[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27439-27461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09477]



========================================================================
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. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and 
Regulations

[[Page 27439]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2021-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AF09


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
General Service Lamps

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is 
codifying in the Code of Federal Regulations the 45 lumens per watt 
(``lm/W'') backstop requirement for general service lamps (``GSLs'') 
that Congress prescribed in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as 
amended. DOE has determined this backstop requirement applies because 
DOE failed to complete a rulemaking regarding GSLs in accordance with 
certain statutory criteria. This final rule represents a departure from 
DOE's previous determination published in 2019 that the backstop 
requirement was not triggered.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for 
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed 
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in 
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0005. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#024372726e6b636c61675176636c666370667153776771766b6d6c714267672c666d672c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99d8e9e9f5f0f8f7fafccaedf8f7fdf8ebfdeac8ecfceaedf0f6f7ead9fcfcb7fdf6fcb7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1943. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce8fbebea2a7afa0adab9dbaafa0aaafbcaabd9fbbabbdbaa7a1a0bd8eababe0aaa1abe0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84c5f4f4e8ede5eae7e1d7f0e5eae0e5f6e0f7d5f1e1f7f0edebeaf7c4e1e1aae0ebe1aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c0f2920252d621f24293e0c243d62282329622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cf8caaa3a6aee19ca7aabd8fa7bee1aba0aae1a8a0b9">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. March 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and October 2016 
Notice of Proposed Definition and Data Availability
    C. January 2017 Final Rules
    D. September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and December 2019 Final 
Determination
    E. Subsequent Review
II. Final Rule
    A. Statutory Backstop Requirement
    1. Prior Consideration of the Backstop Requirement
    a. Prior to the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule
    b. September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and the December 2019 Final 
Determination
    2. Proposed Determination Regarding Operation of the Backstop 
Requirement
    3. Discussion of Comments and Final Determination Regarding 
Operation of the Backstop
    B. Scope of Backstop Requirement
    C. Implementation and Enforcement
    1. Prompt Enforcement
    2. Phased-In Enforcement
    3. Consumer Education
    D. Impacts
    1. Market Trends and Energy Savings
    2. Benefits and Costs
    3. Features of LED Lamps
    4. Potential Health and Safety Concerns
III. Conclusion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
    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
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical 
background related to the statutory backstop requirement.

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6309) These products include GSLs, the subject of this document. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA directs DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate 
energy conservation standards for GSLs.\3\ (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-
(B)) For the first rulemaking cycle, EPCA directs DOE to initiate a 
rulemaking process prior to January 1, 2014, to determine whether: (1) 
To amend energy conservation standards for GSLs and (2) the

[[Page 27440]]

exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or 
discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) The rulemaking is not 
limited to incandescent lamp technologies and must include a 
consideration of a minimum standard of 45 lm/W for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) EPCA provides that if the Secretary determines that 
the standards in effect for general service incandescent lamps 
(``GSIL'') should be amended, a final rule must be published by January 
1, 2017, with a compliance date at least 3 years after the date on 
which the final rule is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii)) The 
Secretary must also consider phased-in effective dates after 
considering certain manufacturer and retailer impacts. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(iv)) If DOE fails to complete a rulemaking in accordance 
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), or if a final rule from the first 
rulemaking cycle does not produce savings greater than or equal to the 
savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W, the statute 
provides a ``backstop'' under which DOE must prohibit sales of GSLs 
that do not meet a minimum 45 lm/W standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ GSLs are defined in EPCA to include GSILs, compact 
fluorescent lamps (``CFLs''), general service light-emitting diode 
(``LED'') lamps and organic light emitting diode (``OLED'') lamps, 
and any other lamps that the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) 
determines are used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally 
served by general service incandescent lamps. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB)(i)) The term ``general service lamp'' does not include 
any of the 22 lighting applications or bulb shapes explicitly not 
included in the definition of ``general service incandescent lamp,'' 
or any general service fluorescent lamp or incandescent reflector 
lamp. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA further directs DOE to initiate a second rulemaking cycle by 
January 1, 2020, to determine whether standards in effect for GSILs 
(which are a subset of GSLs)) should be amended with more stringent 
maximum wattage requirements than EPCA specifies, and whether the 
exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or 
discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)) As in the first rulemaking 
cycle, the scope of the second rulemaking is not limited to 
incandescent lamp technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii))

B. March 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and October 2016 Notice of 
Proposed Definition and Data Availability

    Pursuant to its statutory authority, DOE published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') on March 17, 2016, that addressed the 
first question that Congress directed it to consider--whether to amend 
energy conservation standards for GSLs (``March 2016 NOPR''). 81 FR 
14528, 14629-14630 (Mar. 17, 2016). In the March 2016 NOPR, DOE stated 
that it would be unable to undertake any analysis regarding GSILs and 
other incandescent lamps because of a then-applicable congressional 
restriction (``the Appropriations Rider''). See 81 FR 14528, 14540-
14541. The Appropriations Rider prohibited expenditure of funds 
appropriated by that law to implement or enforce: (1) 10 Code of 
Federal Regulations (``CFR'') 430.32(x), which includes maximum wattage 
and minimum rated lifetime requirements for GSILs; and (2) standards 
set forth in section 325(i)(1)(B) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)), 
which sets minimum lamp efficiency ratings for incandescent reflector 
lamps (``IRLs''). Under the Appropriations Rider, DOE was restricted 
from undertaking the analysis required to address the first question 
presented by Congress, but was not so limited in addressing the second 
question--that is, DOE was not prevented from determining whether the 
exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or 
discontinued. To address that second question, DOE published a Notice 
of Proposed Definition and Data Availability (``NOPDDA''), which 
proposed to amend the definitions of GSIL, GSL, and related terms 
(``October 2016 NOPDDA''). 81 FR 71794, 71815 (Oct. 18, 2016). Notably, 
the Appropriations Rider, which was originally adopted in 2011 and 
readopted and extended continuously in multiple subsequent legislative 
actions, expired on May 5, 2017, when the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2017 was enacted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31, 
div. D, tit. III); see also Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 
(Pub. L. 115-141).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. January 2017 Final Rules

