[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80209-80228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32283]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0007]
RIN 1904-AD17


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Ceiling Fan 
Light Kits

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 31, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)

[[Page 80210]]

to amend the test procedures for ceiling fan light kits (CFLKs). That 
proposed rulemaking serves as the basis for this final rule. In this 
final rule, DOE updates the current test procedures by replacing 
references to ENERGY STAR test procedures with references to DOE lamps 
test procedures for medium screw base lamps and to industry test 
procedures for pin-based fluorescent lamps. DOE is also adding test 
procedures to establish an efficacy-based metric for all lamps packaged 
with CFLKs and for CFLKs with integrated solid-state lighting 
circuitry. These additional test procedures also specify that DOE lamp 
test procedures be used to test lamps packaged with CFLKs, and where 
such test procedures do not exist, lamps packaged with CFLKs be tested 
according to current industry test procedures for those lamps. This 
final rule also replaces references to superseded ENERGY STAR Program 
requirements with tables that contain the specific performance 
requirements from the ENERGY STAR documents. This final rule addresses 
standby and off mode energy usage for CFLKs. DOE also provides updated 
guidance related to accent lighting in CFLKs and the applicability of 
the existing energy conservation standards to accent lighting. In this 
final rule, DOE also reinterprets the definition of a ceiling fan to 
include hugger fans and clarifies that ceiling fans that produce large 
volumes of airflow also meet the definition. DOE is also issuing a 
reinterpretation as it relates to compliance with the 190 W limit 
requirement for CFLKs with sockets other than medium screw base and 
pin-based for fluorescent lamps.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 25, 2016. The final 
rule changes to appendix V will be mandatory for product testing 
starting June 21, 2016. The final rule test procedures specified by 
appendix V1 will be mandatory for product testing starting on the 
compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards (ECS) for 
CFLKs. Any final rule establishing amended CFLK ECS will provide notice 
of the required compliance date and corresponding required use of 
appendix V1.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
January 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 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.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0007. This Web 
page will contain a link to the docket for this document on the 
regulations.gov site. 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: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this final rule, DOE incorporates by 
reference into part 430 the following industry standards:
    (1) IES LM-66-14 (``IES LM-66-14''), IES Approved Method for the 
Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Single-Based Fluorescent 
Lamps, approved December 30, 2014.
    (2) IES LM-79-08 (``IES LM-79-08''), IES Approved Method for 
Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting 
Products, approved December 31, 2007.
    Interested persons can obtain copies of IES standards from the 
Illuminating Engineering Society, 120 Wall Street, Floor 17, New York, 
NY 10005-4001, (212) 248-5000, or www.ies.org.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Amendments to Existing Test Procedures
    1. Test Procedures for CFLKs Packaged With Medium Screw Bases
    2. Test Procedures for CFLKs Packaged With Pin-Based Fluorescent 
Lamps
    3. Clarifications to Energy Conservation Standard Text at 10 CFR 
430.32(s)
    4. Clarifications for Accent Lighting
    5. Clarification of the Statutory Definition of a Ceiling Fan.
    6. Clarifications on 190 W Limit Requirement
    B. Amendments to Implement an Efficacy Metric for All CFLKs
    1. Metric
    2. Test Procedure
    C. Standby Mode and Off Mode
    D. Effective Date and Compliance Date for Amended Test Procedure
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Need for and objectives of the rule.
    2. Significant issues raised by public comment and any changes 
made in the proposed rule.
    3. Response to any comments filed by the SBA.
    4. Estimate of small entities to which the rule will apply.
    5. Description and estimate of compliance costs.
    6. Description of the steps taken to minimize significant 
economic impact on small entities.
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
    N. Congressional Notification
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), established 
the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than 
Automobiles, a program covering the ceiling fan light kits (CFLKs) that 
are the focus of this document.\2\ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)(A)(ii), 
6295(ff)(2)-(5))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was re-designated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must follow in order to produce data that is

[[Page 80211]]

used for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the 
applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 
making other representations about the efficiency of those products. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these 
test requirements to determine whether products comply with any 
relevant standards established under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
    EPCA requires that test procedures for ceiling fan light kits be 
based on the ``ENERGY STAR[supreg] Program Requirements for CFLs'' and 
the ``ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Residential Light Fixtures'' 
in effect as of August 8, 2005. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)(A)(ii)) DOE 
published a final rule in December 2006 (December 2006 final rule) and 
established DOE's current test procedures for ceiling fan light kits 
under 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix V. 71 FR 71340 (Dec. 8, 
2006) EPCA also provides, however, that DOE ``may review and revise'' 
the ceiling fan light kit test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)(B)). 
Accordingly, as discussed in section III.A, DOE is replacing the 
existing references to ENERGY STAR program requirements with direct 
references to the latest versions of the appropriate industry test 
methods.

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
that DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA provides, in relevant part, that any test 
procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably 
designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, 
energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product 
during a representative average use cycle or period of use and must not 
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) In any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE 
must also determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure 
would alter the product's measured energy efficiency as determined 
under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e))
    EPCA requires DOE, at least once every 7 years, to evaluate all 
covered products and either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary 
determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully 
comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) or publish a 
determination in the Federal Register not to amend them. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE published a NOPR to propose amendments for its test 
procedures for CFLKs (October 2014 NOPR). 79 FR 64688 (October 31, 
2014).
    For test procedures of covered products that do not fully account 
for standby mode and off mode energy consumption, EPCA directs DOE to 
amend its test procedures to account for standby mode and off mode 
energy consumption, if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) 
If integrated test procedures are technically infeasible, DOE must 
prescribe separate standby mode and off mode test procedures for the 
covered product, if technically feasible. Id.
    In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to the current 
test procedures and new test procedures that would support amendments 
to the CFLK energy conservation standards currently being considered by 
DOE. The October 2014 NOPR also proposed to replace references to 
ENERGY STAR performance requirements with tables that contain the 
specific performance requirements from the ENERGY STAR documents and 
proposed updated guidance related to accent lighting in CFLKs. DOE 
conducted a public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the 
October 2014 NOPR on November 18, 2014.

Background on Related CFLK Standards Rulemaking

    EPCA, as amended, established separate energy conservation 
standards for three groups of CFLKs: (1) Those with medium screw base 
sockets, (2) those with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps, and 
(3) all other CFLKs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)-(4)) In a technical 
amendment published on October 18, 2005, DOE codified the statute's 
requirements for CFLKs with medium screw base sockets and CFLKs with 
pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps. 70 FR 60413. For all other 
CFLKs, EPCA specified that the prescribed standard for these CFLKs 
would become effective only if DOE failed to issue a final rule on 
energy conservation standards for CFLKs by January 1, 2007. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(ff)(4)(C)) Because DOE did not issue a final rule on standards for 
CFLKs by January 1, 2007, DOE published a technical amendment that 
codified the statute's requirements for all CFLKs other than those with 
medium screw base and pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps. 72 FR 
1270 (Jan. 11, 2007). DOE subsequently published another technical 
amendment to codify the EPCA requirement that CFLKs with sockets for 
pin-based fluorescent lamps be packaged with lamps to fill all sockets. 
74 FR 12058 (Mar. 3, 2009).
    EPCA allows DOE to amend energy conservation standards for CFLKs 
any time after January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(5)) In a separate 
rulemaking proceeding, DOE is proposing amending energy conservation 
standards for CFLKs.\3\ DOE initiated that rulemaking by publishing a 
Federal Register notice announcing a public meeting and availability of 
the framework document. 78 FR 16443 (Mar. 15, 2013). DOE held a public 
meeting to discuss the framework document for the CFLK standards 
rulemaking on March 22, 2013. DOE issued the preliminary analysis for 
the CFLK energy conservation standards rulemaking on October 31, 2014. 
79 FR 64712 (Oct. 31, 2014). DOE held a public meeting to discuss the 
preliminary analysis for the CFLK standards rulemaking on November 18, 
2014. DOE subsequently issued a NOPR for the CFLK energy conservation 
standards rulemaking (hereafter ``CFLK ECS NOPR'') and held a public 
meeting on August 18, 2015. 80 FR 48624 (August 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DOE has published a framework document, preliminary 
analysis, and NOPR for amending energy conservation standards for 
CFLKs. Further information is available at www.regulations.gov under 
Docket ID: EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    This final rule amends DOE's current test procedures for CFLKs 
contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix V; 10 CFR 429.33; and 
10 CFR 430.23(x). This final rule: (1) Requires that representations of 
efficacy, including certifications of compliance with CFLK standards, 
be made according to DOE lamp test procedures, where they exist, and 
industry test procedures where relevant DOE test procedures do not 
exist; (2) replaces references to superseded ENERGY STAR \4\ 
requirements in appendix V with references to the latest versions of 
industry standards; and (3) for ease of reference, replaces references 
to ENERGY STAR requirements in existing CFLK standards contained in 10 
CFR 430.32(s) with the specific requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE that establishes a voluntary rating, 
certification, and labeling program for highly energy efficient 
consumer products and commercial equipment. Information on the 
program is available at: http://www.energystar.gov.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 80212]]

    To support the ongoing ECS rulemaking for CFLKs, this final rule 
also establishes test procedures for a single efficiency metric 
measured in lumens per watt (hereafter, ``efficacy''), that is 
applicable to all CFLKs. These procedures are set forth in a new 
Appendix V1. Where possible, the CFLK efficiency is determined by 
measuring the efficacy of the lamp(s) packaged with the CFLK 
(hereafter, ``lamp efficacy'') and requires the use of existing DOE 
lamp test procedures, so that lamps will be tested and rated in a 
uniform manner. Where it is technically infeasible to measure lamp 
efficacy (e.g., for CFLKs with integrated solid-state lighting \5\ 
circuitry), CFLK efficiency is determined by measuring the efficacy of 
the CFLK itself (hereafter, ``luminaire efficacy''). DOE also sets 
forth the test procedures for CFLKs packaged with inseparable light 
sources that require luminaire efficacy testing and for CFLKs packaged 
with lamps for which DOE test procedures do not exist in the new 
Appendix V1. Because these amendments will likely change the measured 
values required to comply with the existing CFLK standards for all 
CFLKs except CFLKs with medium screw base sockets, DOE is requiring the 
use of the new appendix V1 and corresponding updates to 10 CFR 429.33, 
10 CFR 430.3 and 10 CFR 430.23(x) to be concurrent with the compliance 
date of any standards established by the ongoing ECS rulemaking for 
CFLKs. 79 FR 64712 (October 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Solid-state lighting or ``SSL'' refers to a class of 
lighting technologies based on semiconductor materials. Light 
emitting diodes (LEDs) are the most common type of SSL on the market 
today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, DOE also modifies previously issued guidance 
regarding accent lighting in CFLKs to specify that such light sources 
in CFLKs must be tested and are subject to current energy conservation 
standards. DOE also reinterprets the EPCA definition of ceiling fan to 
include hugger fans and clarifies that ceiling fans that produce large 
volumes of airflow also meet the EPCA definition. As a result, CFLKs 
attached to these fans are subject to existing CFLK energy conservation 
standards. DOE is also clarifying its interpretation regarding 
compliance with the 190 W limit requirement in 10 CFR 430.32(s)(4) for 
CFLKs with sockets other than medium screw base and pin-based for 
fluorescent lamps.
    In this final rule, DOE also addresses standby mode and off-mode 
power consumption for CFLKs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A) and (3)) In 
summary, DOE accounts for standby mode energy consumption of CFLKs 
under the efficiency metric for ceiling fans rather than under the CFLK 
efficiency metric.

III. Discussion

    In response to the October 2014 NOPR and in addition to comments 
received during the November 2014 public meeting, DOE received written 
comments from the American Lighting Association (ALA) and a joint 
comment filed on behalf of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, 
the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Northwest 
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and the Northwest Power and Conservation 
Council (ASAP et al.). The issues on which DOE received comments, as 
well as DOE's responses to those comments and the resulting changes to 
the test procedures for CFLKs, are discussed in this section.

A. Amendments to Existing Test Procedures

    This final rule amends existing test procedures to replace 
references to superseded ENERGY STAR requirements in appendix V with 
references to existing DOE lamp test procedures or the latest versions 
of industry standards. As discussed in the paragraphs that follow, DOE 
has concluded that these changes will not affect any measurements 
required to comply with existing standards.
1. Test Procedures for CFLKs Packaged With Medium Screw Bases
    For CFLKs with medium screw base sockets, the current DOE test 
procedure references the ``CFL Requirements for Testing'' of the 
``ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Compact Fluorescent Lamps,'' 
Version 3.0, which in turn references the Illuminating Engineering 
Society of North America (IES) LM-66-00 test procedures for lamp 
efficacy testing. In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the 
reference to the ENERGY STAR specification with a reference to the 
current DOE test procedure for medium screw base compact fluorescent 
lamps (located at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix W). DOE notes that 
Appendix W currently references IES LM-66-11 and that DOE has proposed 
to update Appendix W to reference IES LM-66-14. (80 FR 45724, July 31, 
2015). DOE received comments from ALA and from ASAP et al. supporting 
the approach to replace references to ENERGY STAR specifications with 
references to current DOE test procedures. (ALA, No. 6 \6\ at p. 1; 
ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 1) Consequently, DOE is adopting the proposal 
without modification, which references 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix 
W for CFLKs packaged with medium screw bases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information 
that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures 
for CFLKs (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0007), which is maintained at 
www.regulations.gov. This notation indicates that the statement 
preceding the reference is document number 6 in the docket for the 
CFLKs test procedure rulemaking, and appears at page 1 of that 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Test Procedures for CFLKs Packaged With Pin-Based Fluorescent Lamps
    For CFLKs with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps, the current 
DOE test procedure at Appendix V references the ``ENERGY STAR Program 
Requirements for Residential Light Fixtures,'' Version 4.0, which in 
turn references IES LM-66-00 (for compact fluorescent lamps [CFLs]) and 
IES LM-9-99 (for all other fluorescent lamps). In the October 2014 
NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the reference to the ENERGY STAR 
specification with direct references to the current industry test 
procedures. At the time of the October 2014 NOPR, the relevant industry 
standards for pin-based fluorescent lamps were IES LM-66-11 and IES LM-
9-09. Subsequent to the October 2014 NOPR, IES LM-66-11 was replaced 
with IES LM-66-14 as the latest industry version. The IES LM-66-14 
update makes a number of changes, including clarifying that 
electrodeless CFLs are within the scope of LM-66-14. DOE notes that LM-
66-11 and LM-66-14 contain the same methodology for testing compact 
fluorescent lamps and has concluded, based on a review of the updated 
test method, that there are no changes between LM-66-11 and LM-66-14 
that will materially impact the measurement values of pin-based 
fluorescent lamps, which are tested on commercially available ballasts. 
In keeping with DOE's proposal from the October 2014 NOPR to reference 
the most current industry standards, DOE references LM-66-14 in this 
final rule.
    In the NOPR, DOE referenced sections 4-11 of IES LM-66-11 for 
testing CFLKs with pin-based compact fluorescent lamps. In this final 
rule, DOE is referencing sections 4-6 of the updated IES LM-66-14. 
Further, in the NOPR, DOE incorrectly referenced sections 3-7 of IES 
LM-9-09 for testing CFLKs with pin-based sockets for all other types of 
fluorescent lamps. In this final rule, DOE is appropriately referencing 
sections 4-7 of the IES LM-9-09.
    The ENERGY STAR program requirements referenced in the current

[[Page 80213]]

DOE test procedures for CFLKs with pin-based sockets at Appendix V also 
specify that the efficacy of the lamp should be measured using the 
ballast with which it is packaged rather than a reference ballast. DOE 
noted in the October 2014 NOPR that although both IES LM-66-11 and IES 
LM-9-09 specify that lamps with external ballasts (e.g., pin-based 
fluorescent lamps) be tested on a reference ballast, they also contain 
provisions that allow for such lamps to be tested on commercially 
available ballasts, rather than on a reference ballast, when it is 
desirable to measure the performance (e.g., system efficacy) of a 
specific lamp ballast platform. DOE notes that IES LM-66-14 maintains 
this provision. Because changing the current test procedure to require 
measurement of pin-based fluorescent lamps on a reference ballast would 
result in a change in measured values, DOE proposed to specify in 
appendix V that system efficacy testing of pin-based fluorescent lamps 
be conducted with ballasts packaged with CFLKs. DOE received comments 
from ALA and from ASAP et al. supporting this approach. (ALA, No. 6 at 
p. 1; ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 1)
    In this final rule, DOE is adopting the proposed methodology 
without modification by specifying in appendix V that system efficacy 
testing of pin-based fluorescent lamps be conducted with ballasts 
packaged with CFLKs.
3. Clarifications to Energy Conservation Standard Text at 10 CFR 
430.32(s)
    CFLK energy conservation standards are codified in 10 CFR 
430.32(s). Currently the text in 10 CFR 430.32(s) refers to the 
superseded ENERGY STAR Program requirements for Compact Fluorescent 
Lamps, version 3.0, for standards applicable to CFLKs packaged with 
medium screw base lamps and to the superseded ENERGY STAR Program 
requirements for Residential Light Fixtures, version 4.0, for standards 
applicable to CFLKs packaged with pin-based fluorescent lamps. In the 
October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the references to ENERGY 
STAR with tables that contain the specific performance requirements 
from the ENERGY STAR documents, to state more clearly the minimum 
requirements for these products. For CFLKs packaged with medium screw 
base CFLs, the requirements include efficacy, lumen maintenance at 
1,000 hours, lumen maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, rapid cycle 
stress, and lifetime requirements. Measurements of these parameters are 
as defined in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix W. For CFLKs packaged 
with medium screw base light sources other than CFLs, the requirements 
include efficacy requirements. For CFLKs packaged with pin-based 
fluorescent lamps, the requirements include system efficacy and a 
requirement that electronic ballasts be utilized.
    ALA, the only stakeholder to comment on this proposal, agreed with 
DOE's approach to clarify the text specifying existing standards for 
CFLKs. (ALA, No. 6 at p. 6) This final rule updates 10 CFR 430.32(s) to 
directly specify the requirements for CFLKs with medium screw base 
sockets and for CFLKs with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps 
rather than by referencing ENERGY STAR documents to eliminate confusion 
for stakeholders.
4. Clarifications for Accent Lighting
    EPCA requires that CFLKs other than those with medium screw base 
sockets and pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps not be capable of 
operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(ff)(4); 10 CFR 430.32(s)(4)) In a December 6, 2006 interpretation, 
DOE stated that DOE does not consider ceiling fan accent lighting that 
is not a significant light source to be part of the 190-Watt 
limitation. (71 FR 71340, Dec. 8, 2006) In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE 
proposed to withdraw this guidance because DOE determined that the 
guidance requires a subjective determination of what constitutes ``a 
significant light source'' that could result in inconsistency in the 
application of CFLK standards.
    While ASAP et al. supported DOE's proposal, noting that the 
proposal would more accurately represent CFLK energy consumption, ALA 
opposed DOE's proposal. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at pp. 1-2; ALA, No. 6 at 
pp. 3-5) ALA claimed that DOE did not provide sufficient rationale for 
changing its position and also claimed that accent lighting falls 
outside the statutory definition of a CFLK. ALA claimed that DOE's 
proposed change would result in some previously unregulated products 
becoming covered products and that substantial lead time would be 
required to redesign, test, certify and label these products. ALA 
concluded that this would in effect constitute the establishment of a 
new standard for certain types of CFLKs. ALA noted that EPCA often 
provides substantial lead time before compliance when a new standard is 
required and that EPCA also requires that new standards not be amended 
for six years. ALA recommended that, to avoid a ``staggering'' effect, 
in which different types of CFLKs would have different compliance 
dates, DOE should make the new accent lighting guidance effective on 
the compliance date of the current ECS rulemaking. (ALA, No. 6 at pp. 
3-5)
    In response, consistent with its statements in the October 2014 
NOPR, DOE has reconsidered the conclusions that led to the 2006 
interpretation. DOE concluded in the 2006 rule that, because EPCA 
defines a ceiling fan light kit, in part, as equipment ``designed to 
provide light'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(50)), and because accent lighting is 
typically used for decorative purposes rather than to provide 
``direct'' light, accent lighting is not within the EPCA definition of 
a CFLK. DOE also stated that it was concerned with addressing energy 
consumption by light sources aligned with the ``primary purpose'' of 
the ceiling fan light kit. For ceiling fan light kits, DOE stated that 
the general illumination provided by the light kit is its principal 
function, and thus should be subject to the 190-watt limitation. DOE 
believed that other ancillary lighting, such as accent lighting, serves 
primarily an aesthetic purpose and is therefore not part of the general 
illumination function of the ceiling fan light kit. DOE further 
concluded that not subjecting accent lighting to the 190 watt 
limitation was consistent with EPCA's treatment of ceiling fan light 
kits with medium-screw base sockets and those with pin-based sockets 
for fluorescent lamps. For these two types of ceiling fan light kits, 
DOE noted that section 325(ff) of EPCA regulates only lamps inserted 
into screw base or pin-based sockets, and not any accent lights 
otherwise incorporated into the fan. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)-(3))
    In reconsidering its conclusions from the 2006 interpretation, DOE 
notes that the purpose of accent lighting is to provide light. Because 
EPCA does not specify that only ``direct'' or ``general'' lighting fits 
within the definition at 42 U.S.C. 6291(50), DOE has determined that 
its previous conclusion was too narrow a reading of the definition of 
CFLK. The term ``designed to provide light'' can be interpreted to 
encompass accent lighting, which provides decorative light. In 
addition, the 190-watt limitation in 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C) applies 
to ``lamps'' to be used in a CFLK, and the term ``lamps'' does not 
include or refer to any language limiting its scope to direct or 
general lighting. Thus, the term ``lamps,'' in this provision, can be 
interpreted to encompass lamps or light sources used or intended to be 
used for accent lighting.
    DOE emphasizes the stated purposes of EPCA include the conservation 
of

[[Page 80214]]

energy supplies through energy conservation programs and the improved 
energy efficiency of major appliances and certain other consumer 
products. See generally 42 U.S.C. 6201. A reading of 6291(50) and 
6295(ff)(4)(C) that treats accent lighting the same as other uses of 
lighting is more consistent with these statutory purposes than the more 
narrow interpretations adopted by DOE in 2006. DOE further notes that 
many products on the market today cast doubt on important assumptions 
that underlay DOE's 2006 interpretation. Many of the lamps marketed as 
``accent lighting'' attached to fans currently on the market are not 
low wattage lamps used for aesthetic purposes, but instead high wattage 
lamps that consumers actually use for more general lighting purposes. 
Up-lighting, which in 2006 DOE did not recognize as a well-defined 
term, is an example of this phenomenon. Lights aimed upward from a fan 
do not directly illuminate a room, and they are often marketed as 
accent lights. But the indirect illumination from an up-light, 
reflected from a ceiling, can be effective as the primary light source 
for a room, much like a torchiere--another covered product subject to a 
190-Watt limitation. In general, the ways in which lighting is marketed 
and in which consumers use lighting show that the distinction between 
``accent'' and ``direct'' lighting is much more fluid than DOE 
appreciated in 2006. DOE is concerned that treating as excluded from 
the statutory standards a wide scope of lighting that consumers use in 
the same way as regulated lighting undermines the stated purposes of 
EPCA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For these same reasons, DOE's previous focus on consistency 
with EPCA regulation of only those lamps inserted into screw base or 
pin-based sockets, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)-(3), and not 
any accent lighting otherwise incorporated into the fan, is also an 
overly-narrow reading of 42 US.C. 6295(ff)(4). The difference 
between ``accent'' and ``direct'' lighting is not as clear a 
distinction as DOE believed in 2006, and is not really analogous to 
the quite clear distinction between lights that have screw bases and 
those that do not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has also found that changes in technology since 2006 have made 
it less important to exclude those accent lighting from the 6295(ff)(4) 
standard. New lighting technologies that have become common in the 
market since 2006 make it possible to provide substantial amounts of 
lighting at low wattage. Thus, the small amount of energy used by lamps 
that are effective only for accent lighting is not likely to be large 
enough to cause significant difficulty in complying with the 
6295(ff)(4) energy conservation standard. DOE's reconsideration of its 
conclusions in the 2006 technical amendment is also consistent with 
DOE's concerns in the 2014 NOPR regarding the subjective determination 
about what constitutes a ``significant light source''. EPCA's 
provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6291(50) and 6295(ff)(4) are not limited to the 
significance or, relatedly, purpose of the light source.
    In this final rule, after considering public comment, DOE is 
revising its interpretation of the CFLK definition to state that the 
requirement for a CFLK to be ``designed to provide light'' includes all 
light sources in a ceiling fan light kit--that is, accent lighting in 
addition to direct or general lighting. DOE is also revising its 
interpretation of 6295(ff)(4)(C) so that the 190-watt limit covers all 
lamps--including accent or direct--with which a CFLK is capable of 
operating. DOE has determined that its previous interpretations were 
too narrow a reading of the applicable EPCA provisions and led to 
subjective determinations about what constituted accent lighting that 
was not a ``significant light source'' subject to the standard. DOE's 
reinterpretations do not constitute an energy conservation standard for 
which 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(5) or 6295(m) would specify a compliance date 
some years from publication. These provisions apply to amended 
standards issued under DOE's authorities to amend EPCA standards. See 
42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4) (specifying compliance date for ``an amendment 
prescribed under this subsection''); 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(5)(B) 
(prescribing compliance date for ``amended standards issued under 
subparagraph (A)''). In this final rule, DOE is not prescribing or 
amending a standard using those authorities. Rather, DOE is 
reinterpreting the definition of ``ceiling fan light kit'' and the 
provision establishing the 190-watt limitation such that kits including 
only ``accent'' lighting will be considered CFLKs and all lamps will 
count toward the 190-watt limit prescribed by EPCA.
    DOE recognizes that, as ALA pointed out, the change in DOE's 
interpretation of the statutory standard changes how the standard 
operates and how it affects some products. Specifically, some products 
currently on the market are not consistent with the 190-watt limitation 
because they enable use of too much energy for the light kit. DOE does 
not believe that consequence elevates DOE's interpretive action into an 
amended standard. Every interpretation of a statutory standard has an 
influence on how the standard operates. Administration of the appliance 
standards program contemplates the agency's ability to take a variety 
of different administrative steps that do not rise to an amendment to a 
standard level; to treat all interpretations as being akin to standards 
amendments would unnecessarily constrain DOE's ability to undertake 
necessary steps to implement the statutory regime effectively.
    DOE further observes that the compliance date rules in 6295(ff)(5) 
and 6295(m) are directed specifically at standards amendments, and they 
address concerns specific to such amendments. EPCA gives DOE fairly 
wide latitude, within various constraints, to devise the standards best 
suited to fulfill the statutory purposes as markets and technologies 
evolve over time. Thus, when DOE develops a new standard, it could in 
principle be different in nature from the prior standards applicable to 
a given product. At the same time, DOE must prescribe test procedures 
for such a new standard. Depending on what new or amended standard DOE 
prescribes, working out how best to interpret and apply the standard, 
developing industry expertise with the test procedures, and 
understanding how to design products to comply with a new standard can 
require a substantial period of time. Not every amended standard will 
need the full ramp-up period, but 6295(ff)(5) and 6295(m) ensure that 
an extended phase-in period will be available whenever DOE prescribes a 
new or amended standard. By contrast, when DOE simply reinterprets an 
existing statutory standard, the scope of potential change is much more 
limited. The standard at issue is familiar and established, and the 
industry already has experience working with the standard. Thus, the 
purposes that motivate the compliance date provisions in 6295(ff)(5) 
and 6295(m) are much less relevant for a reinterpretation.
    While DOE's reinterpretation of the CFLK definition and the 190-
watt limit requirement will take effect immediately, DOE appreciates 
the concerns ALA has raised regarding the lead time needed for 
manufacturers to bring affected products into compliance with the 
relevant statutory standards. Specifically, ALA contends that ``the 
process of redesigning, obtaining regulatory approval for, and 
manufacturing and delivering redesigned CFLKs could take eight to 
sixteen months under normal circumstances. However, because much of the 
CFLK industry will be engaged in this process at the same time, these 
steps could take two years or more for a typical manufacturer.'' ALA 
further commented in its written comments that if DOE were to withdraw 
the accent lighting guidance, the effective date of this change should 
be at the compliance

[[Page 80215]]

date for the amended CFLK efficiency standards. In its upper bound 
estimate, ALA factored in delays due to redesign, backlog at third-
party test laboratories, and/or shipping delays for fans, light kits, 
or components. (ALA, No. 6 at p. 4)
    In addition, at the November 2014 public meeting, a representative 
of Emerson Electric estimated that it would take 120 days minimum to 
redesign and requalify new imports for safety organizations such as UL, 
and requested that it be afforded about six months. Further Emerson 
Electric stated that 30 days lead time was enough for existing 
inventory of CFLKs that would be reinterpreted as accent lighting to be 
sold. (Emerson Electric, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 4 at p. 76) 
Also, noting that DOE's proposed reinterpretation of ceiling fans (see 
section III.A.5) affects light kits Westinghouse stated that 30 days 
would not be sufficient to review the CFLK product lines, to modify or 
build materials, and add wattage limiters in applicable products. 
(Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 4 at pp. 73-74) The Minka 
Group provided further information regarding timing noting that 
products shipped from Asia realistically require 30 days to reach the 
U.S. with possible additional times for customs. (The Minka Group, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 4 at p. 83)
    In its consideration of these comments, DOE recognizes that re-
designing, testing and rating, manufacturing, and shipping fan lighting 
products that comply with the 190-watt limit will take many months. DOE 
relied on estimates provided by manufacturers to determine an 
appropriate lead time to bring products that are compliant with this 
requirement to market. DOE used ALA's upper bound estimate for each of 
the processes ALA identified to get a conservative lead time estimate 
as well as taking the manufacturer-specific feedback into 
consideration. ALA estimated up to six months for redesign, up to 4 
months for testing and rating, and up to 6 months for production and 
shipping, resulting in a total upper bound lead time of 16 months under 
normal conditions (ALA, No. 6 at p. 4) DOE understands that delays may 
occur if a large part of the industry is conducting these activities 
simultaneously. In response to the October 2014 ceiling fan test 
procedure NOPR, ALA submitted a similar comment that estimated the 
total upper bound lead time to be 18 months including testing and 
rating delays. (ALA, Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050, No. 8 at p. 2) 
Based on these estimates, DOE believes 18 months is an appropriate lead 
time because it is consistent with ALA's upper bound lead time estimate 
including extra time for delays. DOE notes that other manufacturers' 
estimated lead times were as short as 6 months. In addition, varying 
manufacturer estimates for lead times indicates to DOE that not all 
manufacturers in the industry will be conducting the same activities 
and vying for the resources necessary to do so simultaneously. 
Accordingly, while DOE's interpretation will be effective immediately, 
DOE will not assert civil penalty authority for violations of the 
applicable standards arising as a result of this guidance before June 
26, 2017. After June 26, 2017, DOE will begin enforcing the 190-watt 
standard in accordance with the interpretations announced here. In 
enforcing the standard, DOE will take into consideration a 
manufacturer's efforts to come into compliance during the 18-month 
period.
5. Clarification of the Statutory Definition of a Ceiling Fan
    In a test procedure rulemaking for ceiling fans, DOE also proposed 
to reinterpret the definition of a ceiling fan. 79 FR 62521 (Oct. 17, 
2014). EPCA defines a ceiling fan as a ``nonportable device that is 
suspended from a ceiling for circulating air via the rotation of fan 
blades.'' 42 U.S.C. 6291(49). DOE previously interpreted the definition 
of a ceiling fan such that it excluded certain types of ceiling fans 
commonly referred to as hugger fans. 71 FR 71343 (Dec. 8, 2006). Hugger 
ceiling fans are typically understood to be set flush to the ceiling 
(e.g., mounted without a downrod). The previous interpretation exempted 
hugger fans from standards on the basis that they are set flush to the 
ceiling. DOE has reconsidered the validity of this distinction and has 
determined that ``suspended from the ceiling'' does not depend upon 
whether the unit is mounted with a downrod. The concept of suspension 
does not require any length between the object and the point of 
support. This interpretation more accurately reflects the statutory 
definition and does not draw an artificial distinction between fans 
that serve the same functional purpose and are both marketed as ceiling 
fans. Hugger fans generally are indistinguishable from other types of 
ceiling fans in that they move air via rotation of fan blades, are 
intended to improve comfort, and are rated on their ability to move air 
(as measured in cubic feet per minute). Consistent with that 
observation, the current principal industry standard, CAN/CSA-C814-10, 
includes hugger fans alongside downrod fans.
    DOE notes that the current market includes fans that DOE did not 
account for in its 2006 interpretation. The market includes a range of 
a multi-mount ceiling fans, i.e., fans which can be attached to the 
ceiling in either the hugger or the downrod configurations. The 
existence of these products supports DOE's equivalent treatment of 
hugger and downrod fans. Such multi-mount ceiling fans are also 
considered ``ceiling fans'' under the statutory definition.
    DOE also proposed that fans capable of producing large volumes of 
airflow meet the definition of a ceiling fan. 79 FR 62521 (Oct. 17, 
2014).
    In response to the Framework Document for the ceiling fan energy 
conservation standards rulemaking, several commenters, including the 
ALA, the Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), the National 
Consumer Law Center (NCLC), the National Resources Defense Council 
(NRDC), and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) supported 
DOE's proposed reinterpretation. (ALA, No. 39 \8\ 4 at p. 3; ASAP-NCLC-
NEEA-NRDC, No. 14 \8\ at p. 4) DOE received no comments objecting to 
its proposed reinterpretation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This document was submitted to the docket of DOE's 
rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for ceiling fans 
(Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While ALA supported DOE's proposal, ALA also commented that the 
effective date of this change should be at the compliance date for 
amended ceiling fan energy conservation standards. (ALA, No. 8 \9\ at 
pp. 1-3) ALA claimed, as above for CFLKs with accent lighting, that 
DOE's proposed change would result in some previously unregulated 
products becoming covered products and that substantial lead time would 
be required to redesign, test, and label these products. ALA concluded 
that the reinterpretation would in effect constitute the establishment 
of a new standard for hugger ceiling fans. ALA asserted that EPCA often 
provides substantial lead time before compliance when a new standard is 
required and that EPCA requires that new standards not be amended for 
six years. ALA asserted that if the reinterpretation effective date was 
not timed to coincide with the compliance date of DOE's concurrent ECS 
rulemaking, the result would be a ``staggering'' effect in which

[[Page 80216]]

different types of ceiling fans would have different compliance dates. 
(Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This document was submitted to the docket of DOE's 
rulemaking to develop test procedures for ceiling fans (Docket No. 
EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, after considering public comment, DOE 
reinterprets the definition of ceiling fan to include hugger fans. In 
addition, under this interpretation, any ceiling fan sold with the 
option of being mounted in either a hugger configuration or a standard 
configuration is included within the ``ceiling fan'' definition. For 
the reasons stated in the October 2014 ceiling fan test procedure 
proposed rule, DOE also finalizes its interpretation to include fans 
capable of producing large volumes of airflow. Under DOE's 
reinterpretation, DOE considers the following fans to be covered under 
the definition of ``ceiling fan'' in 10 CFR 430.2:
    1. Fans suspended from the ceiling using a downrod or other means 
of suspension such that the fan is not mounted directly to the ceiling;
    2. Fans suspended such that they are mounted directly or close to 
the ceiling;
    3. Fans sold with the option of being suspended with or without a 
downrod; and
    4. Fans capable of producing large volumes of airflow.
    As in the discussion on accent lighting, DOE notes that its 
reinterpretation does not constitute an ``amended standard'' for which 
the compliance-date provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(6) and 6295(m) 
would apply. In this final rule, DOE is not prescribing a standard; 
rather, DOE is reinterpreting the definition of ``ceiling fan'' to 
include hugger fans and fans capable of producing large volumes of 
airflow. The changes in interpretation of the ceiling fan definition 
discussed above result in the applicability of the design standards set 
forth in EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(1) to these types of fans 
immediately. In addition, because ceiling fan light kits are defined as 
``equipment designed to provide light from a ceiling fan that can be 
integral, such that the equipment is attached to the ceiling fan prior 
to the time of retail sale; or attachable, such that at the time of 
retail sale the equipment is not physically attached to the ceiling 
fan, but may be included inside the ceiling fan at the time of sale or 
sold separately for subsequent attachment to the fan'' (42 U.S.C. 
6291(50)(A) and (B)), DOE further affirms that light kits attached to 
any of the four fan types listed above are covered ceiling fan light 
kits under this change in interpretation.
    DOE understands the concerns raised regarding the need for 
additional time for redesigning, testing, certifying and labeling 
hugger fans and light kits attached to those fans. In the test 
procedure rulemaking for ceiling fans, ALA submitted comments similar 
to those in the present rulemaking, contending that this process could 
take eight to sixteen months ``under normal circumstances,'' and as 
much as two years or more due to the simultaneous activities of the 
ceiling fan industry. In its upper bound estimate, ALA factored in 
delays due to redesign, backlog at third-party test laboratories, and/
or shipping delays for fans, light kits, or components. (ALA, No. 8\9\ 
at pp. 1-2) At a November 2014 public meeting held in the ceiling fan 
test procedure rulemaking, representatives from Emerson Electric and 
Westinghouse Lighting stated that between 18 and 24 months would be 
required. (Emerson Electric, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 \9\ at p. 
31; Westinghouse Lighting, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 \9\ at pp. 
29-30) \10\ Additionally, in response to the ceiling fan test procedure 
supplemental NOPR (SNOPR) published on June 3, 2015, ALA noted that the 
ceiling fan reinterpretation would result in compliance burdens for 
CFLKs sold with hugger ceiling fans, which would become subject to CFLK 
standards under the ceiling fan reinterpretation. 80 FR 31487. ALA 
specifically noted that some of these CFLKs would require redesign to 
include a 190 watt power limiting device that is not currently required 
for such CFLKs, as well as retesting and re-rating. ALA stated that 
this compliance process would require between eighteen and twenty-four 
months of lead time for the industry. (ALA, No. 14 at pp. 3-4) 
Additionally, in response to the ceiling fan test procedure SNOPR from 
June 2015, ALA commented that there may be confusion regarding the 
compliance date for certain ceiling fans, as a result of the ceiling 
fan reinterpretation. (Id.) ALA expressed concern that ceiling fans 
that the industry has referred to previously as hugger fans but that do 
not meet DOE's new definition of a hugger ceiling fan may require 
immediate compliance with any applicable standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This document was submitted to the docket of DOE's 
rulemaking to develop test procedures for ceiling fans (Docket No. 
EERE-2013-BT-TP-0050).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its consideration of these comments, DOE recognizes that re-
designing, testing and rating, and producing and shipping fan lighting 
products that comply with the 190-watt limit will take many months. DOE 
relied on estimates provided by manufacturers to determine an 
appropriate lead time to bring products that are compliant with this 
requirement to market (see section III.A.4). Based on these estimates, 
DOE has concluded that 18 months is an appropriate lead time because it 
is consistent with ALA's upper bound lead time estimate including extra 
time for delays. DOE notes that other manufacturers' estimated lead 
times as short as 6 months. In addition, varying manufacturer estimates 
for lead times indicates to DOE that not all manufacturers in the 
industry will be conducting the same activities and vying for the 
resources necessary to do so simultaneously.
    While DOE's interpretation is effective immediately, DOE will not 
assert civil penalty authority for violations of the applicable 
standards arising as a result of this interpretation before June 26, 
2017. DOE expects all hugger ceiling fans and any accompanying light 
kits to be certified compliant by June 26, 2017, and annually 
thereafter. DOE will take into consideration a manufacturer's efforts 
to come into compliance during the 18-month period.
6. Clarifications on 190 W Limit Requirement
    Current standards require that CFLKs with medium screw base 
sockets, or pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps, be packaged with 
lamps that meet certain efficiency requirements. All other CFLKs must 
not be capable of operating with lamps that exceed 190 W. In the final 
rule for energy conservation standards for certain CFLKs published on 
January 11, 2007, DOE interpreted this 190 W limitation as a 
requirement to incorporate an electrical device or measure that ensures 
the light kit is not capable of operating with a lamp or lamps that 
draw more than a total of 190 W. 72 FR 1270, 1271 (Jan. 11, 2007).
    During the November 2014 public meeting, ALA and several of their 
members sought clarifications from DOE on the applicability of the 190 
W limit for CFLKs with integrated SSL components. Specifically, these 
stakeholders suggested that CFLKs with only integrated SSL components 
are inherently power limiting and that consumers would be unable to 
modify these CFLKs in a manner that increases their operating power 
beyond their rated wattage. These stakeholders suggested that DOE 
consider clarifying that CFLKs that only have drivers and/or light 
sources that are not designed to be consumer replaceable with total 
rated wattages below 190 W be considered to be in compliance with the 
requirement that they not be capable of operating with lamps that total 
more than 190 W, as specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(C).
    In the CFLK ECS NOPR, DOE proposed that CFLKs with SSL circuitry

[[Page 80217]]

that (1) have SSL drivers and/or light sources that are not consumer 
replaceable, (2) do not have both an SSL driver and light source that 
are consumer replaceable, (3) do not include any other light source, 
and (4) include SSL drivers with a maximum operating wattage of no more 
than 190 W are considered to incorporate some electrical device or 
measure that ensures they do not exceed the 190 W limit.\11\ In the 
CFLK ECS NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate the clarification in that 
rulemaking and make it effective 30 days after the publication of the 
final rule amending CFLK energy conservation standards. DOE discusses 
the stakeholder comments received regarding this proposal in the 
paragraphs below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ DOE proposed these four conditions in the preamble of the 
ECS NOPR. However, the proposed associated regulatory text 
incorrectly specified that both the SSL light source and SSL driver 
had to be non-consumer replaceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received several comments regarding the consumer replaceable 
requirements in its proposal in the CFLK ECS NOPR. Specifically, ALA 
requested that these requirements be removed and that DOE adopt the 
interpretation that CFLKs with integrated SSL components and SSL 
drivers with a maximum operating wattage of no more than 190 W and no 
other light source comply with EPCA's power limit requirement. (ALA, 
No. 115 \12\ at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This document was submitted to the docket of DOE's 
rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for ceiling fan 
light kits (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ALA asserted its proposed clarification was consistent with section 
325(ff)(4) of EPCA\13\ because consumers will not modify such CFLKs as 
they do not have a desire to increase the wattage. ALA explained that 
due to the technology's efficiency, CFLKs with integrated SSL 
components are designed to operate at wattages less than 50 W for 
residential and commercial applications and 190 W would produce too 
much light. (ALA, No. 115 \12\ at p. 4) Fanimation and Lutron agreed 
consumers would not increase total wattage at or above 190 W as they 
would not need the associated substantial light output. (Fanimation, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112 \12\ at pp. 18-20; Lutron, No. 113 
at p. 2) Fanimation further concluded that the requirement of non-
consumer replaceable was unnecessary. (Fanimation, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 112 \12\ at pp. 18-20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Section 325(ff)(4) of EPCA specifies the requirements for 
CFLKs that do not have medium screw base sockets or pin base socket 
for fluorescent lamps, including that they not be capable of 
operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASAP agreed that the lumen output at a wattage limit of 190 W would 
be too high for residential applications. However, ASAP asked if such a 
high-lumen CFLK could be developed for commercial applications in which 
CFLKs are mounted higher and require greater levels of light output. 
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112 \12\ at p. 16) Westinghouse 
responded that even LEDs used in high bay applications, whether 
integrated or replaceable, do not draw 190 W. Westinghouse stated that 
while unlikely, if 15,000 or 18,000 lumens were needed it would be in a 
commercial application and likely not attached to a ceiling fan. If it 
existed, such a high-lumen CFLK would more likely be attached to an 
industrial ceiling fan. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
112 \12\ at p. 17)
    Fanimation pointed out that a non-consumer replaceable requirement 
would create maintenance difficulties for consumers as they would not 
be able to replace failed components, in particular the light source. 
(Fanimation, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112 \12\ at pp. 18-20) ALA 
stated that because CFLKs with integrated SSL components are typically 
packaged and sold together with a ceiling fan, failure of a non-
consumer replaceable SSL component in a CFLK would require the consumer 
to replace the entire ceiling fan/CFLK combination. Therefore, the use 
of consumer replaceable SSL components in CFLKs provides value by 
allowing the consumer to fix failed components instead of replacing the 
entire ceiling fan/CFLK. (ALA, No. 115 \12\ at p. 5) Westinghouse added 
that for products under warranty manufacturers do not want to replace 
the entire fan if just the light source fails. Westinghouse commented 
that ENERGY STAR has emphasized that non-consumer replaceable 
technologies are not preferred because consumers do not like discarding 
the whole CFLK and this is a topic of ongoing discussion for 
manufacturers that offer CFLKs as an accessory product or participate 
in the ENERGY STAR program. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 112 \12\ at p. 24)
    Even if consumers did want to increase the wattage, ALA stated 
there are no commercially available components that would allow them to 
do so without destructive disassembly/assembly. (ALA, No. 115 \12\ at 
p. 4) Westinghouse commented that they had conducted a search and found 
no LED drivers that could operate at or above the required wattage 
threshold. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112 \12\ at 
pp. 15-16)
    ASAP stated that they interpreted consumer replaceable to refer to 
components not requiring tools or removal of the fan from mounting. 
Therefore, ASAP found that the non-consumer replaceable requirement 
would prevent incandescent light sources from being used in CFLKs. 
(ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112 \12\ at pp. 20-21) Fanimation 
responded that an incandescent light source could not be used in a CFLK 
with SSL technology. (Fanimation, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112 
\12\ at p. 23) Westinghouse clarified that consumers would either be 
replacing the light source and not the driver or, more likely, the 
light source and the driver in the form of a plug-and-play wire/nut 
connection. In both scenarios there would be no ANSI socket in which a 
consumer could screw in an incandescent lamp. Therefore, while 
Westinghouse did not object to the non-consumer replaceable 
requirement, it was not required because the circuitry and design of 
such CFLKs would be self-limiting. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 112 \12\ at pp. 22-23)
    Regarding designs of CFLKs with integrated SSL components, 
Fanimation stated that a non-consumer replaceable requirement would put 
design restrictions on CFLKs. (Fanimation, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 112 \12\ at pp. 18-20) Progress Lighting pointed out that the 
existing requirement for a wattage limit already applies to CFLKs with 
consumer replaceable components and if the consumer over-lamps them 
they destroy the limiter making them unusable. (Progress Lighting, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 112 \12\ at p. 32)
    In a joint comment, ASAP, the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, the National Resources Defense Council, and the 
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (``Joint Comment'') and CA IOUs 
generally agreed that CFLKs meeting the four conditions specified in 
DOE's proposed interpretation would not exceed 190 W. The Joint 
Comment, however, did not agree with stating that all CFLKs with 
integrated SSL components should be determined to not exceed the 190 W 
limit requirement as this could exclude products such as CFLKs with 
integrated SSL components and another lighting technology. (Joint 
Comment, No. 117 \12\ at p. 2) Lutron stated it would be sufficient to 
state that the 190 W limit requirement is satisfied by CFLKs with 
either non-replaceable SSL lamps or light sources utilizing an LED 
driver rated less than 190 W.

[[Page 80218]]

Lutron noted that substitution with less efficacious lamps is not 
possible in either case. (Lutron, No. 113 \12\ at p. 2) If DOE does not 
wish to adopt ALA's proposal of removing the consumer replaceable 
conditions, ALA preferred the interpretation of the wattage limiter 
requirement for CFLKs with integrated SSL components that would allow 
at least either the SSL driver or SSL light source to be consumer 
replaceable as opposed to neither. (ALA, No. 115 \12\ at pp. 5-6)
    In consideration of these comments, DOE concludes that the high 
efficacies of SSL technology would produce lumen output equivalent to 
the lumen output of a CFLK with incandescent lamps operating at 190 W 
but at a much lower wattage. DOE concluded that if a consumer were to 
increase the operating wattage of a CFLK with SSL technology to a 
significantly higher wattage than that of the SSL system initially sold 
with the CFLK, the consumer would need to change the driver. DOE 
concluded this is unlikely because significant increases in the rated 
wattage of drivers result in significant size increases in the drivers, 
and the physical constraints of the CFLK designs would not allow for 
such modification.
    In this final rule, DOE is modifying its interpretation of what 
meets the 190 W limit requirement. DOE has determined that CFLKs with 
both consumer and non-consumer replaceable SSL components meet the 
requirement under certain conditions. The CFLKs must use only SSL 
technology (such as LED technology). The CFLKs must not use an SSL lamp 
with an ANSI standard base (such as a medium screw base LED lamp) 
because the consumer could easily remove and replace the lamp with one 
using less efficient (and typically higher wattage) lighting 
technology. Thus, DOE has determined that CFLKs that (1) include only 
SSL technology; (2) do not include an SSL lamp with an ANSI standard 
base, and (3) include only SSL drivers with a combined maximum 
operating wattage of no more than 190 W meet the 190 W limit 
requirement. For example, CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry or with 
other SSL products, such as LED light engines, would meet the limit 
requirement assuming the CFLKs do not also include other non-SSL 
lighting technologies, do not also include lamps with ANSI standard 
bases, and do not include SSL drivers that, combined, can exceed 190 W.
    Fanimation asked if DOE would be defining the term ``consumer 
replaceable'' in support of the proposed clarification regarding CFLKs 
with integrated SSL technology. (Fanimation, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 112 \12\ at pp. 18-20) Further, if DOE continues to reference 
consumer replaceable in the proposed clarification, ALA requested that 
DOE clarify that a ``consumer replaceable'' SSL component means a 
component that can be obtained in the consumer marketplace, installed 
in an existing product by a consumer with no specialized technical 
knowledge or specialized tools, and installed without invalidating the 
product warranties of the existing CFLK or other SSL components. (ALA, 
No. 115 \12\ at pp. 5-6) In response to these comments, DOE is not 
specifying an interpretation of CFLKs with SSL technology that meet the 
190 W limit requirement that prohibits consumer replaceable components. 
DOE is also not defining the term ``consumer replaceable'' in this 
final rule (see section III.B.2 for further details).
    ALA requested that DOE make the clarification of the wattage 
limiter requirement for CFLKs with integrated SSL components effective 
as soon as possible, either in a separate notice or in this final rule. 
(ALA, No. 115 \12\ at p. 4, 6)
    DOE is issuing this interpretation of the 190 W limit requirement 
for CFLKs with SSL technology meeting the conditions described in this 
section effective with publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register.

B. Amendments To Implement an Efficacy Metric for All CFLKs

    In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the CFLK test 
procedures to expand the efficacy metric to all CFLKs in support of the 
amended standards being considered as part of the ongoing ECS 
rulemaking for CFLKs. In the ECS rulemaking, DOE proposed to require 
that all CFLKs meet minimum efficacy requirements, as is currently 
required for CFLKs with medium screw base sockets and pin-based sockets 
for fluorescent lamps. 80 FR 48624 (August 13, 2015).
    In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend 10 CFR 429.33 to 
provide sampling requirements and amend 10 CFR 430.23 to reference lamp 
test procedures to measure the lamp efficacy of each basic model of a 
lamp type packaged with a CFLK and to measure the luminaire efficacy of 
each basic model of CFLK with integrated SSL circuitry.\14\ Appendix V 
currently provides test procedures in support of existing energy 
conservation standards, which are in terms of lamp efficacy for CFLKs 
packaged with medium screw base lamps, system efficacy for CFLKs 
packaged with pin-based fluorescent lamps, and a maximum wattage 
requirement for CFLKs packaged with all other lamp types. In the 
October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to appendix V to provide 
test procedures supporting existing energy conservation standards for 
CFLKs packaged with pin-based fluorescent lamps and proposed amending 
10 CFR 430.23 to reference DOE lamp test procedures supporting existing 
energy conservation standards for CFLKs packaged with medium screw base 
lamps. Appendix V can be used to demonstrate compliance with existing 
standards until the time at which compliance with amended standards 
would be required. Appendix V1, proposed in the October 2014 NOPR, and 
the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 430.23 provide test procedures in 
support of amended energy conservation standards, which would be in 
terms of lamp efficacy for CFLKs packaged with all lamp types and in 
terms of luminaire efficacy for those with integrated SSL circuitry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE defined a CFLK with 
integrated SSL circuitry as a CFLK that has light sources, drivers, 
or intermediate circuitry, such as wiring between a replaceable 
driver and a replaceable light source, that are not consumer 
replaceable. For this final rule, DOE is also including heat sinks 
as part of the definition of CFLK with integrated SSL circuitry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections describe the change in metric for certain 
CFLKs and how DOE will require measuring lamp and luminaire efficacy to 
demonstrate compliance with any amended standards.
1. Metric
    In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to the CFLK test 
procedures that would establish a single metric (efficacy) to quantify 
the energy efficiency of CFLKs. To the extent technologically feasible, 
DOE proposed to use lamp efficacy as the measure of efficiency. DOE 
noted that for CFLKs with integrated solid-state lighting circuitry, it 
may not be technologically feasible to measure lamp efficacy and thus 
proposed using luminaire efficacy as the metric for these CFLKs.
    ASAP et al. supported DOE's proposal to use efficacy as a metric 
for all CFLKs. ASAP et al. further supported DOE's proposal to use lamp 
efficacy for lamps packaged with CFLKs, to use luminaire efficacy for 
CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry, and to use both lamp and luminaire 
efficacy for CFLKs that included both replaceable lamps and integrated 
SSL circuitry. (ASAP et al., No. 5 at p. 1)

[[Page 80219]]

    ALA supported DOE's proposal to use efficacy as a metric for all 
CFLKs. ALA also supported DOE's proposal to use lamp efficacy where 
technically feasible, noting that this approach would minimize the 
testing burden for CFLK manufacturers. (ALA, No. 6 at p. 1) ALA opposed 
DOE's proposal to use luminaire efficacy as a metric for CFLKs with 
integrated SSL circuitry, however. (ALA, No. 6 at pp. 1-3) ALA claimed 
that using luminaire efficacy would be more burdensome than using lamp 
efficacy. ALA noted that a luminaire efficacy metric would require 
testing every variant of a luminaire cover used to make a CFLK with 
integrated SSL circuitry, resulting in more required testing than 
analogous CFLKs with replaceable lamps. ALA further claimed that using 
luminaire efficacy would unfairly disadvantage CFLKs with integrated 
SSL circuitry (particularly those with dark-colored or opaque luminaire 
covers) as compared to other CFLK types. This is because the luminaire 
efficacy testing would account for optical losses from covers included 
with CFLKs that have integrated SSL circuitry, while the lamp efficacy 
testing DOE proposed for all other CFLKs would not account for any CFLK 
covers.
    ALA suggested alternatives to luminaire efficacy of CFLKs with 
integrated SSL circuitry. ALA suggested it may be possible to conduct 
IES LM-79-08 testing on SSL light engines after they are removed from 
the CFLK. ALA also proposed an alternative compliance path by which 
CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry would be subject to a design 
standard that they not exceed 50 W rather than be subject to a 
luminaire efficacy-based metric and test procedure. Lastly, ALA 
suggested that if DOE does adopt a luminaire efficacy metric for CFLKs 
with integrated SSL circuitry, DOE should modify its approach so that 
testing is conducted without luminaire covers to eliminate the need for 
multiple tests associated with different covers, as well as to make 
test results more comparable to other CFLK types.
    Regarding ALA's comments that it may be possible to make accurate 
and consistent light source efficacy measurements on the integrated SSL 
light engines in CFLKs using LM-79-08, DOE notes that the scope of LM-
79-08 is limited to SSL products that do not require external circuits 
or heat sinks. In some CFLK designs, it may be possible for all SSL 
light sources, drivers, heat sinks, and intermediate circuitry to be 
removed as an integrated unit. This integrated unit would either meet 
DOE's definition of an integrated LED lamp or the definition of ``Other 
SSL products'' as defined in appendix V1. In these cases, test methods 
proposed in the October 2014 NOPR would allow manufactures to utilize 
lamp efficacy measurements rather than luminaire efficacy measures.
    DOE notes that IES LM-82-12, ``Characterization of LED Light 
Engines and LED Lamps for Electrical and Photometric Properties as a 
Function of Temperature,'' may be applicable to situations where SSL 
light engines are used in combination with additional heat sinks that 
are not removable from the CFLK. However, test procedures based on 
measurements of integrated SSL light engines would present challenges 
for testing reproducibility. Because LED modules and drivers are highly 
integrated into the CFLK in some CFLK designs, it may be technically 
infeasible to test without destructively altering the product being 
tested. Because the design of integrated SSL CFLKs can vary 
considerably, it would also be difficult to develop uniform and 
reproducible procedures to ensure that all relevant components from an 
integrated SSL CFLK are consistently included in testing. Additionally, 
an approach utilizing LM-82-12 may increase testing burden. LM-82-12 
requires using LM-79-08 to make photometric measurements at multiple 
temperatures to characterize how performance of the device varies over 
a range of temperatures. The stabilized temperature of an LED light 
engine must then be measured inside a luminaire (e.g., CFLK) and 
compared to the LM-82-12 results to estimate the photometric 
performance of the LED light engine in that luminaire. Because of the 
temperature control requirements specified in LM-82-12 and the multiple 
photometric measurements per LM-79-08, LM-82-12 testing is relatively 
expensive. Consequently, few LED light engines have LM-82-12 test 
results. Given the relatively higher testing costs of LM-82-12, the 
likelihood that few LED light engines considered for CFLKs would 
already have LM-82-12 results, and the fact that additional testing to 
monitor LED light engine temperatures inside the CFLKs would be 
required, DOE has concluded that requiring LM-82-12 testing could 
increase testing burden over luminaire testing with LM-79-08.
    DOE has also declined to adopt ALA's suggestion to utilize a 50 W 
design standard for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry, instead of 
requiring use of the proposed test procedure to determine compliance of 
these CFLKs with a luminaire efficacy-based metric. DOE's test method 
meets the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3), which requires DOE to 
establish test procedures that are ``designed to produce test results 
which measure energy-efficiency . . . during a representative average 
use cycle or period of use'' that ``shall not be unduly burdensome to 
conduct.'' ALA's suggestion may limit energy consumption but does not 
provide consumers with representative energy efficiency of the product.
    As an alternative, DOE reviewed ALA's recommendation to allow CFLKs 
with integrated SSL circuitry to be tested without covers. The 
suggested approach could potentially reduce testing burden associated 
with certifying multiple models of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry 
that are functionally identical except for the use of different covers. 
DOE agrees that measurements of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry 
without covers may be more comparable to CFLKs with consumer 
replaceable lamps. DOE has added a definition for ``covers'' to this 
test procedure to clarify which components can be removed before 
testing. Specifically, covers are defined as, ``materials used to 
diffuse or redirect light produced by an SSL light source in CFLKs with 
integrated SSL circuitry.'' DOE allows for the removal of consumer 
replaceable lenses or diffusers from CFLKs with integrated SSL 
circuitry prior to luminaire efficacy testing. DOE does not allow for 
the removal of any other components of CFLKs with integrated SSL 
circuitry (e.g., removable housing or electronic components, hardware 
utilized to secure covers, etc.) nor does DOE allow for removing covers 
that are not consumer replaceable (e.g., require destructive 
disassembly) prior to luminaire efficacy testing. DOE notes that 
manufacturers of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry that have consumer 
replaceable covers may measure luminaire efficacy with the cover 
installed if they wish.
    DOE notes that utilizing an efficacy metric for all CFLK types will 
likely increase testing burden in some cases--particularly for CFLKs 
that are currently subject to the wattage limiter requirement. But the 
wattage limiter would no longer be needed for compliance with the 
proposed standards,\15\ and the added costs associated with testing are 
likely to be offset by savings associated with the

[[Page 80220]]

removal of the wattage limiter. See section IV.B for a more detailed 
discussion of how increased testing costs are likely to be offset by 
those savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Documents related to the ongoing energy conservation 
standards rulemaking for ceiling fan light kits can be found in 
docket ID EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045. The proposed standards can be found 
in the notice of proposed rulemaking, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0045-0109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.Test Procedure
    In the October 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to reference existing DOE 
test procedures and to reference industry standard test procedures only 
where DOE test procedures do not exist. With the exception of ALA's 
comment about the use of luminaire efficacy as a metric (discussed in 
section III.B.1), ALA and ASAP et al. both agreed with DOE's proposal 
to reference existing DOE test procedures and to reference current 
industry standard test procedures where DOE test procedures do not 
currently exist. Table 1 summarizes the test procedures that will be 
required for CFLKs based on the lighting technology that they use. As 
discussed in section III.B.1, CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry that 
have consumer replaceable covers may be tested without covers but must 
otherwise be measured according to the test method in sections 2.0-9.2 
of IES LM 79-08. CFLKs that utilize multiple lighting technologies will 
be subject to all applicable test procedures (e.g., a CFLK with both 
integrated SSL circuitry and consumer replaceable CFLs would be subject 
to luminaire efficacy testing with the CFLs removed, measured according 
to IES LM-79-08, and the CFLs would be subject to lamp efficacy test 
procedures, measured according to appendix W).
    For a CFLK that utilizes only consumer replaceable lamps, 
manufacturers must measure the lamp efficacy of and certify each basic 
model of lamp packaged with the CFLK. For any CFLK with only integrated 
SSL circuitry, manufacturers must measure the luminaire efficacy of and 
certify the CFLK. For any CFLK that includes both consumer replaceable 
lamps and integrated SSL circuitry, manufacturers must measure the lamp 
efficacy of and certify each basic model of lamp packaged with the CFLK 
and must measure the luminaire efficacy and certify the CFLK with all 
consumer replaceable lamps removed.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for the term ``consumer 
replaceable.'' However, DOE has determined this term is self-
explanatory and a definition is not required. Therefore, in this final 
rule, DOE is not adopting a definition for ``consumer replaceable.''

                         Table 1--Test Procedures for CFLKs Based on Lighting Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Lamp or luminaire
        Lighting technology            efficacy measured                  Referenced test procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)...  Lamp Efficacy........  Appendix W to Subpart B of 10 CFR 430.
General service fluorescent lamps    Lamp Efficacy........  Appendix R to Subpart B of 10 CFR 430.
 (GSFLs).
Incandescent lamps.................  Lamp Efficacy........  Appendix R to Subpart B of 10 CFR 430.
Other (non-CFL and non-GSFL)         Lamp Efficacy........  IES LM-9-09, sections 4-7.
 fluorescent lamps.
Integrated LED lamps...............  Lamp Efficacy........  To be determined.*
All Other SSL products.............  Lamp Efficacy........  IES LM-79-08, sections 2-9.2.
CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry  Luminaire Efficacy...  IES LM-79-08, sections 2-9.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* There is currently an open rulemaking to establish test procedures for integrated LED lamps. DOE is reserving
  certain paragraphs in the CFLK test procedure to reference any final test procedure for integrated LED lamps.

C. Standby Mode and Off Mode

    DOE believes that CFLKs do not consume power in off mode, and that 
only CFLKs offering the functionality of a wireless remote control may 
consume power in standby mode. Because the standby sensor and 
controller nearly always provide functionality shared between the 
ceiling fan and the CFLK, DOE proposed in the October 2014 NOPR to 
account for the energy consumption in standby mode under the ceiling 
fan efficiency metric rather than under the CFLK efficiency metric. 
ALA, the only stakeholder to comment on the proposal, agreed with DOE's 
approach to account for standby power usage in the ceiling fan test 
procedure rather than in the CFLK test procedure. (ALA, No. 6 at p. 6) 
Therefore, DOE maintains this approach in this final rule.

D. Effective Date and Compliance Date for Amended Test Procedure

    The effective date for this final rule is 30 days after publication 
in the Federal Register. Representations of energy efficiency or 
consumption must be based on the amended test procedure in appendix V 
as of 180 days after publication of the test procedure final rule in 
the Federal Register. Representations of energy efficiency or 
consumption must be based on appendix V1 not later than the compliance 
date of any amended standards from the ongoing ECS rulemaking for 
CFLKs. Manufacturers are permitted to make representations based on 
testing in accordance with appendix V1 prior to the compliance date of 
such standards, if such representations demonstrate compliance with any 
amended energy conservation standards. Manufacturers must make any 
representations with respect to energy use or efficiency in accordance 
with whichever version is selected for testing.
    DOE's updated guidance for CFLKs with accent lighting and 
reinterpretation of the ceiling fan definition is effective 
immediately. However, DOE will not assert civil penalty authority for 
violations of the applicable standards arising as a result of the 
interpretive changes before June 26, 2017.
    DOE's interpretation of the 190 watt limiter requirement prescribed 
in the standards set forth in 10 CFR 430.32(s)(4) is also effective 
immediately.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

[[Page 80221]]

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) 
requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
(IFRA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment and 
a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that 
an agency adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the 
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 
examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers 
alternative ways of reducing negative effects. Also, as required by 
Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site at: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 
19, 2003. The final rule prescribes the test procedure amendments that 
would be used to determine compliance with energy conservation 
standards for CFLKs.
    DOE analyzed the burden to small manufacturers in both the context 
of the modifications to the existing CFLK test procedures made in 
appendix V and associated CFRs, as well as in the context of the test 
procedures to implement an efficacy metric for all covered CFLKs in 
appendix V1 and amended associated CFRs. With respect to amendments to 
existing CFLK test procedures, DOE determined that these changes will 
not have a material impact on small U.S. manufacturers because the 
changes will not alter the test procedures themselves, but rather, how 
they are referenced. With respect to test procedures to implement an 
efficacy metric for all covered CFLKs, however, DOE found that because 
the amendments will require efficiency performance testing of certain 
CFLKs that had not required testing previously, all manufacturers, 
including a substantial number of small manufacturers, may experience a 
financial burden associated with new testing requirements. While most 
CFLK manufacturers will likely be able to utilize lamp testing already 
conducted by lamp manufacturers for certification of most CFLKs, based 
on the similar assessment DOE made at the time of the NOPR, DOE 
prepared an IRFA for this rulemaking, which was included in the October 
2014 NOPR and a copy was also transmitted to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review. DOE did not 
receive any comments specifically on the IRFA from stakeholders or from 
the SBA. Stakeholder comments received on the economic impacts of the 
proposed rule have been addressed elsewhere in the preamble. The FRFA 
set forth below, which describes the potential impacts on small 
businesses associated with CFLK testing requirements, incorporates the 
IRFA while updating the analysis for consistency with the shipments 
estimates in the ongoing CFLK and ceiling fan energy conservation 
standard rulemakings.
1. Need for and Objectives of the Rule
    A statement of the need for and objectives of the rule is stated 
elsewhere in the preamble and not repeated here.
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comment and any Changes Made in 
the Proposed Rule
    Comments on the economic impacts of the proposed rule and DOE's 
responses to those comments are provided elsewhere in the preamble and 
not repeated here. As noted above, DOE updated its analysis for this 
rule consistent with the shipments estimates in the ongoing CFLK and 
ceiling fan energy conservation standard rulemakings. DOE modified the 
proposed rule based on stakeholder comments related to economic 
impacts. Specifically, as discussed in detail in the preamble, DOE 
clarified that the 190 W limit requirement is met by CFLKs that (1) 
include only SSL technology; (2) do not include an SSL lamp with an 
ANSI standard base, and (3) include only SSL drivers with a combined 
maximum operating wattage of no more than 190 W. DOE also specified 
that CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry could be tested without 
removable optical covers. These changes are expected to reduce the 
overall economic impact of the rule.
3. Response to any Comments filed by the SBA
    The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not provide any 
comments on this rule.
4. Estimate of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold 
for manufacturers, which defines those entities classified as ``small 
businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small 
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would 
be subject to the requirements of the rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The 
size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code and industry description and are available at 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 
CFLK manufacturing is classified under NAICS code 335210,\16\ ``Small 
Electrical Appliance Manufacturing.'' SBA sets a threshold of 750 
employees or less for an entity to be considered a small business for 
this category. This threshold includes all employees in a business' 
parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Although NAICS 335121, ``Residential Electric Lighting 
Fixture Manufacturing,'' which has a small business threshold of 500 
employees, could also apply to CFLK manufacturers, DOE chose a NAICS 
code that applied to both ceiling fans and light kits because CFLK 
manufacturers are generally also ceiling fan manufacturers. DOE 
notes that the use of NAICS code 335210 in this analysis results in 
more manufacturers being considered small businesses than an 
analysis based on NAICS code 335121 would have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To identify small CFLK manufacturers, DOE used feedback from 
manufacturer interviews and results from an industry characterization 
analysis, which consists of the market and technology assessment, 
manufacturer interviews, and publicly available information. DOE then 
reviewed these data to determine whether the entities met the SBA's 
definition of a ``small business manufacturer'' of CFLKs and screened 
out companies that do not offer products subject to this rulemaking, do 
not meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned 
and operated. Based on this review, and using data on the companies for 
which DOE was able to obtain information on the numbers of employees, 
DOE identified 27 small business CFLK manufacturers \17\ in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The term ``manufacturers'' is used in this section to 
include companies that act as importers or labelers of CFLKs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Description and Estimate of Compliance Costs
    DOE has determined that total CFLK testing costs for small business 
manufacturers of CFLKs may increase based on changes to the size of the 
market of covered ceiling fan light kits

[[Page 80222]]

as a result of clarifications to the statutory definition of a ceiling 
fan. As a result of the reinterpretation of the definition of ceiling 
fans to include hugger ceiling fans, products that provide light from 
hugger fans meet the EPCA definition of CFLKs (42 U.S.C. 6291(50)) and, 
therefore, are subject to CFLK standards. This reinterpretation 
effectively increases the size of the CFLK market by approximately 50 
percent. Manufacturers of hugger fans may use different CFLK models on 
their hugger fans than on their other ceiling fans, increasing the 
number of CFLK models that will require testing. The impact of the 
hugger fan reinterpretation on ceiling fan light kit testing costs is 
accounted for in this rule by factoring in a 50 percent increase in 
shipments due to the inclusion of CFLKs attached to hugger fans. 
Conversely, DOE's clarification that ceiling fans that produce large 
volumes of airflow meet the statutory definition of a ceiling fan is 
not expected to have an impact of the size of the CFLK market, because 
ceiling fan light kits are almost never sold with ceiling fans of that 
type. DOE's clarification on the use of accent lighting may lead to an 
increase in testing burden in some cases but DOE believes only a small 
fraction of the CFLK market will be impacted based on reviewing product 
offerings from manufacturer literature.
    Based on the analysis described in the remainder of this section, 
DOE expects the new test procedures to implement an efficacy metric for 
all covered CFLKs to increase direct testing costs to small CFLK 
manufacturers. Because compliance with the proposed standards \15\ 
would satisfy the 190 watt limitation without the need for a wattage 
limiter, however, DOE expects that the savings from eliminating the 
wattage limiters for all CFLKs other than those with medium screw base 
sockets and pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps will likely more 
than offset these costs. DOE's analysis shows that, in sum, typical 
small manufacturers are likely to benefit financially from the proposed 
changes to the test procedures, as detailed below.
    DOE requires testing each basic model of a product to establish 
compliance with energy conservation standards. Products included in a 
single basic model must have essentially identical electrical, 
physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy efficiency. 
Because the efficiency of CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry is based 
on luminaire efficacy, variation in light kit designs will likely 
impact efficiency and result in a greater number of basic models for 
these types of CFLKs. As noted in section III.B.1, CFLK manufacturers 
may test CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry without covers, in part to 
reduce testing burden. This allows CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry 
that are identical expect for the use of different covers to be 
classified as the same basic model. For CFLKs with consumer replaceable 
lamps, efficiency is based on lamp efficacy and will likely not be 
impacted by the design of the light kit, and thus the number of basic 
models may be limited for these types of CFLKs. Because these CFLKs 
require lamp testing, changes in luminaire optics, like lens choice, 
will not affect the measured efficacy, and therefore would not require 
a new basic model. For these CFLKs, manufacturers will be able to limit 
the testing burden by using the same lamp model for many CFLK models 
and/or by obtaining appropriate lamp test results from their lamp 
supplier(s).
    In the sections below, DOE provides an assessment test burden due 
to the change in test procedures. To provide a framework for DOE's 
analysis, Table 2 summarizes the market share of different CFLK types 
and describes how they would be affected by the changes in testing 
requirements. The assessment reflects the size and composition of a 
CFLK market which includes CFLKs attached to hugger fans and therefore 
accounts for the testing costs associated with such CFLKs. The market 
share projections in Table 2 are for the expected compliance year of 
the ongoing ECS rulemaking for CFLKs (2019) as estimated in the CFLK 
ECS NOPR. 80 FR 48624 (August 13, 2015). These market shares reflect 
DOE's reinterpretation of the definition of ceiling fan to include 
hugger fans.

                               Table 2--Projections of CFLK Market Shares in 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Savings from
                                Percent of    Current testing   Future testing    New testing       removal of
         CFLK type *          market in 2019    requirement      requirement         costs?      wattage limiter
                                                                                                 under proposal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFLKs with medium screw base             89%  100% lamp        100% lamp        No.............  No.
 sockets.                                      efficacy.        efficacy.
All Other CFLKs.............             11%  None...........  34% lamp         Potentially **.  Yes.
                                                                efficacy.
                              ..............  ...............  66% luminaire    Yes............  Yes.
                                                                efficacy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CFLKs with pin-based sockets are not included in this analysis because their market share is insignificant, at
  less than 1 percent.
** While most lamps with sockets other than medium screw base sockets will be subject to new DOE testing
  requirements, many of these lamps are already being testing by lamp manufacturers. In these cases, there would
  be no additional testing costs as CFLK manufacturers will be able to use lamp manufacturers' test reports.

    As shown in Table 2, the new test procedures do not affect testing 
burden for CFLKs with medium screw base sockets, because no new testing 
requirements are required for these CFLKs. DOE assumes that 66 percent 
of CFLKs with socket types other than medium screw base will transition 
to CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry (requiring luminaire efficacy 
measurements) by 2019, while the remaining 34 percent will transition 
to CFLKs requiring lamp efficacy measurements.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For the NOPR analysis, DOE used the Bass diffusion curve 
developed in the Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in 
General Illumination Applications (2012) report for general service 
lamps (GSLs) to estimate the market share apportioned to LEDs. DOE 
assumed the adoption of LEDs in the CFLK market would trail behind 
adoption of LED technology in the GSL market by 3.5 years. In the 
NOPR analysis, DOE's LED incursion curve for CFLKs results in a 
market share of 14% for all LED CFLKs in 2019. DOE assumed, based on 
lack of available information to suggest otherwise, that half of the 
LED CFLKs in 2019 (i.e., 7% of the entire CFLK market, or 66% of the 
11% of CFLKs that do not have medium screw base sockets) would have 
integrated SSL circuitry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The degree to which testing costs are offset by savings from the 
elimination of the wattage limiter depends significantly on the number 
of CFLKs produced per basic model. That is, testing costs are fixed per 
basic model, but the costs associated with the wattage limiter increase 
in direct proportion with the total number of CFLKs subject to the 
requirement. DOE estimates that small manufacturers typically produce 
about 5,900 CFLKs per basic model per

[[Page 80223]]

year, and that they are likely to see a net financial benefit from the 
proposed changes provided that they produce more than approximately 
1,000 CFLK units per basic model.
    In summary, DOE notes that the estimated savings of the new test 
procedures greatly exceed the estimated costs to small manufacturers. 
While these estimates are based on a number of projections and 
assumptions that have inherent uncertainties, given the degree to which 
projected savings exceed projected costs, DOE concludes that the new 
test procedures, which implement an efficacy metric for all covered 
CFLKs, will not increase compliance costs for small manufacturers of 
CFLKs.
6. Description of the Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic 
Impact on Small Entities
    DOE considered alternatives to the test procedures for CFLKs with 
integrated SSL circuitry to determine if it was feasible to measure 
lamp efficacy rather that luminaire efficacy. Specifically, DOE 
explored the possibility of testing the consumer replaceable SSL light 
sources and drivers for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry rather than 
testing the entire CFLK. DOE explored the possibility of adopting LM-
82-12 for CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry. Such a method would 
potentially reduce testing costs (particularly if the same LED module 
and driver were used in multiple basic models of CFLKs) and would yield 
test procedures more analogous to the test procedures proposed for all 
other CFLK types. DOE has concluded that this approach is not 
technically feasible, however, because: (1) DOE cannot be certain that 
test results of the LED module and driver would accurately represent 
the performance of the system when it was installed in the CFLK because 
the CFLK could provide heat sinking to the LED module in a manner that 
affected performance; and (2) it is not clear that it would be possible 
to test for compliance without destructively altering the product being 
tested because in some CFLK designs, LED modules and drivers are highly 
integrated into the CFLK. Furthermore, DOE was not able to determine if 
such an approach would increase or decrease testing burden.
    DOE also considered alternatives to the new test procedures for 
measuring lamp efficacy. Specifically, DOE considered maintaining the 
current design standard that requires wattage limiters for certain 
types of CFLKs. As discussed previously, DOE concluded that the new 
test procedures would not increase compliance costs and are in fact 
more likely to decrease compliance cost because of the cost savings 
from eliminating wattage limiter costs.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of CFLKs must certify to DOE that their products 
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify 
compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their 
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments 
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for 
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered 
consumer products and commercial equipment, including CFLKs. See 
generally 10 CFR part 429. The collection-of-information requirement 
for certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval 
by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has 
been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public 
reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours 
per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for CFLKs to more 
accurately measure the energy consumption of these products. DOE has 
determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are 
categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing 
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends the 
existing test procedures without affecting the amount, quality, or 
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any 
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical 
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any 
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing 
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this final rule and has 
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
products that are the subject of this 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(d)) No further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    When reviewing existing regulations or promulgating new 
regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice 
Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the 
general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate 
drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize 
litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct 
rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and 
burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically 
requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure 
that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if 
any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct 
while promoting simplification and

[[Page 80224]]

burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 
adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues 
affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued 
by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable 
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met 
or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed 
the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by 
law, the 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 a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final 
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined these 
requirements do not apply because the rule contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the 
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed this 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 OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any 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.
    This regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring 
the energy efficiency of CFLKs is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The final rule incorporates testing methods contained in the 
following commercial standards: IES LM-66-2014, ``IES Approved Method 
Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Single-Ended Compact 
Fluorescent Lamps'' and IES LM-79-2008, ``IES Approved Method 
Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting 
Products.'' The Department has evaluated these standards and is unable 
to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 
32(b) of the FEAA, (i.e., that they were developed in a manner that 
fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE has 
consulted with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC 
about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in these 
standards and has received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the following 
industry standards: (1) IES LM-66-14 (``IES LM-66-14''), IES Approved 
Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Single-Based

[[Page 80225]]

Fluorescent Lamps, and (2) IES LM-79-08 (``IES LM-79-08''), IES 
Approved Method for Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-
State Lighting Products. IES LM-66-14 and IES LM-79-08 are industry 
accepted test procedures for measuring the performance of single-based 
fluorescent lamps and solid-state lighting products, respectively. The 
test procedure in this final rule references various sections of IES 
LM-66-14 and IES LM-79-08, which specify the test apparatus, general 
instructions, and procedure for measuring system efficacy. The 
standards are readily available on the IES Web site at http://www.ies.org/store/.

N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule before 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).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household 
appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 15, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 
below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.


0
2. Section 429.33 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.33  Ceiling fan light kits.

    (a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers must 
determine represented values, which includes certified ratings, for 
each basic model of ceiling fan light kit in accordance with following 
sampling provisions.
    (1) The requirements of Sec.  429.11 are applicable to ceiling fan 
light kits, and
    (2) For each basic model of ceiling fan light kit, the following 
sample size requirements are applicable to demonstrate compliance with 
the January 1, 2007 energy conservation standards:
    (i) For ceiling fan light kits with medium screw base sockets that 
are packaged with compact fluorescent lamps, determine the represented 
values of each basic model of lamp packaged with the ceiling fan light 
kit in accordance with Sec.  429.35.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) For ceiling fan light kits with pin-based sockets that are 
packaged with fluorescent lamps, determine the represented values of 
each basic model of lamp packaged with the ceiling fan light kit in 
accordance with the sampling requirements in Sec.  429.35.
    (iv) For ceiling fan light kits with medium screw base sockets that 
are packaged with incandescent lamps, determine the represented values 
of each basic model of lamp packaged with the ceiling fan light kit in 
accordance with Sec.  429.27.
    (v) For ceiling fan light kits with sockets or packaged with lamps 
other than those described in paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), or 
(iv) of this section, each unit must comply with the applicable design 
standard in Sec.  430.32(s)(4) of this chapter.
    (3) For ceiling fan light kits required to comply with amended 
energy conservation standards, if established:
    (i) Determine the represented values of each basic model of lamp 
packaged with each basic model of ceiling fan light kit, in accordance 
with the specified section:
    (A) For compact fluorescent lamps, Sec.  429.35;
    (B) For general service fluorescent lamps, Sec.  429.27;
    (C) For incandescent lamps, Sec.  429.27;
    (D) [Reserved]
    (E) For other fluorescent lamps (not compact fluorescent lamps or 
general service fluorescent lamps), Sec.  429.35; and
    (F) [Reserved]
    (ii) Determine the represented value of each basic model of 
integrated SSL circuitry that is incorporated into each basic model of 
ceiling fan light kit by randomly selecting a sample of sufficient size 
and testing to ensure that any represented value of the energy 
efficiency of the integrated SSL circuitry basic model is less than or 
equal to the lower of:
    (A) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE15.000
    
    and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; Or,
    (B) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.90, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24DE15.001

    And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 
appendix A to subpart B).
* * * * *
    (c) Rounding requirements. Any represented value of initial lamp 
efficacy of CFLKs as described in paragraph (a)(3)(i)(E); system 
efficacy of CFLKs as described in paragraph (a)(2)(iii); luminaire 
efficacy of CFLKs as described in paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section 
must be expressed in lumens per watt and rounded to the nearest tenth 
of a lumen per watt.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS.

0
3. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
4. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (m)(2);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (m)(3), (m)(4) and (m)(5) as (m)(2), (m)(3) 
and (m)(4) respectively;
0
c. Removing from paragraph (o)(2) ``appendix R'' and adding in its 
place, ``appendices R, V, and V1'';
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (o)(8) and (o)(9);
0
e. Removing paragraph (v)(1);
0
f. Redesignating paragraph (v)(2) as (v)(1) and reserving paragraph 
(v)(2).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (8) IES LM-66-14, (``IES LM-66-14''), IES Approved Method for the 
Electrical

[[Page 80226]]

and Photometric Measurements of Single-Based Fluorescent Lamps, 
approved December 30, 2014; IBR approved for appendix V to subpart B.
    (9) IES LM-79-08, (``IES LM-79-08''), IES Approved Method for the 
Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting 
Products, approved December 31, 2007; IBR approved for appendix V1 to 
subpart B.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (x) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water 
consumption.

* * * * *
    (x) Ceiling fan light kits. (1) For each ceiling fan light kit that 
is required to comply with the energy conservation standards as of 
January 1, 2007:
    (i) For a ceiling fan light kit with medium screw base sockets that 
is packaged with compact fluorescent lamps, measure lamp efficacy, 
lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours, lumen maintenance at 40 percent of 
lifetime, rapid cycle stress test, and time to failure in accordance 
with paragraph (y) of this section.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) For a ceiling fan light kit with pin-based sockets that is 
packaged with fluorescent lamps, measure system efficacy in accordance 
with section 4 of appendix V of this subpart.
    (iv) For a ceiling fan light kit with medium screw base sockets 
that is packaged with incandescent lamps, measure lamp efficacy in 
accordance with paragraph (r) of this section.
    (2) For each ceiling fan light kit that is required to comply with 
amended energy conservation standards, if established:
    (i) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged with compact fluorescent 
lamps, measure lamp efficacy, lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours, lumen 
maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime, rapid cycle stress test, and 
time to failure in accordance with paragraph (y) of this section for 
each lamp basic model.
    (ii) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged with general service 
fluorescent lamps, measure lamp efficacy in accordance with paragraph 
(r) of this section for each lamp basic model.
    (iii) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged with incandescent lamps, 
measure lamp efficacy in accordance with paragraph (r) of this section 
for each lamp basic model.
    (iv) [Reserved]
    (v) For a ceiling fan light kit packaged with other fluorescent 
lamps (not compact fluorescent lamps or general service fluorescent 
lamps), packaged with other SSL products (not integrated LED lamps) or 
with integrated SSL circuitry, measure efficacy in accordance with 
section 3 of appendix V1 of this subpart for each lamp basic model or 
integrated SSL basic model.
* * * * *

0
6. Appendix V to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix V to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fan Light Kits With Pin-Based Sockets 
for Fluorescent Lamps

    Prior to June 21, 2016, manufacturers must make any 
representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of 
ceiling fan light kits with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps 
in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this Appendix 
V or the procedures in Appendix V as it appeared at 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, Appendix V, in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition 
revised as of January 1, 2015. On or after June 21, 2016, 
manufacturers must make any representations with respect to energy 
use or efficiency of ceiling fan light kits with pin-based sockets 
for fluorescent lamps in accordance with the results of testing 
pursuant to this appendix to demonstrate compliance with the energy 
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(s)(3).
    Alternatively, manufacturers may make representations based on 
testing in accordance with appendix V1 to this subpart, provided 
that such representations demonstrate compliance with the amended 
energy conservation standards. Manufacturers must make all 
representations with respect to energy use or efficiency in 
accordance with whichever version is selected for testing.
    1. Scope: This appendix contains test requirements to measure 
the energy performance of ceiling fan light kits (CFLKs) with pin-
based sockets that are packaged with fluorescent lamps.
    2. Definitions
    2.1. Input power means the measured total power used by all 
lamp(s) and ballast(s) of the CFLK during operation, expressed in 
watts (W) and measured using the lamp and ballast packaged with the 
CFLK.
    2.2. Lamp ballast platform means a pairing of one ballast with 
one or more lamps that can operate simultaneously on that ballast. 
Each unique combination of manufacturer, basic model numbers of the 
ballast and lamp(s), and the quantity of lamps that operate on the 
ballast, corresponds to a unique platform.
    2.3. Lamp lumens means a measurement of lumen output or luminous 
flux measured using the lamps and ballasts shipped with the CFLK, 
expressed in lumens.
    2.4. System efficacy means the ratio of measured lamp lumens to 
measured input power, expressed in lumens per watt, and is 
determined for each unique lamp ballast platform packaged with the 
CFLK.
    3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions:
    The test apparatus and instructions for testing pin-based 
fluorescent lamps packaged with ceiling fan light kits that have 
pin-based sockets must conform to the following requirements:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any lamp satisfying this description:       must be tested on the lamp
                                             ballast platform packaged
                                             with the CFLK in accordance
                                             with the requirements of:
Compact fluorescent lamp..................  sections 4-6 of IES LM-66-14
                                             (incorporated by reference,
                                             see Sec.   430.3)
Any other fluorescent lamp................  sections 4-7 of IES LM-9-09
                                             (incorporated by reference,
                                             see Sec.   430.3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Test Measurement and Calculations:
    Measure system efficacy as follows and express the result in 
lumens per watt:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Lamp type                             Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact fluorescent lamp..................  Measure system efficacy
                                             according to section 6 of
                                             IES LM-66-14 (incorporated
                                             by reference; see Sec.
                                             430.3). Use of a
                                             goniophotometer is not
                                             permitted.
Any other fluorescent lamp................  Measure system efficacy
                                             according to section 7 of
                                             IES LM-9-09 (incorporated
                                             by reference; see Sec.
                                             430.3). Use of a
                                             goniophotometer is not
                                             permitted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 80227]]

0
7. Appendix V1 is added to subpart B of part 430 to read as follows:

Appendix V1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fan Light Kits Packaged With Other 
Fluorescent Lamps (not Compact Fluorescent Lamps or General Service 
Fluorescent Lamps), Packaged With Other SSL Lamps (not Integrated LED 
Lamps), or With Integrated SSL Circuitry

    Note:  Any representations about the energy use or efficiency of 
any ceiling fan light kit packaged with fluorescent lamps other than 
compact fluorescent lamps or general service fluorescent lamps, 
packaged with SSL products other than integrated LED lamps, or with 
integrated SSL circuitry made on or after the compliance date of any 
amended energy conservation standards must be based on testing 
pursuant to this appendix. Manufacturers may make representations 
based on testing in accordance with this appendix prior to the 
compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards, 
provided that such representations demonstrate compliance with the 
amended energy conservation standards.

    1. Scope: This appendix establishes the test requirements to 
measure the energy efficiency of all ceiling fan light kits (CFLKs) 
packaged with fluorescent lamps other than compact fluorescent lamps 
or general service fluorescent lamps, packaged with SSL products 
other than integrated LED lamps, or with integrated SSL circuitry.
    2. Definitions
    2.1. CFLK with integrated SSL circuitry means a CFLK that has 
SSL light sources, drivers, heat sinks, or intermediate circuitry 
(such as wiring between a replaceable driver and a replaceable light 
source) that are not consumer replaceable.
    2.2. Covers means materials used to diffuse or redirect light 
produced by an SSL light source in CFLKs with integrated SSL 
circuitry.
    2.3. Other (non-CFL and non-GSFL) fluorescent lamp means a low-
pressure mercury electric-discharge lamp in which a fluorescing 
coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy generated by the 
mercury discharge into light, including but not limited to circline 
fluorescent lamps, and excluding any compact fluorescent lamp and 
any general service fluorescent lamp.
    2.4. Other SSL products means an integrated unit consisting of a 
light source, driver, heat sink, and intermediate circuitry that 
uses SSL technology (such as light-emitting diodes or organic light-
emitting diodes) and is consumer replaceable in a CFLK. The term 
does not include LED lamps with ANSI-standard bases. Examples of 
other SSL products include OLED lamps, LED lamps with non-ANSI-
standard bases, such as Zhaga interfaces, and LED light engines.
    2.5. Solid-State Lighting (SSL) means technology where light is 
emitted from a solid object--a block of semiconductor--rather than 
from a filament or plasma, as in the case of incandescent and 
fluorescent lighting. This includes inorganic light-emitting diodes 
(LEDs) and organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs).
    3. Test Conditions and Measurements
    For any CFLK that utilizes consumer replaceable lamps, measure 
the lamp efficacy of each basic model of lamp packaged with the 
CFLK. For any CFLK only with integrated SSL circuitry, measure the 
luminaire efficacy of the CFLK. For any CFLK that includes both 
consumer replaceable lamps and integrated SSL circuitry, measure 
both the lamp efficacy of each basic model of lamp packaged with the 
CFLK and the luminaire efficacy of the CFLK with all consumer 
replaceable lamps removed. Take measurements at full light output. 
Do not use a goniophotometer. For each test, use the test procedures 
in the table below. CFLKs with integrated SSL circuitry and consumer 
replaceable covers may be measured with their covers removed but 
must otherwise be measured according to the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Lamp or luminaire     Referenced test
      Lighting technology       efficacy measured        procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (non-CFL and non-GSFL)    Lamp Efficacy....  IES LM-9-09, sections
 fluorescent lamps.                                 4-7.*
Other SSL products............  Lamp Efficacy....  IES LM-79-08,
                                                    sections 2-9.2.*
CFLKs with integrated SSL       Luminaire          IES LM-79-08,
 circuitry.                      Efficacy.          sections 2-9.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (incorporated by reference, see Sec.   430.3)


0
8. Section 430.32 is amended by revising paragraphs (s)(2), (3), and 
(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (2) Ceiling fan light kits manufactured on or after January 1, 2007 
with medium screw base sockets must be packaged with medium screw base 
lamps to fill all sockets. These medium screw base lamps must--
    (i) Be compact fluorescent lamps that meet or exceed the following 
requirements or be as described in paragraph (s)(2)(ii) of this 
section:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Factor                            Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated Wattage (Watts) & Configuration    Minimum Initial Lamp Efficacy
 \1\.                                     (lumens per watt) \2\
Bare Lamp:                               ...............................
    Lamp Power <15.....................  45.0
    Lamp Power >=15....................  60.0
Covered Lamp (no reflector):             ...............................
    Lamp Power <15.....................  40.0
    15<=Lamp Power <19.................  48.0
    19<=Lamp Power <25.................  50.0
    Lamp Power >=25....................  55.0
With Reflector:                          ...............................
    Lamp Power <20.....................  33.0
    Lamp Power >=20....................  40.0
Lumen Maintenance at 1,000 hours.......  >= 90.0%
Lumen Maintenance at 40 Percent of       >= 80.0%
 Lifetime.
Rapid Cycle Stress Test................  Each lamp must be cycled once
                                          for every 2 hours of lifetime.
                                          At least 5 lamps must meet or
                                          exceed the minimum number of
                                          cycles.
Lifetime...............................  >= 6,000 hours for the sample
                                          of lamps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Use rated wattage to determine the appropriate minimum efficacy
  requirements in this table.
\2\ Calculate efficacy using measured wattage, rather than rated
  wattage, and measured lumens to determine product compliance. Wattage
  and lumen values indicated on products or packaging may not be used in
  calculation.


[[Page 80228]]

    (ii) Be light sources other than compact fluorescent lamps that 
have lumens per watt performance at least equivalent to comparably 
configured compact fluorescent lamps meeting the energy conservation 
standards in paragraph (s)(2)(i) of this section.
    (3) Ceiling fan light kits manufactured on or after January 1, 2007 
with pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps must use an electronic 
ballast and be packaged with lamps to fill all sockets. These lamp 
ballast platforms must meet the following requirements:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Factor                            Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Efficacy Per Lamp Ballast         [gteqt] 50 lm/w for all lamps
 Platform in Lumens Per Watt (lm/w).      below 30 total listed lamp
                                          watts.
                                         [gteqt] 60 lm/w for all lamps
                                          that are <= 24 inches and
                                         [gteqt] 30 total listed lamp
                                          watts.
                                         [gteqt] 70 lm/w for all lamps
                                          that are > 24 inches and
                                         [gteqt] 30 total listed lamp
                                          watts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Ceiling fan light kits manufactured on or after January 1, 2009 
with socket types other than those covered in paragraphs (s)(2) or (3) 
of this section, including candelabra screw base sockets, shall be 
packaged with lamps to fill all sockets and shall not be capable of 
operating with lamps that total more than 190 watts.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-32283 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P