . There are labeling requirements in section

324(a)(2)(C)(i) but the Federal Trade Commission will not have data for their labeling program

unless DOE establishes test procedures. Codes and standards believes that medium base compact

fluorescent lamps, defined in section 321(30) (S), belong under the definition for fluorescent lamps,

that way authority for the test procedures would exist under current authority . Codes and Standards

recommends that the definition for medium base compact fluorescent lamps, section 32 1 (a)(30)(S),

be added to the definition of fluorescent lamp as section 321(30)(A)(v).

There is no coverage, section 322(a)(14), for general service incandescent lamps; only general

service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps are covered. This inconsistency will

make it impossible to implement the requirements of section 325(i)(5) pertaining to general service

incandescent lamps because DOE would have no authority to add standards for other types of

incandescent lamps. Codes and Standards recommends that section 322(a)(14) be changed by

adding the words "general service" before "incandescent" and by removing the word "reflector."

The test procedure requirements, section 323(6), only allow DOE to promulgate test procedures for

EE-DET-94-001 COMMENT 09
fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. These limitations are also contrary to the

labeling requirements in section 324(a)(2)(C)(i). As above, the Federal Trade Commission will not

have data for their labeling program without DOE test procedures. Codes and Standards also

suggests that the phrase, "...to which standards are applicable under subsection (i) of section 325,"

in section 323(6), be deleted. This phrase would again limit DOE to only promulgate test

procedures for lamps with standards but a broader set of test procedures are necessary for the

labeling requirements.

Section 321(a)(30)(C)(ii) contains an exemption for "...rough or vibration service applications."

DOE believes its regulations must this term for enforcement purposes. After several meetings with

lamp manufacturers and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, we have determined

that there is no agreement on a definition for a rough or vibration service application of an

incandescent reflector lamp. All possible definitions discussed provide substantial loopholes which

would allow a manufacturer to circumvent the law. Also, these definitions contain requirements

which would increase the cost of present lamps but reduce their energy efficiency. Codes and

Standards believes that the phrase "...rough or vibration service applications" should be deleted

from the Act. A DOE study shows that the 20% market niche of reflector lamps which this

exemption presumably was supposed to protect is actually supplied with long life lamps which

coincidentally are more vibration resistant than standard reflector lamps.

If you have any questions or require further information about these corrections, please contact

Terry Logee of my staff at 6-1689.

Q:\CE-40\CE-43\43COMMON\LOGEE\EPACTCOR.MEM

March 9, 1994

EE-DET-94-001 COMMENT 09