    On January 19, 2017, DOE published two final rules concerning the 
definitions of GSL, GSIL, and related terms (``January 2017 Definition 
Final Rules''). 82 FR 7276; 82 FR 7322. The January 2017 Definition 
Final Rules amended the definitions of GSIL and GSL by bringing certain 
categories of lamps that had been excluded by statute from the 
definition of GSIL within the definitions of GSIL and GSL. DOE 
determined to use two final rules in 2017 to amend the definitions of 
GSIL and GSLs in order to address the majority of the definition 
changes in one final rule and the exemption for IRLs in the second 
final rule. These two rules were issued simultaneously, with the first 
rule eschewing a determination regarding the existing exemption for 
IRLs in the definition of GSL and the second rulemaking discontinuing 
that exemption from the GSL definition. 82 FR 7276, 7312; 82 FR 7322, 
7323. As in the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE stated that the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules related only to the second question that 
Congress directed DOE to consider, regarding whether to maintain or 
discontinue ``exemptions'' for certain incandescent lamps. 82 FR 7276, 
7277; 82 FR 7322, 7324 (See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)). That 
is, neither of the two final rules issued on January 19, 2017, 
established energy conservation standards applicable to GSLs. DOE 
explained that the Appropriations Rider prevented it from establishing, 
or even analyzing, standards for GSILs. 82 FR 7276, 7278. Instead, DOE 
explained that it would either impose standards for GSLs in the future 
pursuant to its authority to develop GSL standards, or apply the 
backstop standard prohibiting the sale of lamps not meeting a 45 lm/W 
efficacy standard. 82 FR 7276, 7277-7278. The two final rules were to 
become effective as of January 1, 2020.

D. September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and December 2019 Final Determination

    On March 17, 2017, the National Electrical Manufacturer's 
Association (``NEMA'') filed a petition for review of the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 
Circuit. National Electrical Manufacturers Association v. United States 
Department of Energy, No. 17-1341. NEMA claimed that DOE ``amend[ed] 
the statutory definition of `general service lamp' to include lamps 
that Congress expressly stated were `not include[d]' in the 
definition'' and adopted an ``unreasonable and unlawful interpretation 
of the statutory definition.'' Pet. 2. Prior to merits briefing, the 
parties reached a settlement agreement under which DOE agreed, in part, 
to issue a notice of data availability requesting data for GSILs and 
other incandescent lamps to assist DOE in determining whether standards 
for GSILs should be amended (the first question of the rulemaking 
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)).
    With the removal of the Appropriations Rider in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2017, DOE was no longer restricted from undertaking 
the analysis and decision-making required to address the first question 
presented by Congress, i.e., whether to amend energy conservation 
standards for general service lamps, including GSILs. Thus, on August 
15, 2017, DOE published a notice of data availability and request for 
information (``NODA'') seeking data for GSILs and other incandescent 
lamps (``August 2017 NODA''). 82 FR 38613.
    The purpose of the August 2017 NODA was to assist DOE in 
determining whether standards for GSILs should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(I)) Comments submitted in response to the August 2017 
NODA also led DOE to re-

[[Page 27441]]

consider the decisions it had already made with respect to the second 
question presented to DOE--whether the exemptions for certain 
incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. 84 FR 3120, 
3122 (See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)) As a result of the 
comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA, DOE also re-
assessed the legal interpretations underlying certain decisions made in 
the January 2017 Definition Final Rules. Id.
    On February 11, 2019, DOE published a NOPR proposing to withdraw 
the revised definitions of GSL, GSIL, and the new and revised 
definitions of related terms that were to go into effect on January 1, 
2020 (``February 2019 Definition NOPR''). 84 FR 3120. In a final rule 
published September 5, 2019, DOE finalized the withdrawal of the 
definitions in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules and maintained 
the existing regulatory definitions of GSL and GSIL, which are the same 
as the statutory definitions of those terms (``September 2019 
Withdrawal Rule''). 84 FR 46661. The September 2019 Withdrawal Rule 
revisited the same primary question addressed in the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules, namely, the statutory requirement for DOE to 
determine whether ``the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps 
should be maintained or discontinued.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) 
(See also 84 FR 46661, 46667). In the rule, DOE also addressed its 
interpretation of the statutory backstop at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) 
and concluded the backstop had not been triggered. 84 FR 46661, 46663-
46664. DOE reasoned that 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii) ``does not 
establish an absolute obligation on the Secretary to publish a rule by 
a date certain.'' 84 FR 46661, 46663. ``Rather, the obligation to issue 
a final rule prescribing standards by a date certain applies if, and 
only if, the Secretary makes a determination that standards in effect 
for GSILs need to be amended.'' Id. DOE further stated that, since it 
had not yet made the predicate determination on whether to amend 
standards for GSILs, the obligation to issue a final rule by a date 
certain did not yet exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to 
the potential imposition of the backstop requirement did not yet exist 
and no backstop requirement had yet been triggered. Id. at 84 FR 46664.
    Similar to the January 2017 Definition Final Rules, the September 
2019 Withdrawal Rule clarified that DOE was not determining whether 
standards for GSLs, including GSILs, should be amended. DOE stated it 
would make that determination in a separate rulemaking. Id. at 84 FR 
46662. DOE initiated that separate rulemaking by publishing a notice of 
proposed determination (``NOPD'') on September 5, 2019, regarding 
whether standards for GSILs should be amended (``September 2019 
NOPD''). 84 FR 46830. In conducting its analysis for that notice, DOE 
used the data and comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA 
and relevant data and comments received in response to the February 
2019 Definition NOPR, and DOE tentatively determined that the current 
standards for GSILS do not need to be amended because more stringent 
standards are not economically justified. Id. at 84 FR 46831. DOE 
finalized that tentative determination on December 27, 2019 (``December 
2019 Final Determination''). 84 FR 71626. DOE also concluded in the 
December 2019 Final Determination that, because it had made the 
predicate determination not to amend standards for GSILs, there was no 
obligation to issue a final rule by January 1, 2017, and, as a result, 
the backstop requirement had not been triggered. Id. at 84 FR 71636.
    Two petitions for review were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule. 
The first petition was filed by 15 States,\5\ New York City, and the 
District of Columbia. See New York v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 
19-3652 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019). The second petition was filed by 
six organizations \6\ that included environmental, consumer, and public 
housing tenant groups. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. 
Department of Energy, No. 19-3658 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019). The 
petitions were subsequently consolidated. Merits briefing has been 
concluded, but the case has not been argued or submitted to the Circuit 
panel for decision. The case has been in abeyance since March 2021, 
pending further rulemaking by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The petitioning States are the States of New York, 
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, 
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and 
Washington and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    \6\ The petitioning organizations are the Natural Resource 
Defense Council, Sierra Club, Consumer Federation of America, 
Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants, Environment America, 
and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in two separate petitions also filed in the Second 
Circuit, groups of petitioners that were essentially identical to those 
that filed the lawsuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule 
challenged the December 2019 Final Determination. See Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-699 (2d Cir., 
filed Feb, 25, 2020); New York v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-743 
(2d Cir., filed Feb. 28, 2020). On April 2, 2020, those cases were put 
into abeyance pending the outcome of the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule 
petitions.

E. Subsequent Review

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 
(``E.O.'') 13990, ``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and 
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 
2021). Section 1 of that Order lists a number of policies related to 
the protection of public health and the environment, including reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering the Nation's resilience to 
climate change. Id. at 7041. Section 2 of the Order instructs all 
agencies to review ``existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, 
policies, and any other similar agency actions promulgated, issued, or 
adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or may 
be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, [these policies].'' Id. 
Agencies are then directed, as appropriate and consistent with 
applicable law, to consider suspending, revising, or rescinding these 
agency actions and to immediately commence work to confront the climate 
crisis. Id.
    In accordance with E.O. 13990, on May 25, 2021, DOE published a 
request for information (``RFI'') initiating a re-evaluation of its 
prior determination that the Secretary was not required to implement 
the statutory backstop requirement for GSLs (``May 2021 RFI''). 86 FR 
28001. DOE solicited information regarding the availability of lamps 
that would satisfy a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W, as well 
other information that may be relevant to a possible implementation of 
the statutory backstop. Id. On December 13, 2021, DOE published a NOPR 
proposing to codify in the CFR the 45 lm/W backstop requirement for 
GSLs and welcomed comments on the proposal (``December 2021 NOPR''). 86 
FR 70755.
    DOE received comments in response to the December 2021 NOPR from 
the interested parties listed in Table I.1.

[[Page 27442]]



  Table I.1--Written Comments Received in Response to the December 2021
                                  NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Commenter(s)               Abbreviation       Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Lighting Association....  ALA...............  Trade
                                                        Association.
Amy Glass........................  Glass.............  Individual
                                                        commenter.
Anonymous........................  Anonymous.........  Individual
                                                        commenter.
Anonymous........................  Anonymous.........  Individual
                                                        commenter.
Anonymous........................  Anonymous.........  Individual
                                                        commenter.
Anonymous........................  Anonymous.........  Individual
                                                        commenter.
Anonymous........................  Anonymous.........  Individual
                                                        commenter.
Appliance Standards Awareness      ASAP et al........  Energy Efficiency
 Project, American Council for an                       Organization;
 Energy-Efficient Economy,                              State Official/
 Alliance of Nurses for Healthy                         Agency.
 Environments, Alliance to Save
 Energy, The California
 Efficiency + Demand Management
 Council, Center for Biological
 Diversity, Climate Smart
 Missoula, Colorado Energy
 Office, Consumer Federation of
 America, E4TheFuture, Energy
 Efficiency Alliance of New
 Jersey, Campaign for 100%
 Renewable Energy, Environment
 America, Evergreen Action, Green
 Energy Consumers Alliance,
 Interfaith Power & Light, Maine
 Department of Environmental
 Protection, Montana
 Environmental Information
 Center, National Consumer Law
 Center, Northeast Energy
 Efficiency Partnership, Nevada
 Governor's Office of Energy,
 Nevada Legislature, New
 Buildings Institute, Northwest
 Energy Coalition, Carbon-Free
 Buildings RMI, Southwest Energy
 Efficiency Project (``SWEEP''),
 Urban Green Council, Utah Clean
 Energy, Vermont Energy
 Investment Corporation,
 Washington Department of
 Commerce.
Attorneys General of New York,     Attorneys General.  State Official/
 California, Colorado, Illinois,                        Agency.
 Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
 Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,
 New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont,
 Washington, The Commonwealth of
 Massachusetts, The District of
 Columbia, and The City of New
 York.
California Energy Commission.....  CEC...............  State Official/
                                                        Agency.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,  CA IOUs...........  Utilities.
 San Diego Gas & Electric
 Company, Southern California
 Edison.
Center for Energy and Environment  Free Market         Consumer Advocacy
 Competitive Enterprise             Organizations.      Organizations.
 Institute, Regulatory Action
 Center FreedomWorks Foundation,
 JunkScience.com, Project 21,
 Center for Energy &
 Environmental Policy Caesar
 Rodney Institute, Rio Grande
 Foundation, The Cornwall
 Alliance for the Stewardship of
 Creation, Americans for Limited
 Government, Institute for Energy
 Research, National Center for
 Public Policy Research,
 Roughrider Policy Center, 60
 Plus Association, Independent
 Women's Forum, Committee for a
 Constructive Tomorrow,
 Independent Women's Voice.
Consumer Federation of America,    CFA and NCLC......  Consumer Advocacy
 The National Consumer Law Center.                      Organizations.
David Maier......................  Maier.............  Individual
                                                        commenter.
David Walton.....................  Walton............  Individual
                                                        commenter.
Edison Electric Institute........  EEI...............  Utilities.
GE Lighting, a Savant Company....  GE Lighting.......  Manufacturer.
Institute for Policy Integrity     IPI et al.........  Energy Efficiency
 (``IPI'') at NYU School of Law,                        Organizations.
 Montana Environmental
 Information Center, Natural
 Resources Defense Council,
 Sierra Club, Union of Concerned
 Scientists.
Jean Sherman.....................  Sherman...........  Individual
                                                        commenter.
Lutron Electronics Co., Inc......  Lutron............  Manufacturer.
Minimise USA.....................  Minimise USA......  Energy Efficiency
                                                        Services
                                                        Company.
National Association of State      NASEO.............  State Official/
 Energy Officials.                                      Agency.
National Electrical Manufacturers  NEMA..............  Trade
 Association.                                           Association.
National Retail Federation,        NRF and RILA......  Trade
 Retail Industry Leaders                                Association.
 Association.
New York State Energy Research     NYSERDA...........  State Official/
 and Development Authority.                             Agency.
Northwest Energy Efficiency        NEEA..............  Energy Efficiency
 Alliance.                                              Organization.
Northwest Power and Conservation   NPC Council.......  State
 Council.                                               Organization.
Project 21--National Research for  Project 21........  Research
 Public Policy Research.                                Organization.
Sierra Club, National Resources    SC, NRDC, and EJ..  Energy Efficiency
 Defense Council, Earthjustice.                         Organizations.
VALU Home Centers................  VALU Home Centers.  Retailer.
William Hough....................  Hough.............  Individual
                                                        commenter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments received on the December 2021 NOPR are summarized and 
addressed in the following section. A parenthetical reference at the 
end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the 
item in the public record.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's re-evaluation of the 
statutory backstop for GSLs. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-STD-0005, 
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are 
arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number at 
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE has determined that the 45 lm/W backstop 
requirement for GSLs at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) has been triggered 
because of DOE's failure to complete the first phase of

[[Page 27443]]

rulemaking in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), and 
because the final rules that DOE published did not produce savings that 
are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy 
standard of 45 lm/W. As a result of this failure to complete certain 
rulemakings, EPCA dictates that DOE prohibit sales of GSLs that do not 
meet a minimum 45 lm/W standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v))

A. Statutory Backstop Requirement

    As described in section I.A of this document, EPCA specifies 
several criteria that DOE must adhere to in its first rulemaking cycle 
for GSLs. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv)) If DOE fails to 
complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv) of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) or if the final rule does not produce savings that 
are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy 
standard of 45 lm/W, clause (v) requires DOE to prohibit sales of lamps 
with an efficacy below 45 lm/W ``effective beginning January 1, 2020.''
1. Prior Consideration of the Backstop Requirement
a. Prior to the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule
    In the March 2016 NOPR proposing energy conservation standards for 
GSLs, DOE explicitly addressed the backstop provision at 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v). 81 FR 14528 (March 17, 2016). Specifically, DOE 
stated that due to the Appropriations Rider, DOE was unable to perform 
the analysis required in clause (i) of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) and as a 
result, the backstop in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) is automatically 
triggered. 81 FR 14528, 14540. DOE reiterated that it was not 
considering GSILs, including exclusions or exemptions, in the 
rulemaking due to the Appropriations Rider. 81 FR 14528, 14582. DOE 
further explained that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v), if it failed 
to (1) complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through 
(iv), which included determining whether the exemptions for certain 
incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued, or (2) publish 
a final rule that would meet or exceed the energy savings associated 
with the statutory 45 lm/W requirement, then the backstop would be 
triggered beginning January 1, 2020. Id. Thus, in the March 2016 NOPR, 
DOE assumed that the backstop would be triggered beginning January 1, 
2020. Id. Further, DOE stated that lamps that meet the proposed GSL 
definition would be subject to the 45 lm/W efficacy level and estimated 
an associated energy savings of approximately 3 quadrillion Btu 
(``quads'') for lamps sold in 2020-2049 and a carbon reduction of 
approximately 200 million metric tons by 2030. 81 FR 14528, 14534.
    In the January 2017 Definition Final Rules, DOE did not interpret 
paragraph (6)(A) as requiring DOE to establish amended standards for 
GSLs. 82 FR 7276, 7283. DOE stated that clause (v) expressly 
contemplates the possibility that DOE would not finalize a rule that 
develops alternative standards for GSLs. Id. In these rules, DOE did 
not make any determination regarding standards for GSLs. 82 FR 7278, 
7316. DOE acknowledged that the backstop would go into effect if DOE 
failed to complete the rulemaking as prescribed by EPCA by January 1, 
2017, or the final rule did not produce savings that are greater than 
or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W. 
Id. While not explicitly stating its assumption that the backstop 
requirement would be triggered, DOE set a January 1, 2020, effective 
date for the definitions rule, which coincided with the effective date 
of the statutory backstop requirement. DOE also noted its commitment to 
working with manufacturers to ensure a successful transition if the 
backstop standard went into effect. To that end, on January 18, 2017, 
DOE issued a ``Statement Regarding Enforcement of 45 LPW General 
Service Lamp Standard'' (``January 2017 Enforcement Statement'') 
stating that EPCA requires that, effective beginning January 1, 2020, 
DOE shall prohibit the sale of any GSL that does not meet a minimum 
efficacy standard of 45 lm/W.\8\ In the enforcement statement, DOE 
advised that it could issue a policy that provides additional time 
allowing for the necessary flexibility for manufacturers to comply with 
the 45 lm/W standard. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2017/01/f34/Statement%20on%20Enforcement%20of%20GSL%20Standard%20-%201.18.2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and the December 2019 Final 
Determination
    In the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule, DOE concluded that the 
backstop requirement had not been triggered. 84 FR 46661, 46664. DOE 
stated that it initiated the first GSL standards rulemaking process by 
publishing a notice of availability of a framework document in December 
2013, satisfying the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i) to 
initiate a rulemaking by January 1, 2014. 84 46661, 46663. DOE further 
stated its belief that Congress intended for the Secretary to make a 
predicate determination about GSILs, and that the obligation to issue a 
final rule prescribing standards by a date certain applies if, and only 
if, the Secretary makes a determination that standards in effect for 
GSILs need to be amended. 84 FR 46661, 46663-46664. Since DOE had not 
yet made the predicate determination on whether to amend standards for 
GSILs, DOE found the obligation to issue a final rule by a date certain 
did not yet exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to the 
potential imposition of the backstop requirement did not yet exist and 
no backstop requirement had yet been triggered. Id.
    In the December 2019 Final Determination, DOE reiterated its 
interpretation that the statutory deadline for the Secretary to 
complete a rulemaking for GSILs in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii) does 
not establish an absolute obligation on the Secretary to publish a rule 
by a date certain. 84 FR 71626, 71635. Instead, DOE stated that this 
deadline applies only if the Secretary makes a determination that 
standards for GSILs should be amended. Id. at 84 FR 71636. Otherwise, 
DOE again stated, it could result in a situation where a prohibition is 
automatically triggered for a category of lamps for which no new 
standards, much less prohibition, are necessary. Id. In the December 
2019 Final Determination, since DOE made what it characterized as the 
predicate determination that standards for GSILs do not need to be 
amended, DOE found that the obligation to issue a final rule by a date 
certain did not exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to the 
potential imposition of the backstop requirement did not exist and no 
backstop requirement had been triggered. Id.
2. Proposed Determination Regarding Operation of the Backstop 
Requirement
    As presented in the December 2021 NOPR, Congress identified two 
circumstances that would trigger application of the backstop 
requirement: (1) If DOE ``fails to complete a rulemaking in accordance 
with clauses (i) through (iv)'' of section 6295(i)(6)(A); or (2) ``if 
the final rule'' promulgated under this rulemaking ``does not produce 
savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum 
efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.'' 86 FR 70755, 70760; 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v). In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively 
determined that the backstop requirement has been triggered because 
both of the foregoing circumstances have occurred. Id.

[[Page 27444]]

    DOE explained in the December 2021 NOPR that it failed to complete 
the first cycle of rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through 
(iv) of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) for at least two reasons. Id. The first 
reason is that DOE failed to complete this first GSL rulemaking in a 
timely manner. The structure of section 6295(i)(6)(A) reflects an 
expectation by Congress that by January 1, 2017, the outcome of DOE's 
GSL rulemaking would have been known, and, if either amended standards 
or the backstop were to be applicable, those would be in place no later 
than January 1, 2020. Id.
    DOE also stated in the December 2021 NOPR, that the position it 
advanced in the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and the December 2019 
Final Determination--namely, that the backstop provision is premised on 
the Secretary first making a determination that standards for GSILs 
should be amended and that the statute does not impose a deadline for 
the GSIL determination--fails to give meaning to all of the surrounding 
statutory text, as DOE is obligated to do. See 84 FR 46661, 46663-
46664; 84 FR 71626, 71635; see also 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii). DOE 
stated that in looking at the surrounding context of sections 
6295(i)(6)(A) and 6295(i)(6)(B), it is clear that Congress intended 
DOE's first GSL rulemaking to be completed by January 1, 2017--
primarily due to Congress providing interested parties a gap of time 
between the conclusion of this rulemaking and the deadline for 
compliance, thus giving interested parties time to adjust to any 
changes. Id.
    DOE explained in the December 2021 NOPR that in section 
6295(i)(6)(A), Congress explicitly contemplated two possible outcomes: 
(1) A final rule amending standards for GSLs, or (2) imposition of the 
backstop of 45 lm/W. Under the first scenario, DOE would have been 
obligated to publish a final rule by January 1, 2017, with an effective 
date no earlier than three years after publication--thereby giving 
manufacturers a three-year lead time to prepare for the changed 
standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii). Under the second scenario, 
the backstop would come into effect, but not until January 1, 2020--
giving manufacturers the same three-year lead time to adjust to the 
forthcoming efficacy standard of 45 lm/W. See Id. at 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v). 86 FR 70755, 70760-61.
    DOE further stated in the December 2021 NOPR that even if the 
statute contemplated a third possible scenario--a determination by DOE 
that standards for GSLs need not be amended under which the backstop 
was not triggered--it is clear from section 6295(i)(6)(A) that Congress 
expected this determination would be made no later than January 1, 
2017. 86 FR 70755, 70761.
    DOE also made the case in the December 2021 NOPR that this 
allowance for lead time is reflected in the preemption exception 
provision in section 6295(i)(6)(A)(vi), which gives California and 
Nevada the authority to adopt, with an effective date beginning January 
1, 2018 or after, either:
    (1) A final rule adopted by the Secretary in accordance with 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv);
    (2) If a final rule has not been adopted in accordance with 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), the backstop requirement under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v); or
    (3) In the case of California, if a final rule has not been adopted 
in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), any California 
regulations related to ``these covered products'' adopted pursuant to 
state statute in effect as of the date of enactment of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
    This provision allows California and Nevada to implement either a 
final DOE rule amending standards for GSLs or the 45 lm/W backstop 
standard on January 1, 2018, two years earlier than the rest of the 
country. This provision thus assumes that California and Nevada would 
have to have known whether DOE had completed a final rule amending 
standards for GSLs by January 1, 2017, so that manufacturers subject to 
standards in those states would have a practicable one-year lead time 
to comply. Id.
    Lastly, DOE stated in the December 2021 NOPR that Congress' mandate 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B) that DOE initiate the second cycle of 
rulemaking by January 1, 2020, coincides with a schedule in which 
standards are adopted (or the backstop is implicated by January 1, 
2017, with a minimum three-year lead time. Id.
    DOE also tentatively determined in the December 2021 NOPR that in 
addition to failing to complete the first cycle of rulemaking timely, 
the second reason why DOE's rulemaking was not ``in accordance with 
clauses (i) through (iv)'' of section 6295(i)(6)(A) is because DOE's 
rulemaking did not ``consider[ ] a minimum standard of 45 lumens per 
watt for general service lamps'' as required under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)(II). 86 FR 70761. DOE considered GSILs only in the 
scope of the December 2019 Final Determination analysis, with lamps 
having a maximum efficacy less than 45 lumens per watt. Id. While DOE 
did not analyze lamps other than GSILs in the scope of the December 
2019 Final Determination analysis, DOE did look at the impact on GSIL 
shipments as a result of consumers choosing to purchase other lamps, 
such as compact fluorescent lamps (``CFLs'') and light-emitting diode 
(``LED'') lamps, if standards for GSILs were amended as discussed in 
section VI.A of the December 2019 Final Determination. Therefore, DOE 
preliminarily concluded in the December 2021 NOPR that it could not 
have considered a 45 lumens per watt standard level as part of that 
rulemaking determination because of the GSIL limited scope. Id.
    DOE explained in the December 2021 NOPR that although DOE's failure 
to ``complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through 
(iv)'' is itself sufficient to trigger application of the backstop, DOE 
also did not determine whether its final rule (or rules) in this first 
cycle of rulemaking produced savings that are ``greater than or equal 
to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W[.]'' 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v). That is an independent basis for application 
of the backstop under section 6295(i)(6)(v). Congress provided that the 
backstop would be triggered ``if the final rule does not produce energy 
savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum 
efficacy standard of 45 lm/W.'' Id. Since DOE did not compare whether 
any energy savings resulting from either the September 2019 Withdrawal 
Rule or the December 2019 Final Determination would produce energy 
savings that are greater than or equal to a minimum efficacy standard 
of 45 lm/W, DOE preliminary determined in the December 2021 NOPR that 
the backstop requirement in section 6295(1)(6)(A)(v) was triggered.\9\ 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Although DOE did perform various energy savings analyses in 
the December 2019 Final Determination, it was not the comparison to 
a 45 lumens per watt efficacy standard required by 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v). See, e.g., 84 FR 71632 (``The no-new-standards 
case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how 
the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of 
amended energy conservation standards. In this case, the standards 
case represents energy savings not from the technology outlined in a 
[trial standard level], but from product substitution as consumers 
are priced out of the market for GSILs.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, DOE determines that the backstop 
requirement in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) was triggered and should have 
been effective as of January 1, 2020 because DOE failed to complete a 
GSL rulemaking in accordance with certain statutory criteria.

[[Page 27445]]

3. Discussion of Comments and Final Determination Regarding Operation 
of the Backstop
    In response to the December 2021 NOPR, NEMA encouraged DOE to 
review its past comments regarding implementation of the backstop. 
(NEMA, No. 51 at p. 2) DOE notes that in the September 2019 Withdrawal 
Rule proceeding, NEMA commented that the backstop standard had not be 
triggered because the Secretary had not determined whether to amend 
GSIL standards under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii). In that proceeding, 
NEMA also commented that the backstop standard is not self-executing 
and requires the Secretary to issue a prohibitory order. NEMA asserted 
that the Secretary had not issued such an order because the Secretary 
had not failed to complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) 
through (iv) or that such final rule does not produce savings that are 
greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard 
of 45 lm/W because the obligation to issue such a rule did not yet 
exist. 84 FR 46661, 46663.
    Further, in response to the December 2021 NOPR, the Free Market 
Organizations stated opposition to DOE's proposed implementation of the 
45 lm/W backstop because it bypasses consumer protections in EPCA and 
adversely impacts product cost, choice, and features. (Free Market 
Organizations, No. 65 at p. 2) They asserted that if Congress wanted 
the 45 lm/W backstop to be applicable to all GSILs as of January 1, 
2020, it could have stated so clearly and succinctly, as EPCA is 
replete with such statutorily-imposed minimum efficiency standards for 
home appliances that automatically take effect on the date specified. 
The Free Market Organizations asserted that in the case of GSLs, the 
statute delineates agency actions that are preconditions to any 
triggering of the 45 lm/W backstop requirement, namely that DOE 
determine that existing standards need to be amended and then either 
fails to amend the standards or sets a standard weaker than would have 
been achieved by the backstop. The Free Market Organizations asserted 
that DOE never made the threshold determination and thus the 45 lm/W 
backstop does not apply. (Free Market Organizations, No. 65 at p. 3)
    DOE received comments from the Attorneys General, NPC Council, ASAP 
et al., and SC, NRDC, and EJ in support of DOE's tentative conclusion 
in the December 2021 NOPR that the backstop had been triggered. 
(Attorneys General, No. 60 at p. 2; NPC Council, No. 46 at p. 2; ASAP 
et al., No. 63 at p. 2; SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 at pp. 1-2) In 
particular, SC, NRDC, and EJ commented that the defects pointed out by 
DOE in the December 2021 NOPR are not the only bases for concluding 
that DOE has failed to complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses 
(i) through (iv) of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). Rather, SC, NRDC, and EJ 
commented that DOE has failed to meet not just two, but all four of the 
rulemaking criteria prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). Moreover, 
these commenters asserted that DOE triggered the backstop more than 
eight years ago when it failed to meet the January 1, 2014 statutory 
deadline to initiate the required rulemaking procedure. (SC, NRDC, and 
EJ, No. 58 at pp. 1-2) Additionally, IPI et al. commented that the 
statutory backstop provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) is absolute 
and unambiguous, suggesting that it applies even if it did not meet 
EPCA's typical mandate that standards be ``economically justified,'' or 
that ``the benefits of the standards exceed its burdens.'' These 
commenters stated that federal law demands that DOE promulgate the 
backstop standard regardless of the magnitude of climate benefits or 
the results of its cost-benefit analysis more broadly. (IPI et al., No. 
54 at pp. 4-5)
    DOE concludes that the 45 lm/W backstop requirement has been 
triggered for the reasons put forth in the December 2021 NOPR. That is, 
DOE failed to complete the first cycle of rulemaking in accordance with 
clauses (i) through (iv) of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A), and DOE's final 
rules that were published did not produce savings that are ``greater 
than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/
W[.]'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v).
    First as explained above and in the December 2021 NOPR, DOE did not 
complete the first cycle rulemaking in accordance with the criteria 
established by EPCA because it did not complete the rulemaking in a 
timely manner. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(a)(6)(i)-(iv)) As discussed, the 
structure of section 6295(i)(6)(A) reflects an expectation by Congress 
that by January 1, 2017, the outcome of DOE's GSL rulemaking would have 
been known, and, if either amended standards or the backstop were to be 
applicable, those would be in place no later than January 1, 2020. Even 
if the statute contemplated a third possible scenario as previously 
suggested by commenters--i.e., a determination by DOE that standards 
for GSLs need not be amended, in which circumstance the backstop would 
not be triggered (see e.g., NEMA, Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-STD-0010,\10\ 
No. 329 at p. 40) --it is clear from section 6295(i)(6)(A) that 
Congress expected this determination would be made no later than 
January 1, 2017. This lack of a timely concluded rulemaking by itself 
constitutes a failure to complete a rulemaking in accordance with the 
enumerated clauses, thereby triggering the backstop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018-BT-STD-0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While failure to satisfy any one of the specified criterion alone 
triggers the backstop, DOE agrees with those commenters stating that 
DOE also failed to conduct the evaluation required by 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)(II)--i.e., an evaluation of a 45 lm/W standard for 
GSLs. As explained, the December 2019 Final Determination only 
evaluated standards in relation to a 45 lm/W requirement for GSILs. By 
providing only a limited evaluation of a 45 lm/W requirement and by 
excluding other GSLs from this evaluation (e.g., CFLs, LEDs), DOE 
failed to consider a minimum standard of 45 lm/W for GSLs as required 
by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)(II).
    In addition, Congress provided that the backstop requirement is 
triggered if the rulemaking completed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) 
``does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the 
savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 [l/w].'' 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v). That is an independent basis for application of the 
backstop under section 6295(i)(6)(v). As discussed, neither the 
September 2019 Withdrawal Rule nor the December 2019 Final 
Determination considered whether any energy savings resulting from 
either rule would produce energy savings that are greater than or equal 
to a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W.
    For the foregoing reasons, DOE has determined the backstop 
requirement in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) was triggered and should have 
been effective as of January 1, 2020.
    DOE received extensive comments from IPI et al. regarding 
consideration of greenhouse gas emission and the estimated value of 
emission reductions as a result of the backstop requirement. (See 
generally IPI et al., No. 54) DOE agrees with IPI et al. that once 
triggered, application of the backstop requirement does not necessitate 
a determination of economic justification. (See IPI et al., No. 54 at 
pp. 4-5) Importantly, the 45 lm/W backstop standard is explicitly 
commanded by Congress in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v). This is not a

[[Page 27446]]

discretionary rulemaking standard subject to evaluation of the factors 
at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). However, consistent with Executive Order 12866, 
DOE notes that it has provided a cost-benefit analysis of implementing 
the 45 lm/W backstop for GSLs, which is discussed in greater detail for 
the public in section IV.A of this document.
    DOE received a number of comments that objected to the 45 lm/W 
requirement generally. DOE received comments stating that regulation 
was not necessary as market forces were shifting lighting technology to 
LED lamps. DOE also received comments stating that the backstop 
standard would be costly to consumers and remove consumer choice in 
product and product features. Commentators also stated potential health 
and safety concerns resulting from the implementation of the backstop 
requirement. These comments are discussed in detail in section II.D of 
this document.
    DOE also received comments in general support of the 45 lm/W 
requirement. NPC Council stated that having a consistent federal 
standard in place will enable better energy efficiency planning and a 
more equitable distribution of the benefits to consumers. (NPC Council, 
No. 46 at p. 2) NYSERDA, CFA and NCLC, NRF and RILA, ALA, Lutron, NEEA, 
CEC, CA IOUs, SC, NRDC, and EJ, ASAP et al., the Attorneys General, and 
IPI et al. stated that the nation would experience benefits such as 
reduced electricity bills and reduced climate emissions from the 
implementation of the 45 lm/W backstop requirement. (NYSERDA, No. 48 at 
pp. 1-2; CFA and NCLC, No. 52 at p. 2; NRF and RILA, No. 55 at p. 2; 
ALA, No. 57 at p. 1; Lutron, No. 62 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 64 at pp. 1-2; 
CEC, No. 53 at p. 1; SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 at p. 1; ASAP et al., No. 
63 at p. 1; Attorneys General, No. 60 at p. 1; IPI et al., No. 54 at p. 
4) ALA stated its support for the adoption of the 45 lm/W backstop 
requirement with the caveat that it opposed a 60-day effective date for 
the backstop. ALA also noted that its comments are submitted in support 
of the NEMA positions. (ALA, No. 57 at p. 2)
    As stated, DOE has determined that it failed to conduct a 
rulemaking (or rulemakings) in accordance with the criteria specified 
by EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv) and the final rules that 
were published did not produce savings that are greater than or equal 
to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v)) Accordingly, the statute requires the Secretary to 
prohibit the sale of any GSL that does not meet a minimum efficacy 
standard of 45 lm/W.

B. Scope of Backstop Requirement

    Once triggered, the backstop requirement as specified in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v) directs DOE to prohibit the sale of GSLs that do not 
meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W. DOE's previous regulatory 
definition of GSL did not include any of the 22 lighting applications 
or bulb shapes explicitly not included in the definition of GSIL,\11\ 
or any general service fluorescent lamp or IRL. (See, 42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As defined in EPCA ``general service incandescent lamp'' 
does not include the following incandescent lamps: (I) An appliance 
lamp; (II) A black light lamp; (III) A bug lamp; (IV) A colored 
lamp; (V) An infrared lamp; (VI) A left-hand thread lamp; (VII) A 
marine lamp; (VIII) A marine signal service lamp; (IX) A mine 
service lamp; (X) A plant light lamp; (XI) A reflector lamp; (XII) A 
rough service lamp; (XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a 
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp); (XIV) A sign 
service lamp; (XV) A silver bowl lamp; (XVI) A showcase lamp; (XVII) 
A 3-way incandescent lamp; (XVIII) A traffic signal lamp; (XIX) A 
vibration service lamp; (XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI 
C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more; 
(XXI) A T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) 
and that uses not more than 40 watts or has a length of more than 10 
inches; (XXII) A B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp 
(as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or 
less. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 21, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
proposing to amend the then-current definitions of GSL and GSIL to be 
defined as previously set forth in the January 2017 Final Rules. 86 FR 
46611 (``August 2021 Definition NOPR''). DOE issued a final rule 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register responding to 
comments received on the August 2021 Definition NOPR and adopting the 
definitions of GSL and GSIL as set forth in that NOPR. These 
definitions of GSL and GSIL adopted by DOE in the 2022 Definition Final 
Rule are as follows:
    General service lamp means a lamp that has an ANSI base; is able to 
operate at a voltage of 12 volts or 24 volts, at or between 100 to 130 
volts, at or between 220 to 240 volts, or at 277 volts for integrated 
lamps, or is able to operate at any voltage for non-integrated lamps; 
has an initial lumen output of greater than or equal to 310 lumens (or 
232 lumens for modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps) 
and less than or equal to 3,300 lumens; is not a light fixture; is not 
an LED downlight retrofit kit; and is used in general lighting 
applications. General service lamps do not include:
    (1) Appliance lamps;
    (2) Black light lamps;
    (3) Bug lamps;
    (4) Colored lamps;
    (5) G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined in 
ANSI C79.1-2002;
    (6) General service fluorescent lamps;
    (7) High intensity discharge lamps;
    (8) Infrared lamps;
    (9) J, JC, JCD, JCS, JCV, JCX, JD, JS, and JT shape lamps that do 
not have Edison screw bases;
    (10) Lamps that have a wedge base or prefocus base;
    (11) Left-hand thread lamps;
    (12) Marine lamps;
    (13) Marine signal service lamps;
    (14) Mine service lamps;
    (15) MR shape lamps that have a first number symbol equal to 16 
(diameter equal to 2 inches) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002, operate at 
12 volts, and have a lumen output greater than or equal to 800;
    (16) Other fluorescent lamps;
    (17) Plant light lamps;
    (18) R20 short lamps;
    (19) Reflector lamps that have a first number symbol less than 16 
(diameter less than 2 inches) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and that do 
not have E26/E24, E26d, E26/50x39, E26/53x39, E29/28, E29/53x39, E39, 
E39d, EP39, or EX39 bases;
    (20) S shape or G shape lamps that have a first number symbol less 
than or equal to 12.5 (diameter less than or equal to 1.5625 inches) as 
defined in ANSI C79.1-2002;
    (21) Sign service lamps;
    (22) Silver bowl lamps;
    (23) Showcase lamps;
    (24) Specialty MR lamps;
    (25) T shape lamps that have a first number symbol less than or 
equal to 8 (diameter less than or equal to 1 inch) as defined in ANSI 
C79.1-2002, nominal overall length less than 12 inches, and that are 
not compact fluorescent lamps;
    (26) Traffic signal lamps.
    General service incandescent lamp means a standard incandescent or 
halogen type lamp that is intended for general service applications; 
has a medium screw base; 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 is 
capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 
110 and 130 volts; however, this definition does not apply to the 
following incandescent lamps--
    (1) An appliance lamp;
    (2) A black light lamp;
    (3) A bug lamp;

