This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having generalapplicability and legal effect, most of whichare keyed to and codified in the Code ofFederal Regulations, which is published under50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.Rules and RegulationsFederal Register60845 
Vol. 82, No. 246 
Tuesday, December 26, 2017 
1All references to EPCA refer to the statute as 
amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114–11 
(April 30, 2015). 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: 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. 
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),
1Public 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. 
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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Dec 22, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES60846 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 
2See ex parte memorandum published in the 
docket at https://www.regulations.gov/document?
D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0051-0075. 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.
2This 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). 
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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Dec 22, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES60847 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 
3See https://www.regulations.gov/document?
D=EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0013-0002. 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 Shatterproof 
lamps 
(>40W) LEDs 
(equivalent 
lumens) 
Incremental Cost .............................................................................................................. $1.33 (rough) .............
$0.02 (vibration) ........$1.31 $2.91 
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,
3and 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 Vibration 
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 removal from market .......................................................................... ........... $17,026,000 $11,031,000 
Total .................................................................................................................................................................. $28,057,000 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Dec 22, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES60848 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 Vibration 
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 <40W .................................................................................... ...................... $44,000 $28,000 
Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W ............................................................................. ..................... $2,852,000 NA 
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 
lamps Vibration 
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 <40W .................................................................................... ...................... $218,000 $141,000 
Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W ............................................................................. ..................... $14,297,000 NA 
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- 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Dec 22, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES60849 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 
4This 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. 
5This 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. 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.
4Table 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 Vibration 
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 lamps due to >40W removal from market ..................................................... . $28,433,000 $18,421,000 
Increased total cost for packaging for <40W .................................................................................... ...................... $44,000 $28,000 
Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W ............................................................................. ..................... $2,852,000 NA 
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,
5or 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. 
TABLE 6 
Rough service 
lamps Vibration 
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 lamps due to >40W removal from market ..................................................... . $42,394,000 $27,467,000 
Increased total cost for packaging for <40W .................................................................................... ...................... $44,000 $28,000 
Increased total cost for shatter proofing for <40W ............................................................................. ..................... $2,852,000 NA 
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. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Dec 22, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES60850 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 246 / Tuesday, December 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 
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 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Dec 22, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES60851 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. 
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 
■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. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Dec 22, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES60852 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 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 
11 CFR Chapter I 
[Notice 2017–17] 
Change of Address; Technical 
Amendments 
AGENCY : Federal Election Commission. 
ACTION : Final rule. 
SUMMARY : 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 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). 
List of Subjects 11 CFR Part 1 
Privacy. 
11 CFR Part 2 
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 
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. 
11 CFR Part 111 
Administrative practice and 
procedure, Elections, Law enforcement, 
Penalties. 
11 CFR Part 112 
Administrative practice and 
procedure, Elections. 11 CFR Part 200 
Administrative practice and 
procedure. 11 CFR Parts 9002 and 9032 
Campaign funds. 
11 CFR Part 9008 
Campaign funds, Political committees 
and parties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set out in the 
preamble, the Federal Election 
Commission amends 11 CFR chapter I as follows: 
PART 1—PRIVACY ACT 
■1. The authority citation for part 1 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a. 
■2. Amend § 1.2 by revising the 
definition for ‘‘Commission’’ to read as 
follows: 
§ 1.2 Definitions. 
* * * * * 
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.’’ 
§ 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,’’. 
PART 2—SUNSHINE REGULATIONS; 
MEETINGS 
■5. The authority citation for part 2 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b. 
§ 2.2 [Amended] 
■6. Amend § 2.2(a) by removing ‘‘, 999 
E Street NW, Washington, DC 20463’’. 
PART 4—PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE 
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 
■7. The authority citation for part 4 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. 
§ 4.5 [Amended] 
■8. Amend § 4.5(a)(4)(i) and (iv) by 
removing ‘‘999 E Street NW, 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:22 Dec 22, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26DER1.SGM 26DER1ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES