Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13791 

Agency Program or initiative Results 

Natural Resources Conservation Service.Conservation Delivery Streamlining Initiative (CDSI).CDSI Client Gateway (CG) is a secure web application that will enable 

NRCS clients to perform many functions online and view their data without having to travel to the USDA local service center. A client will be 

able to request technical assistance, view their conservation plans, 

apply for Farm Bill conservation program financial assistance, view their 

contract payments for certified contract items (practices in Farm Bill 

conservation program contracts) upload and download supporting documentation, and sign their plans, agreements, and contracts. CG will reduce approximately 110,000 hours of travel time for clients going to 

agency offices and reduce the information collection burden by approximately 40,000 hours. 

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service.

Declaration Forms for Imported Plant 

and Plant Products.

In cooperation with other Federal entities, implemented initiatives to reduce the burden on importers and is developing an electronic entry system and solicited public comments on regulatory options. 

Cost savings to industry estimated at $1.7 million to $5.7 million for the 

electronic entry system and cost savings to industry estimated at $7.2 

million to $24 million for the de minimis exemption approximately and a 

reduction of approximately 120,000 hours in information collection burden. 

Rulemaking is underway. 

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service.

Participation in the International Trade 

Data System.

Amending regulations to remove any impediments to the full implementation of participation in the International Trade Data System via the Automated Commercial Environment. 

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service.

Certification, Accreditation, Registration, Permits, and Other Licenses.Creating a new electronic system to consolidate and streamline agency 

certification, accreditation, registration permit, and license processes. 

Expects both savings in cost and information collection burden hours. 

III. Regulatory Flexibility 

In addition to looking back at current 

regulations, USDA is also looking 

forward to how new regulations are 

implemented and how existing 

regulations can be improved. Regulatory 

flexibility includes a variety of 

regulatory techniques that can help 

avoid unnecessary costs on regulated 

entities and avoid negative impacts. 

Regulatory flexibility techniques could 

include: 

• Pilot projects, which can be used 

test regulatory approaches; 

• Safe harbors, which are streamlined 

modes of regulatory compliance and can 

serve to reduce compliance costs; 

• Sunset provisions, which terminate 

a rule after a certain date; 

• Trigger provisions, which specify 

one or more threshold indicators that 

the rule is designed to address; 

• Phase-ins, which allow the rule to 

be phased-in for different groups at 

different times; 

• Streamlined requirements, which 

provide exemptions or other 

streamlined requirements if a particular 

entity (for example, a small business) 

may otherwise experience 

disproportionate burden from a rule; 

• State flexibilities, which provide 

greater flexibility to States or other 

regulatory partners, for example, giving 

them freedom to implement alternative 

regulatory approaches; and 

• Exceptions, which allow exceptions 

to part or all of the rule in cases where 

there is a potential or suspected 

unintended consequence. 

IV. Questions for Commenters 

In providing comments, the public is 

encouraged to respond to the below 

questions: 

• What regulations or reporting 

requirements that have become outdated 

and, if so, how can they be modernized 

to accomplish the regulatory objectives 

better? 

• Do agencies currently collect 

information that they do not need or use 

effectively to achieve regulatory 

objectives? 

• Which regulations, reporting 

requirements, or regulatory submission 

or application processes are 

unnecessarily complicated or could be 

streamlined to achieve regulatory 

objectives in ways that are more 

efficient? 

• Which regulations, submission and 

application processes, or reporting 

requirements have been overtaken by 

technological developments? Can new 

technologies be used to modify, 

streamline, or do away with existing 

regulatory or reporting requirements? 

• Which regulations provide 

examples of how regulatory flexibility 

techniques have worked well? In 

general, who has benefitted from the 

regulatory flexibility? What types of 

regulatory flexibility have worked well? 

• What regulations would be 

improved through the addition of 

regulatory flexibility techniques? How 

would regulatory flexibility lower costs 

and burden? How would regulatory 

flexibility improve benefits? 

This is a non-exhaustive list that is 

meant to assist in the formulation of 

comments and is not intended to limit 

the issues that commenters may choose 

to address. We welcome comments from 

the public on any of USDA’s regulations 

and ways to improve them to help 

USDA agencies advance the mission of 

the Department consistent with the 

Executive Order. USDA notes that this 

RFI is issued solely for information and 

program-planning purposes. While 

responses to this RFI do not bind USDA 

to any further actions related to the 

response, all submissions will be made 

publicly available on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Thomas J. Vilsack, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05742 Filed 3–16–15; 08:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–90–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–NOA–0013] 

Energy Conservation Program: Data 

Collection and Comparison With 

Forecasted Unit Sales of Five Lamp 

Types 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is informing the public of 

its collection of shipment data and 

creation of spreadsheet models to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13792 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1The notices and related documents for the 2008 

analysis and successive annual comparisons, 

including this NODA, are available through the 

DOE Web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/

productid/63. 

provide comparisons between actual 

and benchmark estimate unit sales of 

five lamp types (i.e., rough service 

lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way 

incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen 

general service incandescent lamps, and 

shatter-resistant lamps) that are 

currently exempt from energy 

conservation standards. As the actual 

sales do not exceed the forecasted 

estimate by 100 percent for any lamp 

type (i.e., the threshold triggering a 

rulemaking for an energy conservation 

standard), DOE has determined that no 

regulatory action is necessary at this 

time. However, DOE will continue to 

track sales data for these exempted 

lamps. Relating to this activity, DOE has 

prepared, and is making available on its 

Web site, a spreadsheet showing the 

comparisons of anticipated versus 

actual sales, as well as the model used 

to generate the original sales estimates. 

The spreadsheet is available online at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/product.aspx/

productid/63. 

DATES: As of March 17, 2015, DOE has 

determined that no regulatory action is 

necessary at this time. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Lucy deButts, 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) 287–1604. Email: five_

lamp_types@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Definitions 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

III. Comparison Methodology 

IV. Comparison Results 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

V. Conclusion 

I. Background 

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. 

L. 110–140) was enacted on December 

19, 2007. Among the requirements of 

subtitle B (Lighting Energy Efficiency) of 

title III of EISA 2007 were provisions 

directing DOE to collect, analyze, and 

monitor unit sales of five lamp types 

(i.e., rough service lamps, vibration 

service lamps, 3-way incandescent 

lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen general 

service incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps). In relevant part, 

section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 325(l) of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 

(EPCA) by adding paragraph (4)(B), 

which generally directs DOE, in 

consultation with the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA), to: 

(1) Collect unit sales data for each of the 

five lamp types for calendar years 1990 

through 2006 in order to determine the 

historical growth rate for each lamp 

type; and (2) construct a model for each 

of the five lamp types 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 EISA 2007 also amends 

section 325(l) of EPCA by adding 

paragraph (4)(C), which, in relevant 

part, directs DOE to collect unit sales 

data for calendar years 2010 through 

2025, in consultation with NEMA, for 

each of the five lamp types. DOE must 

then: (1) Compare the actual lamp sales 

in that year with the benchmark 

estimate; (2) determine if the unit sales 

projection has been exceeded; and (3) 

issue the findings within 90 days of the 

end of the analyzed calendar year. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(C)) 

On December 18, 2008, DOE issued a 

notice of data availability (NODA) for 

the Report on Data Collection and 

Estimated Future Unit Sales of Five 

Lamp Types (hereafter the ‘‘2008 

analysis’’), which was published in the 

Federal Register on December 24, 2008. 

73 FR 79072. The 2008 analysis 

presented the 1990 through 2006 

shipment data collected in consultation 

with NEMA, the spreadsheet model 

DOE constructed for each lamp type, 

and the benchmark unit sales estimates 

for 2010 through 2025. On April 4, 

2011, DOE published a NODA in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

availability of updated spreadsheet 

models presenting the benchmark 

estimates from the 2008 analysis and the 

collected sales data from 2010 for the 

first annual comparison. 76 FR 18425. 

Similarly, DOE published NODAs in the 

Federal Register in the following three 

years announcing the updated 

spreadsheet models and sales data for 

the annual comparisons. 77 FR 16183 

(March 20, 2012); 78 FR 15891 (March 

13, 2013); 79 FR 15058 (March 18, 

2014). This NODA presents the fifth 

annual comparison; specifically, section 

IV of this report compares the actual 

unit sales against benchmark unit sales 

estimates for 2014.1

EISA 2007 also amends section 325(l) 

of EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) 

through (4)(H), which state that if DOE 

finds that the unit sales for a given lamp 

type in any year between 2010 and 2025 

exceed the benchmark estimate of unit 

sales by at least 100 percent (i.e., more 

than double the anticipated sales), then 

DOE must take regulatory action to 

establish an energy conservation 

standard for such lamps. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(4)(D) through (H)) For 2,601– 

3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamps, DOE must adopt a 

statutorily prescribed energy 

conservation standard. For the other 

four types of lamps, the statute requires 

DOE to initiate an accelerated 

rulemaking to establish energy 

conservation standards. If the Secretary 

does not complete the accelerated 

rulemakings within one year of the end 

of the previous calendar year, there is a 

‘‘backstop requirement’’ for each lamp 

type, which would establish energy 

conservation standard levels and related 

requirements by statute. Id. 

As in the 2008 analysis and previous 

comparisons, DOE uses manufacturer 

shipments as a surrogate for unit sales 

in this NODA because manufacturer 

shipment data are tracked and 

aggregated by the trade organization, 

NEMA. DOE believes that annual 

shipments track closely with actual unit 

sales of these five lamp types, as DOE 

presumes that retailer inventories 

remain constant from year to year. DOE 

believes this is a reasonable assumption 

because the markets for these five lamp 

types have existed for many years, 

thereby enabling manufacturers and 

retailers to establish appropriate 

inventory levels that reflect market 

demand. In addition, increasing unit 

sales must eventually result in 

increasing manufacturer shipments. 

This is the same methodology presented 

in DOE’s 2008 analysis and subsequent 

annual comparisons, and the 

Department did not receive any 

comments challenging this assumption 

or the general approach. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 13793 

2 ‘‘The term ‘general service incandescent lamp’ 

means a standard incandescent or halogen type 

lamp that—(I) is intended for general service 

applications; (II) has a medium screw base; (III) has 

a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not 

more than 2,600 lumens or, in the case of a 

modified spectrum lamp, not less than 232 lumens 

and not more than 1,950 lumens; and (IV) is capable 

of being operated at a voltage range at least partially 

within 110 and 130 volts.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(D)(i)). 

3The Federal Trade Commission issued the lamp 

labeling requirements in 1994 (see 59 FR 25176 

(May 13, 1994)). Further amendments were made to 

the lamp labeling requirements in 2007 (see 16 CFR 

305.15(b); 72 FR 49948, 49971–72 (August 29, 

2007)). The package must display the lamp’s light 

output (in lumens), energy use (in watts), and lamp 

life (in hours). 

II. Definitions 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 321(30) of EPCA by 

adding the definition of a ‘‘rough service 

lamp.’’ The statutory definition reads as 

follows: ‘‘The term ‘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 

[Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America] 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)) 

As noted above, rough service 

incandescent lamps must have a 

minimum of five filament support wires 

(not counting the two connecting leads 

at the beginning and end of the 

filament), and must be designated and 

marketed for ‘‘rough service’’ 

applications. This type of incandescent 

lamp is typically used in applications 

where the lamp would be subject to 

mechanical shock or vibration while it 

is operating. Standard incandescent 

lamps have only two support wires 

(which also serve as conductors), one at 

each end of the filament coil. When 

operating (i.e., when the tungsten 

filament is glowing so hot that it emits 

light), a standard incandescent lamp’s 

filament is brittle, and rough service 

applications could cause it to break 

prematurely. To address this problem, 

lamp manufacturers developed lamp 

designs that incorporate additional 

support wires along the length of the 

filament to ensure that it has support 

not just at each end, but at several other 

points as well. The additional support 

protects the filament during operation 

and enables longer operating life for 

incandescent lamps in rough service 

applications. Typical applications for 

these rough service lamps might include 

commercial hallways and stairwells, 

gyms, storage areas, and security areas. 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 321(30) of EPCA by 

adding the definition of a ‘‘vibration 

service lamp.’’ The statutory definition 

reads as follows: ‘‘The term ‘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 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)) 

The statute mentions three examples 

of filament configurations for vibration 

service lamps in Figure 6–12 of the 

IESNA Lighting Handbook, one of 

which (i.e., C–7A) is also listed in the 

statutory definition of ‘‘rough service 

lamp.’’ The definition of ‘‘vibration 

service lamp’’ requires that such lamps 

have a maximum wattage of 60 watts 

and be sold at a retail level in packages 

of two lamps or fewer. Similar to rough 

service lamps, vibration service lamps 

must be designated and marketed for 

vibration service or vibration-resistant 

applications. As the name suggests, this 

type of incandescent lamp is generally 

used in applications where the 

incandescent lamp would be subject to 

a continuous low level of vibration, 

such as in a ceiling fan light kit. In such 

applications, standard incandescent 

lamps without additional filament 

support wires may not achieve the full 

rated life, because the filament wire is 

brittle and would be subject to breakage 

at typical operating temperature. To 

address this problem, lamp 

manufacturers typically use a more 

malleable tungsten filament to avoid 

damage and short circuits between coils. 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 321(30) of EPCA by 

adding the definition of a ‘‘3-way 

incandescent lamp.’’ The statutory 

definition reads as follows: ‘‘The term 

‘3-way incandescent lamp’ includes an 

incandescent lamp that—(i) employs 2 

filaments, operated separately and in 

combination, to provide 3 light levels; 

and (ii) is designated on the lamp 

packaging and marketing materials as 

being a 3-way incandescent lamp.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(Y)) 

Three-way lamps are commonly 

found in wattage combinations such as 

50, 100, and 150 watts or 30, 70, and 

100 watts. These lamps use two 

filaments (e.g., a 30-watt and a 70-watt 

filament) and can be operated separately 

or together to produce three different 

lumen outputs (e.g., 305 lumens with 

one filament, 995 lumens with the 

other, or 1,300 lumens using the 

filaments together). When used in threeway sockets, these lamps allow users to 

control the light level. Three-way 

incandescent lamps are typically used 

in residential multi-purpose areas, 

where consumers may adjust the light 

level to be appropriate for the task they 

are performing. 

D. 2,601—3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

The statute does not provide a 

definition of ‘‘2,601–3,300 Lumen 

General Service Incandescent Lamps’’; 

however, DOE is interpreting this term 

to be a general service incandescent 

lamp 2 that emits light between 2,601 

and 3,300 lumens. Lamps on the market 

that emit light within this lumen range 

are immediately recognizable because, 

as required by the Energy Policy Act of 

1992, Public Law 102–486, all general 

service incandescent lamps must be 

labeled with lamp lumen output.3 These 

lamps are used in general service 

applications when high light output is 

needed. 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 321(30) of EPCA by 

adding the definition of a ‘‘shatterresistant lamp, shatter-proof lamp, or 

shatter-protected lamp.’’ The statutory 

definition reads as follows: ‘‘The terms 

‘shatter-resistant lamp,’ ‘shatter-proof 

lamp,’ and ‘shatter-protected lamp’ 

mean a lamp that—(i) has a coating or 

equivalent technology that is compliant 

with [National Sanitation Foundation/

American National Standards Institute] 

NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to contain 

the glass if the glass envelope of the 

lamp is broken; and (ii) is designated 

and marketed for the intended 

application, with—(I) the designation on 

the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing 

materials that identify the lamp as being 

shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or 

shatter-protected.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(Z)) Although the definition 

provides three names commonly used to 

refer to these lamps, DOE simply refers 

to them collectively as ‘‘shatter-resistant 

lamps.’’ 

Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a 

special coating designed to prevent glass 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13794 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

4NSF/ANSI 51 applies specifically to materials 

and coatings used in the manufacturing of 

equipment and objects destined for contact with 

foodstuffs. 

5The least squares function is an analytical tool 

that DOE uses to minimize the sum of the squared 

residual differences between the actual historical 

data points and the modeled value (i.e., the linear 

curve fit). In minimizing this value, the resulting 

curve fit will represent the best fit possible to the 

data provided. 

6This selection is consistent with the previous 

annual comparisons. See DOE’s 2008 forecast 

spreadsheet models of the lamp types for greater 

detail on the estimates. 

shards from being dispersed if a lamp’s 

glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant 

lamps incorporate a coating compliant 

with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,4

‘‘Food Equipment Materials,’’ and are 

labeled and marketed as shatterresistant, shatter-proof, or shatterprotected. Some types of the coatings 

can also protect the lamp from breakage 

in applications subject to heat and 

thermal shock that may occur from 

water, sleet, snow, soldering, or 

welding. 

III. Comparison Methodology 

In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed 

each of the five sets of shipment data 

that was collected in consultation with 

NEMA and applied two curve fits to 

generate unit sales estimates for the five 

lamp types after calendar year 2006. 

One curve fit applied a linear regression 

to the historical data and extended that 

line into the future. The other curve fit 

applied an exponential growth function 

to the shipment data and projected unit 

sales into the future. For this 

calculation, linear regression treats the 

year as a dependent variable and 

shipments as the independent variable. 

The linear regression curve fit is 

modeled by minimizing the differences 

among the data points and the best 

curve-fit linear line using the least 

squares function.5 The exponential 

curve fit is also a regression function 

and uses the same least squares function 

to find the best fit. For some data sets, 

an exponential curve provides a better 

characterization of the historical data, 

and, therefore, a better projection of the 

future data. 

For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601– 

3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE found that the 

linear regression and exponential 

growth curve fits produced nearly the 

same estimates of unit sales (i.e., the 

difference between the two forecasted 

values was less than 1 or 2 percent). 

However, for rough service and 

vibration service lamps, the linear 

regression curve fit projected lamp unit 

sales would decline to zero for both 

lamp types by 2018. In contrast, the 

exponential growth curve fit projected a 

more gradual decline in unit sales, such 

that lamps would still be sold beyond 

2018, and it was, therefore, considered 

the more realistic forecast. While DOE 

was satisfied that either the linear 

regression or exponential growth 

spreadsheet model generated a 

reasonable benchmark unit sales 

estimate for 3-way incandescent lamps, 

2,601–3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE selected the 

exponential growth curve fit for these 

lamp types for consistency with the 

selection made for rough service and 

vibration service lamps.6 DOE examines 

the benchmark unit sales estimates and 

actual sales for each of the five lamp 

types in the following section and also 

makes the comparisons available in a 

spreadsheet online: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/product.aspx/

productid/63. 

IV. Comparison Results 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

For rough service lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 5,224,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 7,267,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding exceeds the estimate by 

only 39.1 percent, DOE will continue to 

track rough service lamp sales data and 

will not initiate regulatory action for 

this lamp type at this time. 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

For vibration service lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 2,729,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 5,220,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding exceeds the estimate by 

only 91.3 percent, DOE will continue to 

track vibration service lamp sales data 

and will not initiate regulatory action 

for this lamp type at this time. 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

For 3-way incandescent lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 49,107,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 35,340,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding is only 72.0 percent of 

the estimate, DOE will continue to track 

3-way incandescent lamp sales data and 

will not initiate regulatory action for 

this lamp type at this time. 

D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

For 2,601–3,300 lumen general 

service incandescent lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 34,110,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 5,232,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding is 15.3 percent of the 

estimate, DOE will continue to track 

2,601–3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamp sales data and will 

not initiate regulatory action for this 

lamp type at this time. 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

For shatter-resistant lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2014 to be 1,671,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 1,042,000 units in 2014. 

As this finding is only 62.4 percent of 

the estimate, DOE will continue to track 

shatter-resistant lamp sales data and 

will not initiate regulatory action for 

this lamp type at this time. 

V. Conclusion 

None of the shipments for rough 

service lamps, vibration service lamps, 

3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 

lumen general service incandescent 

lamps, or shatter-resistant lamps crossed 

the statutory threshold for a standard. 

DOE will continue to monitor these five 

currently exempted lamp types and will 

assess 2015 sales by March 31, 2016, in 

order to determine whether an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking is 

required, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(4)(D) through (H). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 

2015. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05947 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 63, 

70, 71, and 72 

[Docket Nos. PRM–50–107; NRC–2013– 

0077] 

Requirement To Submit Complete and 

Accurate Information 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS