Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Rough Service Lamps and Vibration Service Lamps, 60845-60852 [2017-27744]

Download as PDF 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 http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 http://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 http://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: http:// 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 http:// 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 http:// 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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://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 http://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 http://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: http://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 http://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 
http://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 http://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