Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Rough Service Lamps and Vibration Service Lamps, 60845-60852 [2017-27744]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60845
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 246
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0057]
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Rough
Service Lamps and Vibration Service
Lamps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is publishing this final
rule in order to codify in the Code of
Federal Regulations certain backstop
requirements for rough service lamps
and vibration service lamps that
Congress prescribed in the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act. These
backstop requirements apply as a result
of the subject lamps exceeding sales
thresholds specified in the statute. In
particular, this rule applies a statutorilyestablished 40-watt maximum energy
use and packaging limitation to rough
service lamps and vibration service
lamps.
SUMMARY:
The effective date of this rule is
January 25, 2018. The incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed
in this rulemaking is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register on
January 25, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The docket is available for
review at https://www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed
in the https://www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov/#!
docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD0057. The docket web page will contain
simple instructions on how to access all
documents in the docket.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
Ms.
Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of the General Counsel, GC–33,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email:
Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov.
Appliance Standards staff, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone:
(202) 287–1445. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final
rule incorporates by reference into 10
CFR part 430 the following commercial
standard: NSF/ANSI 51–2007 (‘‘NSF/
ANSI 51’’), Food equipment materials,
revised and adopted April 2007. Copies
of NSF/ANSI 51 may be purchased from
NSF International, P.O. Box 130140, 789
North Dixboro Road, Ann Arbor, MI
48113–0140, 1–800–673–6275, or go to
https://www.nsf.org.
For a further discussion of this
standard, see section IV.M.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Congressional Notification
M. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA),1 Public Law 94–163 (42
1 All references to EPCA refer to the statute as
amended through the Energy Efficiency
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
U.S.C. 6291–6317, as codified), DOE is
required to collect unit sales data for
calendar years 2010 through 2025, in
consultation with the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA), for
rough service, shatter-resistant, 3-way
incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen
general service incandescent lamps, and
vibration service lamps. For each of
these five lamp types, DOE, in
consultation with NEMA, must also
construct a model based on coincident
economic indicators that closely match
the historical annual growth rates of
each lamp type to provide a neutral
comparison benchmark estimate of
future unit sales. (42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(4)(B). Section 321(a)(3)(B) of the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (EISA 2007) in part amends
paragraph 325(l) of EPCA by adding
paragraphs (4)(D) through (H), which
direct DOE to initiate an accelerated
rulemaking to establish an energy
conservation standard for these lamps if
the actual annual unit sales of any of the
lamp types in any year between 2010
and 2025 exceed the benchmark
estimate of unit sales by at least 100
percent (i.e., are greater than 200
percent of the anticipated sales). (42
U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)–(H)) If the Secretary
of Energy (Secretary) does not complete
the accelerated rulemakings within one
year from the end of the previous
calendar year during which predicted
sales were exceeded, there is a
‘‘backstop requirement’’ for each lamp
type, which would establish, by statute,
energy conservation standard levels and
related requirements. Id. For 2,601–
3,300 lumen general service
incandescent lamps, this backstop is
automatically imposed once the
benchmark unit sales estimates are
exceeded.
By this action, DOE is placing in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the
statutory backstop requirements for
rough service lamps and vibration
service lamps prescribed in 42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(4)(D)(ii) and (E)(ii). These
sections, which were added by EISA
2007, establish energy conservation
standard levels and related
requirements for rough service lamps
and vibration service lamps if DOE does
not complete a rulemaking in an
accelerated 1 year period after issuing a
Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114–11
(April 30, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
60846
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
finding that the specified benchmark
unit sales estimates had been exceeded.
II. Summary of This Action
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007
amended section 321(30) of EPCA by
adding the definition of ‘‘vibration
service lamp.’’ A ‘‘vibration service
lamp’’ means a lamp that—(i) has
filament configurations that are C–5,
C–7A, or C–9, as listed in Figure 6–12
of the 9th Edition of the IESNA
[Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America] Lighting Handbook or
similar configurations; (ii) has a
maximum wattage of 60 watts; (iii) is
sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps or
less; and (iv) is designated and marketed
specifically for vibration service or
vibration-resistant applications, with—
(I) the designation appearing on the
lamp packaging; and (II) marketing
materials that identify the lamp as being
vibration service only. (42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(AA))
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007
amended section 321(30) of EPCA by
adding the definition of ‘‘rough service
lamp.’’ A ‘‘rough service lamp’’ means
a lamp that—(i) has a minimum of 5
supports with filament configurations
that are C–7A, C–11, C–17, and C–22 as
listed in Figure 6–12 of the 9th edition
of the IESNA Lighting handbook, or
similar configurations where lead wires
are not counted as supports; and (ii) is
designated and marketed specifically for
‘‘rough service’’ applications, with—(I)
the designation appearing on the lamp
packaging; and (II) marketing materials
that identify the lamp as being for rough
service. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X))
DOE published a notice of data
availability (NODA) in April 2016,
which indicated that the shipments of
vibration service lamps were over 7
million units in 2015. This equates to
272.5 percent of the benchmark
estimate, which was 2,594,000 units. 81
FR 20261, 20263 (April 7, 2016).
Therefore, vibration service lamps
exceeded the statutory threshold for the
first time, thus triggering an accelerated
rulemaking to be completed no later
than December 31, 2016. Id.
Furthermore, NEMA submitted revised
data for rough service lamps following
the publication of the April 2016 NODA
at 81 FR 20261. The revised data
showed sales of 10,914,000 rough
service lamps in 2015, which exceeded
100% of the benchmark estimate of
4,967,000 units for 2015.2 This resulted
in a requirement for DOE to initiate an
accelerated rulemaking for rough service
2 See
ex parte memorandum published in the
docket at https://www.regulations.gov/document?
D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0051-0075.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
lamps. In an October 2016 notice of
proposed definition and data
availability (NOPDDA), DOE indicated
it must conduct an energy conservation
standards rulemaking for rough service
lamps to be completed no later than the
end of the 2016 calendar year. 81 FR
71794, 71800 (Oct. 18, 2016).
If the Secretary does not complete
these accelerated rulemakings within
the one year time frame accorded by
EPCA, the statute provides a backstop
requirement that becomes an energy
conservation standard for vibration
service and rough service lamps. This
backstop requirement would require
vibration service lamps to: (1) Have a
maximum 40-watt limitation and (2) be
sold at retail only in a package
containing one lamp. 42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(4)(E)(ii). For rough service
lamps, the backstop requires that the
lamps: (1) Have a shatter-proof coating
or equivalent technology that complies
with NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to
contain the glass if the glass envelope of
the lamp is broken and to provide
effective containment over the life of the
lamp; (2) have a maximum 40-watt
limitation; and (3) be sold at retail only
in a package containing one lamp. 42
U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii).
Since unit sales for vibration service
lamps and rough service lamps
exceeded 200 percent of the benchmark
estimate in 2015, and DOE did not
complete an energy conservation
standards rulemaking for these lamps by
the end of calendar year 2016, the
backstop requirement was triggered,
without discretion, and is now
applicable. For this final rule, DOE
codifies at 10 CFR 430.32 the statutory
requirements that apply to rough service
lamps and vibration service lamps in 42
U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii) and (E)(ii). These
energy conservation levels and
requirements apply to rough service
lamps and vibration service lamps
manufactured on or after January 25,
2018. While DOE did not meet its
statutory deadline to complete an
accelerated rulemaking by the end of
calendar year 2016, an effective date of
January 25, 2018, remains generally
consistent with the intent of Congress to
provide for a one calendar year period
between imposition of the energy
conservation standard and compliance
with such standard. The Secretary will
continue to collect and model data for
rough service lamps and vibration
service lamps for two years after this
effective date, in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(I)(ii).
III. Final Action
DOE has determined, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that prior notice and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
an opportunity for public comment on
this final rule are unnecessary. DOE is
merely placing in the CFR, verbatim,
certain requirements and wattage
limitations for rough service lamps and
vibration service lamps prescribed by
Congress in EPCA. DOE is not
exercising any of the discretionary
authority that Congress has provided to
the Secretary of Energy in EPCA. As
such, prior notice and an opportunity
for comment would serve no purpose in
this instance. DOE, therefore, finds that
good cause exists to waive prior notice
and an opportunity to comment for this
rulemaking.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
This final rule is a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(1)
of Executive Order 12866 and the
principles reaffirmed in Executive Order
13563. Accordingly, this action was
subject to review by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Summary
The purpose of this Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) is to describe the range
of potential costs related to applying the
statutorily-established 40 watt
maximum energy use and packaging
limitation to rough and vibration service
lamps as well as the shatter-proof
coating requirement for rough service
lamps. This RIA presents three separate
consumer substitution scenarios due to
the elimination of greater than 40 watt
rough and vibration service lamps from
the market. These three scenarios
provide lower and upper bounds of the
range of potential monetized costs, but
they do not take into account lost utility
caused by the substitutions. DOE
estimates this rule to eliminate 80% of
the rough and vibration service lamp
market. DOE took this bounding
approach because data are unavailable
to forecast consumer response to the
rule.
In the first scenario, consumers are
assumed to substitute rough and
vibration service lamps greater than 40
watts with rough and service lamps less
than 40 watts. In the second scenario,
consumers are assumed to substitute
greater than 40 watt rough and vibration
service lamps with shatter-resistant
lamps greater than 40 watts. In the third
scenario, consumers are assumed to
substitute greater than 40 watt rough
and vibration service lamps with LEDs
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
60847
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
emitting equivalent lumens as the lamps
they would replace. In all three
scenarios, consumers would still have
access to rough and vibration service
lamp less than 40 watts but would pay
more per unit due to the new packaging
limitations and shatter proofing
requirements.
Table 1 summarizes the three
substitution scenarios as potential
incremental costs and market value
associated with this rulemaking. For a
lower bound, the rule could increase
aggregate consumer spending by $14.7
million if all consumers substituted
greater than 40 watt rough and vibration
service lamps with those less than 40
watts. For an upper bound, the rule
could increase consumer spending by
$72.8M if all consumers substituted
greater than 40 watt rough and vibration
service lamps with LEDs that emit
equivalent lumens. In practice, there
will likely be a mix of market responses
across consumers. In the lower bound
estimated especially there is likely to be
additional, non-quantified lost utility
because consumers are substituting
lower wattage bulbs that deliver less
light.
TABLE 1
Substitution scenarios *
<40W rough/vibration
service lamps
Incremental Cost ..............................................................................................................
Market Value ....................................................................................................................
$1.33 (rough) .............
$0.02 (vibration) ........
$14.7M ......................
Shatterproof
lamps
(>40W)
LEDs
(equivalent
lumens)
$1.31
$2.91
49.8M
72.8M
* Includes increased cost for packaging and shatter proofing for <40W rough and vibration service lamps. A more detailed summary of those
costs are provided in the Consumer Impacts section.
Background
These requirements apply as a result
of these lamps exceeding sales
thresholds specified as required by
EPCA.
Pursuant to reporting and tracking
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)
and (E), NEMA reported to DOE the
following figures for rough service lamp
and vibration service lamp shipments
for the year 2015:
Rough Service Lamps 10,914,000
Vibration Service Lamps 7,071,000
Because unit sales for rough service
and vibration service lamps exceeded
100 percent of the neutral benchmark
estimate of unit sales in 2015,3 and DOE
did not complete an accelerated
rulemaking establishing standards for
these lamps within the statutorily
required timeframe, EPCA mandates the
following backstop requirement that
becomes an energy standard for
vibration and rough service lamps. This
backstop requirement requires vibration
service lamps to: (1) Have a maximum
40-watt limitation and (2) be sold at
retail only in a package containing one
lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(E)(ii). For
rough service lamps, the backstop
requires that the lamps: (1) Have a
shatter-proof coating or equivalent
technology that complies with NSF/
ANSI 51 and is designed to contain the
glass if the glass envelope of the lamp
is broken and to provide effective
containment over the life of the lamp;
(2) have a maximum 40-watt limitation;
and (3) be sold at retail only in a
package containing one lamp. 42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(4)(D)(ii). These energy
conservation levels and requirements
apply to rough service and vibration
service lamps manufactured on or after
January 25, 2018.
Market Impacts
The practical effect of the backstop
requirement is to remove rough and
vibration service lamps over 40 watts
from the market starting on January 25,
2018. DOE conducted an order of
magnitude analysis to assess the likely
costs associated with this action. As a
first step, DOE looked at the revenue of
the lamps above 40 watts that will no
longer be generated by industry.
Because DOE was previously
prohibited from collecting data
regarding incandescent lamps,
including the subject lamps, DOE does
not have data regarding the percentage
of lamps sold of both types above 40
watts. DOE estimates that about 80
percent of rough and vibration service
lamps are over 40 watts and will
therefore no longer be available. Based
on a review of home center prices, DOE
concluded that these lamps sell for an
average of $1.95 per lamp. Using this
average sales price of $1.95, at the
volumes reported in 2015, the market
for rough and vibration service lamps
greater than 40 watts was just over $28
million, out of a total market value of
just over $35 million for all rough and
vibration service lamps. Table 2
summarizes estimated current revenue
associated with the subject lamps
greater than 40 watts.
TABLE 2
Rough service
lamps
Shipments in 2015 ...................................................................................................................................................
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Average Sales Price ................................................................................................................................................
Percent of Sales >40W ...........................................................................................................................................
Lost total revenue from >40W lamp removal from market .....................................................................................
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
3 See https://www.regulations.gov/document?
D=EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0013-0002.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
Vibration
service lamps
10,914,000
7,071,000
$1.95
80%
$17,026,000
$11,031,000
$28,057,000
60848
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
Consumer Impacts
In the absence of rough and vibration
service lamps above 40 watts, DOE
believes that all or most consumers of
these lamps will purchase a
replacement product because the
demand for light bulbs is expected to
remain constant and not diminish
significantly as a result of certain
products exiting the market, even
though substitute bulbs may be more
costly. Consumers have multiple
replacement options presented in the
following three scenarios: (1) Rough or
vibration service lamps less than 40
watts, (2) shatter-resistant lamps greater
than 40 watts or (3) LED lamps emitting
equivalent lumens. DOE does not
attempt here to account for the reasons
behind a consumer’s choice to purchase
a specific lamp type, hence a set of
scenarios that represent lower and
upper bounds of the incremental
monetized cost of this final rule are
presented. For rough and vibration
service lamps less than 40 watts,
consumers will pay more per unit via
pass though costs due to the backstop
packaging and shatterproof coating
requirements. These costs are built into
the three scenarios, but are detailed here
for transparency.
For the cost of packaging and shatter
proofing requirement of the backstop
provisions, DOE estimates imposition of
the required backstop standard would
result in a modest market cost increase
related to the new packaging
requirements for vibration and rough
service lamps, of approximately $0.02
per unit, and to the new shatterproof
coating requirements for rough service
lamps of approximately $1.31 per unit.
For vibration service lamps, DOE
estimates additional packaging costs to
be roughly $28,000. For rough service
lamps, DOE estimates additional
packaging costs totaling $44,000. For
rough service lamps, DOE estimates
shatterproof coating costs to be about
$2,852,000.
Table 3 summarizes these incremental
costs for packaging and shatterproofing
rough and vibration service lamps less
than 40 watts under the estimated
current 20 percent market profile when
the rule is effective.
TABLE 3
Rough service
lamps
Shipments in 2015 ...................................................................................................................................................
Percent of Sales for <40W ......................................................................................................................................
Unit Cost for Packaging ...........................................................................................................................................
Unit Cost for Shatter proofing ..................................................................................................................................
Increased total cost for packaging for <40W ..........................................................................................................
Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W ..................................................................................................
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
Substitution Scenario 1: Rough or
Vibration Service Lamps Less Than 40
Watts
Any lost opportunity to purchase
rough service and vibration service
lamps over 40 watts is diminished by
the fact that consumers will still be able
to purchase the 40 watt versions of these
lamps after the backstop requires
compliance. These lamps will require
the same packaging and shatter proofing
provisions so the substitution cost will
increase. There is some utility lost
associated with this substitution,
primarily due to the fact that the lumen
output from a 40 watt lamp is typically
less than it would be for a lamp at a
higher wattage. However, utility is not
Vibration
service lamps
10,914,000
7,071,000
20%
$0.02
$1.31
$44,000
$2,852,000
NA
$28,000
NA
$2,924,000
included in the calculation. Table 4
summarizes the incremental costs of the
rule under this substitution scenario.
Note that the costs for packaging and
shatter proofing are higher than those
shown in Table 3 because in this
scenario, all bulbs will need to have
these costs added, not just the ones
currently <40 watts.
TABLE 4
Rough service
lamps
Shipments in 2015 ...................................................................................................................................................
Percent of Sales >40W and <40W ..........................................................................................................................
Unit Cost for Packaging ...........................................................................................................................................
Vibration
service lamps
10,914,000
7,071,000
100%
$0.02
Unit Cost for Shatter proofing ..................................................................................................................................
Increased total cost for packaging for <40W ..........................................................................................................
Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W ..................................................................................................
$1.31
$218,000
$14,297,000
NA
$141,000
NA
Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................
$14,516,000
$141,000
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
Substitution Scenario 2: ShatterResistant Lamps Greater Than 40 Watts
Consumers could choose to purchase
an existing shatter-resistant lamp over
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
40 watts as there is significant overlap
in application among rough service,
vibration service, and shatter-resistant
lamps. Many of these products are
already co-named (e.g., a rough service
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
$14,657,000
and vibration service lamp or a rough
service and shatter-resistant lamp) and
the requirement to add a shatter-proof
coating as part of the backstop
requirement is evidence that shatter-
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
60849
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
resistant lamps can be used in the same
applications as rough service lamps.
DOE expects minimal loss in consumer
utility from this substitution. Shatterresistant lamp sales have not exceeded
their specified threshold. As a result,
DOE has not been obligated to establish
standards for this lamp type. Therefore,
they are available using incandescent
technology and are the lowest cost
replacement option. Compared to a
rough or vibration service lamp, a
shatter-resistant lamp is about 67
percent more expensive, or an
incremental increase of $1.31.4 Table 5
summarizes the incremental costs for
shatter-resistant lamps (inclusive of cost
increases for rough and vibration service
lamps less than 40 watts currently
purchased) under this scenario.
TABLE 5
Rough service
lamps
Shipments in 2015 ...................................................................................................................................................
Percent of Sales >40W ...........................................................................................................................................
Percent of Sales <40W ...........................................................................................................................................
Average Sales Price ................................................................................................................................................
Shatter-resistant lamp sales price ...........................................................................................................................
Incremental sales price increase .............................................................................................................................
Vibration
service lamps
10,914,000
7,071,000
80%
20%
$1.95
$3.26
$1.31
Increased cost for shatter-resistant lamps due to >40W removal from market ......................................................
Increased total cost for packaging for <40W ..........................................................................................................
Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W ..................................................................................................
$28,433,000
$44,000
$2,852,000
$18,421,000
$28,000
NA
Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................
$31,329,000
$18,450,000
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
require shatter-resistance because of the
materials used in their construction and
the absence of a filament. While LED
lamps are currently about 149 percent
more expensive,5 or an incremental
increase of $2.91, than rough and
vibration service lamps, they are more
widely available than shatter-resistant
lamps and also have features that
consumers would find desirable, such
Substitution Scenario 3: LED Lamps
With Equivalent Lumens
Alternatively, consumers could
choose to purchase a more efficient
light-emitting diode (LED) lamp as a
replacement. LED lamps can be used
without modification in rough service
applications, vibration service
applications, or applications that
$49,778,000
as longer lifetimes and lower wattages
(while maintaining the same amount of
light). Further, DOE notes that prices for
LED lamps continue to decrease in the
marketplace. Table 6 summarizes the
incremental costs for LED lamps
(inclusive of cost increases for rough
and vibration service lamps less than 40
watts) under this scenario.
TABLE 6
Rough service
lamps
Shipments in 2015 ...................................................................................................................................................
Percent of Sales >40W ...........................................................................................................................................
Percent of Sales <40W ...........................................................................................................................................
Average Sales Price ................................................................................................................................................
LED lamp sales price ..............................................................................................................................................
Incremental sales price increase .............................................................................................................................
Vibration
service lamps
10,914,000
7,071,000
80%
20%
$1.95
$4.86
$2.91
Increased cost for shatter-resistant lamps due to >40W removal from market ......................................................
Increased total cost for packaging for <40W ..........................................................................................................
Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W ..................................................................................................
$42,394,000
$44,000
$2,852,000
$27,467,000
$28,000
NA
Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................................
$45,290,000
$27,495,000
Total ...........................................................................................................................................................
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Lifecycle Costs
In addition to considering the upfront
cost of purchasing the lightbulb, DOE
also considered the lifecycle costs over
4 This value was based on a comparison of Home
Center prices of rough service lamps and shatterresistant lamps. The manufacturer, wattage, shape,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
$72,785,000
the expected lifetime of the lamps. The
factors that the agency considered for
the lifecycle cost estimate were the
upfront price of the lamp, lifetime of the
lamp, usage time of the lamp, and the
cost of electricity. DOE estimated the
lifecycle costs for rough service lamps
compared to LED lamps (unnecessary
for the incandescent substitution
scenarios) under the following scenario.
and correlated color temperature (CCT) were the
same between the lamps being compared.
5 This value was based on a comparison of Home
Center prices of rough service lamps and LED
lamps. The manufacturer, wattage-equivalency,
shape, and CCT were the same between the lamps
being compared.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
60850
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
If the LED bulb can be used for the
rough service applications, the cost of
operating it for 3 hours a day is $1.32
per year (3 hours a day at $.11 a kilowatt
hour). The bulb is expected to have a
life of about 13 years. The lifecycle cost
of buying the bulb and using it for its
life would be about $22.00. A 75 watt
rough service incandescent bulb costs
$.50 up front, but $9.03 a year to use 3
hours a day (see the lighting facts here:
https://www.lightbulbs.com/product/
bulbrite-107275#). The life of the rough
service lamp is 4.6 years. Over that time
its lifecycle costs approximately $42.00
to buy and use a rough service lamp,
and it only lasts on average about as
third as long.
In this example, the LED lifecycle
costs are $22.00 to use it 3 hours a day
for 13 years vs. $42.00 for the rough
service incandescent for only 4.6 years.
The lower LED lifecycle costs suggests
that consumers are buying rough service
incandescent lamps for reasons that may
not be easily quantified. For example,
consumers could purchase these lamps
and put them in places where they are
rarely used, such as a pantry or a closet.
Then it makes sense to buy an
inexpensive bulb because what matters
is the upfront cost, not the cost of
operating it. Consumers may have other
reasons for choosing incandescent bulbs
as well. The uncertainty surrounding
these decisions are why it is difficult to
model macro consumer response to this
rule.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis 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. 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 website: https://
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE today is revising the Code of
Federal Regulations to incorporate and
implement, verbatim, energy
conservation standards for rough service
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
lamps and vibration service lamps
prescribed by EPCA. Because this is an
amendment for which a general notice
of proposed rulemaking is not required
under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the
analytical requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply
to this rulemaking.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
This rulemaking imposes no new
information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, Office of
Management and Budget clearance is
not required under the Paperwork
Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, DOE has determined that the rule
fits within the category of actions
included in Categorical Exclusion (CX)
B5.1 and otherwise meets the
requirements for application of a CX.
(See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b);
1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)–(5).) The
rule fits within this category of actions
because it is a rulemaking that
establishes energy conservation
standards for consumer products or
industrial equipment, and for which
none of the exceptions identified in CX
B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made
a CX determination for this rulemaking,
and DOE does not need to prepare an
Environmental Assessment or
Environmental Impact Statement for
this rule. DOE’s CX determination for
this rule is available at https://
energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusioncx-determinations-cx.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on Federal
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order
requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has
examined this 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) Therefore, no
further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies
the general duty to adhere to the
following requirements: (1) Eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation, (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb.
7, 1996). Regarding the review required
by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive
Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction, (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately
defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this final
rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
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
‘‘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 them. On
March 18, 1997, DOE published a
statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy
statement is also available at https://
energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/
documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE has concluded that this final rule
does not require expenditures of $100
million or more in any one year by the
private sector, so the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act does not apply.
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
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
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),
DOE has determined that this rule
would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 Dec 22, 2017
Jkt 244001
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note)
provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to
the public under information quality
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 OIRA at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgates or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that this
regulatory action is not a significant
energy action because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy,
nor has it been designated as such by
the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects on this final rule.
L. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule prior to its effective date.
The report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
M. Description of Materials
Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by
reference a commercial standard
published by NSF International, NSF/
ANSI 51 Food equipment materials.
This standard applies specifically to
materials and coatings used in the
manufacturing of equipment and objects
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60851
designed for contact with foodstuffs.
Copies of NSF/ANSI 51 are reasonably
available and may be purchased from
NSF International, P.O. Box 130140, 789
North Dixboro Road, Ann Arbor, MI
48113–0140, 1–800–673–6275, or go to
https://www.nsf.org.
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
List of Subjects in 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
18, 2017.
Daniel R Simmons,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE amends part 430 of
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below:
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
§ 430.3
[Amended]
2. In § 430.3, paragraph (s)(1) is
amended by removing ‘‘§ 430.2.’’ and
adding in its place ‘‘§§ 430.2 and
430.32.’’
■ 3. Section 430.32 is amended by
adding paragraph (bb) to read as
follows:
■
§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation
standards and their compliance dates.
*
*
*
*
*
(bb) Rough service lamps and
vibration service lamps. (1) Rough
service lamps manufactured on or after
January 25, 2018 must:
(i) Have a shatter-proof coating or
equivalent technology that is compliant
with NSF/ANSI 51 (incorporated by
reference; see § 430.3) and is designed to
contain the glass if the glass envelope of
the lamp is broken and to provide
effective containment over the life of the
lamp;
(ii) Have a rated wattage not greater
than 40 watts; and
(iii) Be sold at retail only in a package
containing one lamp.
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
60852
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Vibration service lamps
manufactured on or after January 25,
2018 must:
(i) Have a rated wattage no greater
than 40 watts; and
(ii) Be sold at retail only in a package
containing one lamp.
[FR Doc. 2017–27744 Filed 12–22–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
these amendments for congressional
review under the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, the
Presidential Election Campaign Fund
Act, as amended, or the Presidential
Primary Matching Payment Account
Act, as amended. See 52 U.S.C.
30111(d)(1), (4) (providing for
congressional review when Commission
‘‘prescribe[s]’’ a ‘‘rule of law’’); 26
U.S.C. 9009(c)(1), (4), 9039(c)(1), (4)
(same).
[Notice 2017–17]
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a.
2. Amend § 1.2 by revising the
definition for ‘‘Commission’’ to read as
follows:
§ 1.2
11 CFR Part 2
Federal Election Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Federal Election
Commission (‘‘FEC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
will relocate to a building with a
different street address in 2018 and is
amending its regulations referencing its
current street address to reflect this
change in location.
DATES: This rule is effective January 1,
2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Tony Buckley, Attorney, or Mr. Eugene
Lynch, Paralegal, (202) 694–1650 or
(800) 424–9530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
5, 2018, the Federal Election
Commission will officially relocate to a
new street address: 1050 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20463. Until March 5,
2018, the Commission will continue to
reside and accept mail at 999 E Street
NW, Washington, DC 20463.
The Commission is promulgating
these amendments without advance
notice or an opportunity for comment
because they fall under the ‘‘good
cause’’ exemption of the Administrative
Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The
Commission finds that notice and
comment are unnecessary here because
these amendments are merely technical;
they effect no substantive changes to
any rule. For the same reason, these
amendments fall within the ‘‘good
cause’’ exception to the delayed
effective date provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act and the
Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), 808(2). Moreover, because
these amendments are exempt from the
notice and comment procedure of the
Administrative Procedure Act under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), the Commission is not
required to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 or
604. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 604(a). Nor is
the Commission required to submit
SUMMARY:
Jkt 244001
■
Definitions.
*
Privacy.
Change of Address; Technical
Amendments
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
1. The authority citation for part 1
continues to read as follows:
■
11 CFR Part 1
11 CFR Chapter I
16:22 Dec 22, 2017
PART 1—PRIVACY ACT
List of Subjects
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
VerDate Sep<11>2014
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Federal Election
Commission amends 11 CFR chapter I
as follows:
Sunshine Act.
11 CFR Part 4
Freedom of information.
11 CFR Part 5
Archives and records.
11 CFR Part 6
Civil rights, Individuals with
disabilities.
11 CFR Part 7
*
*
*
*
Commission means the Federal
Election Commission, its
Commissioners and employees. Until
March 5, 2018, the Commission is
located at 999 E Street NW, Washington,
DC 20463. Beginning on March 5, 2018,
the Commission will be located at 1050
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20463.
The Commission’s internet website
address (www.fec.gov) remains
unchanged.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1.3
[Amended]
3. Amend § 1.3(b) by removing ‘‘Chief
Privacy Officer, Federal Election
Commission, 999 E Street NW,
Washington, DC 20463 during the hours
of 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘Commission’s Chief Privacy
Officer during the hours of 9 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. at the street address identified
in the definition of ‘‘Commission’’ in
§ 1.2.’’
■
Administrative practice and
procedure, Conflict of interests,
Government employees, Political
activities (government employees).
11 CFR Part 100
Elections.
11 CFR Part 102
Political activities (government
employees), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
11 CFR Part 104
Campaign funds, Political activities
(government employees), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
§ 1.4
[Amended]
4. Amend § 1.4(a) by removing ‘‘, 999
E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463’’
and adding in its place ‘‘at the street
address identified in the definition of
‘‘Commission’’ in § 1.2,’’.
■
11 CFR Part 111
PART 2—SUNSHINE REGULATIONS;
MEETINGS
Administrative practice and
procedure, Elections, Law enforcement,
Penalties.
■
5. The authority citation for part 2
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.
11 CFR Part 112
§ 2.2
Administrative practice and
procedure, Elections.
[Amended]
6. Amend § 2.2(a) by removing ‘‘, 999
E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463’’.
■
11 CFR Part 200
Administrative practice and
procedure.
PART 4—PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
11 CFR Parts 9002 and 9032
■
7. The authority citation for part 4
continues to read as follows:
Campaign funds.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended.
11 CFR Part 9008
Campaign funds, Political committees
and parties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 4.5
[Amended]
8. Amend § 4.5(a)(4)(i) and (iv) by
removing ‘‘999 E Street NW,
■
E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM
26DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60845-60852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27744]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 60845]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0057]
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Rough Service Lamps and Vibration Service Lamps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing this final
rule in order to codify in the Code of Federal Regulations certain
backstop requirements for rough service lamps and vibration service
lamps that Congress prescribed in the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act. These backstop requirements apply as a result of the subject lamps
exceeding sales thresholds specified in the statute. In particular,
this rule applies a statutorily-established 40-watt maximum energy use
and packaging limitation to rough service lamps and vibration service
lamps.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 25, 2018. The
incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this
rulemaking is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on
January 25, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The docket is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0057. The docket web page will
contain simple instructions on how to access all documents in the
docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
[email protected].
Appliance Standards staff, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference
into 10 CFR part 430 the following commercial standard: NSF/ANSI 51-
2007 (``NSF/ANSI 51''), Food equipment materials, revised and adopted
April 2007. Copies of NSF/ANSI 51 may be purchased from NSF
International, P.O. Box 130140, 789 North Dixboro Road, Ann Arbor, MI
48113-0140, 1-800-673-6275, or go to https://www.nsf.org.
For a further discussion of this standard, see section IV.M.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Congressional Notification
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),\1\ Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317, as codified), DOE is required to collect unit sales data for
calendar years 2010 through 2025, in consultation with the National
Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), for rough service,
shatter-resistant, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general
service incandescent lamps, and vibration service lamps. For each of
these five lamp types, DOE, in consultation with NEMA, must also
construct a model based on coincident economic indicators that closely
match the historical annual growth rates of each lamp type to provide a
neutral comparison benchmark estimate of future unit sales. (42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(4)(B). Section 321(a)(3)(B) of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) in part amends paragraph 325(l) of
EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) through (H), which direct DOE to
initiate an accelerated rulemaking to establish an energy conservation
standard for these lamps if the actual annual unit sales of any of the
lamp types in any year between 2010 and 2025 exceed the benchmark
estimate of unit sales by at least 100 percent (i.e., are greater than
200 percent of the anticipated sales). (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)-(H)) If
the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) does not complete the accelerated
rulemakings within one year from the end of the previous calendar year
during which predicted sales were exceeded, there is a ``backstop
requirement'' for each lamp type, which would establish, by statute,
energy conservation standard levels and related requirements. Id. For
2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lamps, this backstop is
automatically imposed once the benchmark unit sales estimates are
exceeded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA refer to the statute as amended
through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law
114-11 (April 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By this action, DOE is placing in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) the statutory backstop requirements for rough service lamps and
vibration service lamps prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii) and
(E)(ii). These sections, which were added by EISA 2007, establish
energy conservation standard levels and related requirements for rough
service lamps and vibration service lamps if DOE does not complete a
rulemaking in an accelerated 1 year period after issuing a
[[Page 60846]]
finding that the specified benchmark unit sales estimates had been
exceeded.
II. Summary of This Action
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA
by adding the definition of ``vibration service lamp.'' A ``vibration
service lamp'' means a lamp that--(i) has filament configurations that
are C-5, C-7A, or C-9, as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th Edition of
the IESNA [Illuminating Engineering Society of North America] Lighting
Handbook or similar configurations; (ii) has a maximum wattage of 60
watts; (iii) is sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps or less; and (iv)
is designated and marketed specifically for vibration service or
vibration-resistant applications, with--(I) the designation appearing
on the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the
lamp as being vibration service only. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA))
Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 amended section 321(30) of EPCA
by adding the definition of ``rough service lamp.'' A ``rough service
lamp'' means a lamp that--(i) has a minimum of 5 supports with filament
configurations that are C-7A, C-11, C-17, and C-22 as listed in Figure
6-12 of the 9th edition of the IESNA Lighting handbook, or similar
configurations where lead wires are not counted as supports; and (ii)
is designated and marketed specifically for ``rough service''
applications, with--(I) the designation appearing on the lamp
packaging; and (II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as being
for rough service. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X))
DOE published a notice of data availability (NODA) in April 2016,
which indicated that the shipments of vibration service lamps were over
7 million units in 2015. This equates to 272.5 percent of the benchmark
estimate, which was 2,594,000 units. 81 FR 20261, 20263 (April 7,
2016). Therefore, vibration service lamps exceeded the statutory
threshold for the first time, thus triggering an accelerated rulemaking
to be completed no later than December 31, 2016. Id. Furthermore, NEMA
submitted revised data for rough service lamps following the
publication of the April 2016 NODA at 81 FR 20261. The revised data
showed sales of 10,914,000 rough service lamps in 2015, which exceeded
100% of the benchmark estimate of 4,967,000 units for 2015.\2\ This
resulted in a requirement for DOE to initiate an accelerated rulemaking
for rough service lamps. In an October 2016 notice of proposed
definition and data availability (NOPDDA), DOE indicated it must
conduct an energy conservation standards rulemaking for rough service
lamps to be completed no later than the end of the 2016 calendar year.
81 FR 71794, 71800 (Oct. 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See ex parte memorandum published in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0051-0075.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Secretary does not complete these accelerated rulemakings
within the one year time frame accorded by EPCA, the statute provides a
backstop requirement that becomes an energy conservation standard for
vibration service and rough service lamps. This backstop requirement
would require vibration service lamps to: (1) Have a maximum 40-watt
limitation and (2) be sold at retail only in a package containing one
lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(E)(ii). For rough service lamps, the
backstop requires that the lamps: (1) Have a shatter-proof coating or
equivalent technology that complies with NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to
contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken and to
provide effective containment over the life of the lamp; (2) have a
maximum 40-watt limitation; and (3) be sold at retail only in a package
containing one lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii).
Since unit sales for vibration service lamps and rough service
lamps exceeded 200 percent of the benchmark estimate in 2015, and DOE
did not complete an energy conservation standards rulemaking for these
lamps by the end of calendar year 2016, the backstop requirement was
triggered, without discretion, and is now applicable. For this final
rule, DOE codifies at 10 CFR 430.32 the statutory requirements that
apply to rough service lamps and vibration service lamps in 42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(4)(D)(ii) and (E)(ii). These energy conservation levels and
requirements apply to rough service lamps and vibration service lamps
manufactured on or after January 25, 2018. While DOE did not meet its
statutory deadline to complete an accelerated rulemaking by the end of
calendar year 2016, an effective date of January 25, 2018, remains
generally consistent with the intent of Congress to provide for a one
calendar year period between imposition of the energy conservation
standard and compliance with such standard. The Secretary will continue
to collect and model data for rough service lamps and vibration service
lamps for two years after this effective date, in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(I)(ii).
III. Final Action
DOE has determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that prior
notice and an opportunity for public comment on this final rule are
unnecessary. DOE is merely placing in the CFR, verbatim, certain
requirements and wattage limitations for rough service lamps and
vibration service lamps prescribed by Congress in EPCA. DOE is not
exercising any of the discretionary authority that Congress has
provided to the Secretary of Energy in EPCA. As such, prior notice and
an opportunity for comment would serve no purpose in this instance.
DOE, therefore, finds that good cause exists to waive prior notice and
an opportunity to comment for this rulemaking.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This final rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and the principles reaffirmed
in Executive Order 13563. Accordingly, this action was subject to
review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Summary
The purpose of this Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is to describe
the range of potential costs related to applying the statutorily-
established 40 watt maximum energy use and packaging limitation to
rough and vibration service lamps as well as the shatter-proof coating
requirement for rough service lamps. This RIA presents three separate
consumer substitution scenarios due to the elimination of greater than
40 watt rough and vibration service lamps from the market. These three
scenarios provide lower and upper bounds of the range of potential
monetized costs, but they do not take into account lost utility caused
by the substitutions. DOE estimates this rule to eliminate 80% of the
rough and vibration service lamp market. DOE took this bounding
approach because data are unavailable to forecast consumer response to
the rule.
In the first scenario, consumers are assumed to substitute rough
and vibration service lamps greater than 40 watts with rough and
service lamps less than 40 watts. In the second scenario, consumers are
assumed to substitute greater than 40 watt rough and vibration service
lamps with shatter-resistant lamps greater than 40 watts. In the third
scenario, consumers are assumed to substitute greater than 40 watt
rough and vibration service lamps with LEDs
[[Page 60847]]
emitting equivalent lumens as the lamps they would replace. In all
three scenarios, consumers would still have access to rough and
vibration service lamp less than 40 watts but would pay more per unit
due to the new packaging limitations and shatter proofing requirements.
Table 1 summarizes the three substitution scenarios as potential
incremental costs and market value associated with this rulemaking. For
a lower bound, the rule could increase aggregate consumer spending by
$14.7 million if all consumers substituted greater than 40 watt rough
and vibration service lamps with those less than 40 watts. For an upper
bound, the rule could increase consumer spending by $72.8M if all
consumers substituted greater than 40 watt rough and vibration service
lamps with LEDs that emit equivalent lumens. In practice, there will
likely be a mix of market responses across consumers. In the lower
bound estimated especially there is likely to be additional, non-
quantified lost utility because consumers are substituting lower
wattage bulbs that deliver less light.
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitution scenarios *
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LEDs
<40W rough/vibration service lamps Shatterproof (equivalent
lamps (>40W) lumens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Cost........................ $1.33 (rough)......................... $1.31 $2.91
$0.02 (vibration).....................
Market Value............................ $14.7M................................ 49.8M 72.8M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes increased cost for packaging and shatter proofing for <40W rough and vibration service lamps. A more
detailed summary of those costs are provided in the Consumer Impacts section.
Background
These requirements apply as a result of these lamps exceeding sales
thresholds specified as required by EPCA.
Pursuant to reporting and tracking requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(4)(D) and (E), NEMA reported to DOE the following figures for
rough service lamp and vibration service lamp shipments for the year
2015:
Rough Service Lamps 10,914,000
Vibration Service Lamps 7,071,000
Because unit sales for rough service and vibration service lamps
exceeded 100 percent of the neutral benchmark estimate of unit sales in
2015,\3\ and DOE did not complete an accelerated rulemaking
establishing standards for these lamps within the statutorily required
timeframe, EPCA mandates the following backstop requirement that
becomes an energy standard for vibration and rough service lamps. This
backstop requirement requires vibration service lamps to: (1) Have a
maximum 40-watt limitation and (2) be sold at retail only in a package
containing one lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(E)(ii). For rough service
lamps, the backstop requires that the lamps: (1) Have a shatter-proof
coating or equivalent technology that complies with NSF/ANSI 51 and is
designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp is
broken and to provide effective containment over the life of the lamp;
(2) have a maximum 40-watt limitation; and (3) be sold at retail only
in a package containing one lamp. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii). These
energy conservation levels and requirements apply to rough service and
vibration service lamps manufactured on or after January 25, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0013-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market Impacts
The practical effect of the backstop requirement is to remove rough
and vibration service lamps over 40 watts from the market starting on
January 25, 2018. DOE conducted an order of magnitude analysis to
assess the likely costs associated with this action. As a first step,
DOE looked at the revenue of the lamps above 40 watts that will no
longer be generated by industry.
Because DOE was previously prohibited from collecting data
regarding incandescent lamps, including the subject lamps, DOE does not
have data regarding the percentage of lamps sold of both types above 40
watts. DOE estimates that about 80 percent of rough and vibration
service lamps are over 40 watts and will therefore no longer be
available. Based on a review of home center prices, DOE concluded that
these lamps sell for an average of $1.95 per lamp. Using this average
sales price of $1.95, at the volumes reported in 2015, the market for
rough and vibration service lamps greater than 40 watts was just over
$28 million, out of a total market value of just over $35 million for
all rough and vibration service lamps. Table 2 summarizes estimated
current revenue associated with the subject lamps greater than 40
watts.
Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rough service Vibration
lamps service lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments in 2015....................... 10,914,000 7,071,000
-------------------------------
Average Sales Price..................... $1.95
Percent of Sales >40W................... 80%
-------------------------------
Lost total revenue from >40W lamp $17,026,000 $11,031,000
removal from market....................
-------------------------------
Total............................... $28,057,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 60848]]
Consumer Impacts
In the absence of rough and vibration service lamps above 40 watts,
DOE believes that all or most consumers of these lamps will purchase a
replacement product because the demand for light bulbs is expected to
remain constant and not diminish significantly as a result of certain
products exiting the market, even though substitute bulbs may be more
costly. Consumers have multiple replacement options presented in the
following three scenarios: (1) Rough or vibration service lamps less
than 40 watts, (2) shatter-resistant lamps greater than 40 watts or (3)
LED lamps emitting equivalent lumens. DOE does not attempt here to
account for the reasons behind a consumer's choice to purchase a
specific lamp type, hence a set of scenarios that represent lower and
upper bounds of the incremental monetized cost of this final rule are
presented. For rough and vibration service lamps less than 40 watts,
consumers will pay more per unit via pass though costs due to the
backstop packaging and shatterproof coating requirements. These costs
are built into the three scenarios, but are detailed here for
transparency.
For the cost of packaging and shatter proofing requirement of the
backstop provisions, DOE estimates imposition of the required backstop
standard would result in a modest market cost increase related to the
new packaging requirements for vibration and rough service lamps, of
approximately $0.02 per unit, and to the new shatterproof coating
requirements for rough service lamps of approximately $1.31 per unit.
For vibration service lamps, DOE estimates additional packaging costs
to be roughly $28,000. For rough service lamps, DOE estimates
additional packaging costs totaling $44,000. For rough service lamps,
DOE estimates shatterproof coating costs to be about $2,852,000.
Table 3 summarizes these incremental costs for packaging and
shatterproofing rough and vibration service lamps less than 40 watts
under the estimated current 20 percent market profile when the rule is
effective.
Table 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rough service Vibration
lamps service lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments in 2015....................... 10,914,000 7,071,000
-------------------------------
Percent of Sales for <40W............... 20%
Unit Cost for Packaging................. $0.02
-------------------------------
Unit Cost for Shatter proofing.......... $1.31 NA
Increased total cost for packaging for $44,000 $28,000
<40W...................................
Increased total cost for shatter $2,852,000 NA
proofing for <40W......................
-------------------------------
Total............................... $2,924,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitution Scenario 1: Rough or Vibration Service Lamps Less Than 40
Watts
Any lost opportunity to purchase rough service and vibration
service lamps over 40 watts is diminished by the fact that consumers
will still be able to purchase the 40 watt versions of these lamps
after the backstop requires compliance. These lamps will require the
same packaging and shatter proofing provisions so the substitution cost
will increase. There is some utility lost associated with this
substitution, primarily due to the fact that the lumen output from a 40
watt lamp is typically less than it would be for a lamp at a higher
wattage. However, utility is not included in the calculation. Table 4
summarizes the incremental costs of the rule under this substitution
scenario. Note that the costs for packaging and shatter proofing are
higher than those shown in Table 3 because in this scenario, all bulbs
will need to have these costs added, not just the ones currently <40
watts.
Table 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rough service Vibration
lamps service lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments in 2015....................... 10,914,000 7,071,000
-------------------------------
Percent of Sales >40W and <40W.......... 100%
Unit Cost for Packaging................. $0.02
-------------------------------
Unit Cost for Shatter proofing.......... $1.31 NA
Increased total cost for packaging for $218,000 $141,000
<40W...................................
Increased total cost for shatter $14,297,000 NA
proofing for <40W......................
-------------------------------
Subtotal............................ $14,516,000 $141,000
-------------------------------
Total........................... $14,657,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitution Scenario 2: Shatter-Resistant Lamps Greater Than 40 Watts
Consumers could choose to purchase an existing shatter-resistant
lamp over 40 watts as there is significant overlap in application among
rough service, vibration service, and shatter-resistant lamps. Many of
these products are already co-named (e.g., a rough service and
vibration service lamp or a rough service and shatter-resistant lamp)
and the requirement to add a shatter-proof coating as part of the
backstop requirement is evidence that shatter-
[[Page 60849]]
resistant lamps can be used in the same applications as rough service
lamps. DOE expects minimal loss in consumer utility from this
substitution. Shatter-resistant lamp sales have not exceeded their
specified threshold. As a result, DOE has not been obligated to
establish standards for this lamp type. Therefore, they are available
using incandescent technology and are the lowest cost replacement
option. Compared to a rough or vibration service lamp, a shatter-
resistant lamp is about 67 percent more expensive, or an incremental
increase of $1.31.\4\ Table 5 summarizes the incremental costs for
shatter-resistant lamps (inclusive of cost increases for rough and
vibration service lamps less than 40 watts currently purchased) under
this scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This value was based on a comparison of Home Center prices
of rough service lamps and shatter-resistant lamps. The
manufacturer, wattage, shape, and correlated color temperature (CCT)
were the same between the lamps being compared.
Table 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rough service Vibration
lamps service lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments in 2015....................... 10,914,000 7,071,000
-------------------------------
Percent of Sales >40W................... 80%
Percent of Sales <40W................... 20%
Average Sales Price..................... $1.95
Shatter-resistant lamp sales price...... $3.26
Incremental sales price increase........ $1.31
-------------------------------
Increased cost for shatter-resistant $28,433,000 $18,421,000
lamps due to >40W removal from market..
Increased total cost for packaging for $44,000 $28,000
<40W...................................
Increased total cost for shatter $2,852,000 NA
proofing for <40W......................
-------------------------------
Subtotal............................ $31,329,000 $18,450,000
-------------------------------
Total........................... $49,778,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substitution Scenario 3: LED Lamps With Equivalent Lumens
Alternatively, consumers could choose to purchase a more efficient
light-emitting diode (LED) lamp as a replacement. LED lamps can be used
without modification in rough service applications, vibration service
applications, or applications that require shatter-resistance because
of the materials used in their construction and the absence of a
filament. While LED lamps are currently about 149 percent more
expensive,\5\ or an incremental increase of $2.91, than rough and
vibration service lamps, they are more widely available than shatter-
resistant lamps and also have features that consumers would find
desirable, such as longer lifetimes and lower wattages (while
maintaining the same amount of light). Further, DOE notes that prices
for LED lamps continue to decrease in the marketplace. Table 6
summarizes the incremental costs for LED lamps (inclusive of cost
increases for rough and vibration service lamps less than 40 watts)
under this scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This value was based on a comparison of Home Center prices
of rough service lamps and LED lamps. The manufacturer, wattage-
equivalency, shape, and CCT were the same between the lamps being
compared.
Table 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rough service Vibration
lamps service lamps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments in 2015....................... 10,914,000 7,071,000
-------------------------------
Percent of Sales >40W................... 80%
Percent of Sales <40W................... 20%
Average Sales Price..................... $1.95
LED lamp sales price.................... $4.86
Incremental sales price increase........ $2.91
-------------------------------
Increased cost for shatter-resistant $42,394,000 $27,467,000
lamps due to >40W removal from market..
Increased total cost for packaging for $44,000 $28,000
<40W...................................
Increased total cost for shatter $2,852,000 NA
proofing for <40W......................
-------------------------------
Subtotal............................ $45,290,000 $27,495,000
-------------------------------
Total........................... $72,785,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifecycle Costs
In addition to considering the upfront cost of purchasing the
lightbulb, DOE also considered the lifecycle costs over the expected
lifetime of the lamps. The factors that the agency considered for the
lifecycle cost estimate were the upfront price of the lamp, lifetime of
the lamp, usage time of the lamp, and the cost of electricity. DOE
estimated the lifecycle costs for rough service lamps compared to LED
lamps (unnecessary for the incandescent substitution scenarios) under
the following scenario.
[[Page 60850]]
If the LED bulb can be used for the rough service applications, the
cost of operating it for 3 hours a day is $1.32 per year (3 hours a day
at $.11 a kilowatt hour). The bulb is expected to have a life of about
13 years. The lifecycle cost of buying the bulb and using it for its
life would be about $22.00. A 75 watt rough service incandescent bulb
costs $.50 up front, but $9.03 a year to use 3 hours a day (see the
lighting facts here: https://www.lightbulbs.com/product/bulbrite-107275#). The life of the rough service lamp is 4.6 years. Over that
time its lifecycle costs approximately $42.00 to buy and use a rough
service lamp, and it only lasts on average about as third as long.
In this example, the LED lifecycle costs are $22.00 to use it 3
hours a day for 13 years vs. $42.00 for the rough service incandescent
for only 4.6 years. The lower LED lifecycle costs suggests that
consumers are buying rough service incandescent lamps for reasons that
may not be easily quantified. For example, consumers could purchase
these lamps and put them in places where they are rarely used, such as
a pantry or a closet. Then it makes sense to buy an inexpensive bulb
because what matters is the upfront cost, not the cost of operating it.
Consumers may have other reasons for choosing incandescent bulbs as
well. The uncertainty surrounding these decisions are why it is
difficult to model macro consumer response to this rule.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 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. 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 website: https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE today is revising the Code of Federal
Regulations to incorporate and implement, verbatim, energy conservation
standards for rough service lamps and vibration service lamps
prescribed by EPCA. Because this is an amendment for which a general
notice of proposed rulemaking is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any
other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act do not apply to this rulemaking.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking imposes no new information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget clearance is
not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
DOE has determined that the rule fits within the category of actions
included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the
requirements for application of a CX. (See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B,
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)-(5).) The rule fits within this
category of actions because it is a rulemaking that establishes energy
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment,
and for which none of the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) apply.
Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for this rulemaking, and DOE
does not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX determination for this rule is
available at https://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
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)
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3)
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction.
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section
3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2)
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the
relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
[[Page 60851]]
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 ``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 them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
DOE has concluded that this final rule does not require
expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private
sector, so the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply.
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
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality 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 OIRA
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that this regulatory action is not a significant
energy action because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been
designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has
not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on this final rule.
L. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference a commercial
standard published by NSF International, NSF/ANSI 51 Food equipment
materials. This standard applies specifically to materials and coatings
used in the manufacturing of equipment and objects designed for contact
with foodstuffs. Copies of NSF/ANSI 51 are reasonably available and may
be purchased from NSF International, P.O. Box 130140, 789 North Dixboro
Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140, 1-800-673-6275, or go to https://www.nsf.org.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 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 18, 2017.
Daniel R Simmons,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 430.3 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 430.3, paragraph (s)(1) is amended by removing ``Sec.
430.2.'' and adding in its place ``Sec. Sec. 430.2 and 430.32.''
0
3. Section 430.32 is amended by adding paragraph (bb) to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
compliance dates.
* * * * *
(bb) Rough service lamps and vibration service lamps. (1) Rough
service lamps manufactured on or after January 25, 2018 must:
(i) Have a shatter-proof coating or equivalent technology that is
compliant with NSF/ANSI 51 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 430.3)
and is designed to contain the glass if the glass envelope of the lamp
is broken and to provide effective containment over the life of the
lamp;
(ii) Have a rated wattage not greater than 40 watts; and
(iii) Be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp.
[[Page 60852]]
(2) Vibration service lamps manufactured on or after January 25,
2018 must:
(i) Have a rated wattage no greater than 40 watts; and
(ii) Be sold at retail only in a package containing one lamp.
[FR Doc. 2017-27744 Filed 12-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