[[Page 27447]]

    (4) A colored lamp;
    (5) A G shape lamp with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined 
in ANSI C79.1-2002;
    (6) An infrared lamp;
    (7) A left-hand thread lamp;
    (8) A marine lamp;
    (9) A marine signal service lamp;
    (10) A mine service lamp;
    (11) A plant light lamp;
    (12) An R20 short lamp;
    (13) A sign service lamp;
    (14) A silver bowl lamp;
    (15) A showcase lamp; and
    (16) A traffic signal lamp.
    NYSERDA submitted comments encouraging DOE to publish final rules 
for both the 45 lm/W backstop and expanded scope definitions as these 
rules will provide overdue savings. (NYSERDA, No. 48 at p. 3) CEC, CA 
IOUs, SC, NRDC, and EJ, CFA, NCLC, the Attorneys General, and NYSERDA 
stated that DOE should promptly reinstate the January 2017 Definition 
Final Rules expanding the definitions of GSL and GSIL to take effect no 
later than the effective date of the GSL backstop, thus enforcing the 
backstop sales prohibition on the expanded scope of GSLs. (CA IOUs, No. 
56 at pp. 2-3; SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 at p. 3; CFA, NCLC, No. 52 at 
p. 1; Attorneys General, No. 60 at p. 1) CEC stated that reinstatement 
of the expanded definition of GSLs finalized in the January 2017 
Definition Final Rules would achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. 
(CEC, No. 53 at pp. 4-5) The CA IOUs and NYSERDA commented that 
reinstatement of the January 2017 Definition Final Rules was identified 
for review in President Biden's Executive Order 13990 and slated for 
completion by December 31, 2021, and that additional delay to finalize 
both rules prevents realizing the full energy savings potential of the 
GSL backstop standard. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 2; NYSERDA, No. 48 at p. 
2) The CA IOUs stated that California and several other states have 
adopted and implemented the 45 lm/W backstop standard including DOE's 
expanded GSL definition. The CA IOUs further stated that in California 
the CEC have reported no consumer complaints about product 
availability. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 3) The Attorneys General stated 
that together, prompt enforcement of the backstop standard and the 
expanded definition of GSLs will significantly increase GSL efficiency 
and ensure that consumers, businesses, and governments enjoy the full 
economic and environmental benefits of strong national energy 
efficiency standards. (Attorneys General, No. 60 at p. 3) Minimise USA 
stated that it supports setting a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W 
for GSLs and GSILs, such as those used in decorative, recessed, and 
track lighting fixtures. (Minimise USA, No. 38 at p.1)
    As noted, the 2022 Definition Final Rule amended the definitions of 
GSL and GSIL as they were specified in the January 2017 Definition 
Final Rules. For the current definition of GSL adopted in the 2022 
Definition Final Rule, DOE adopted additional detail to the statutory 
definition by specifying the base type, lumens, and voltages of GSLs. 
DOE also removed the GSIL exemptions for certain incandescent lamps 
that are used in general lighting applications and included those lamps 
in the definition of GSIL and GSL. The adopted definitions of GSL and 
GSIL explicitly include not only A-shaped or pear-shaped light bulbs 
but also the smaller, decorative shaped light bulbs resembling a 
candle, bullet or globe and often used in chandeliers, desk lamps, 
ornamental wall lights, etc. Additionally, the definitions include 
reflector shaped light bulbs that have a cone-like shape with an inner 
reflective coating that directs light and are often used in recessed 
light fixtures (e.g., lights within the ceiling wall). Based on 
estimates from DOE's 2015 Lighting Market Characterization Report, the 
GSL definition adopted in the 2022 Definitions Final Rule comprise 5.8 
billion lamps. The sales prohibition under the backstop requirement 
would affect any lamp type that is defined as a GSL.

C. Implementation and Enforcement

    In the December 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that once triggered, the 
backstop requirement provides that DOE ``shall prohibit'' sales of any 
GSL below the 45 lm/W backstop standard ``effective beginning January 
1, 2020.'' 86 FR 70755, 70766. DOE noted in its prior explanation that 
if it is determined that the backstop is triggered, DOE would not have 
discretion regarding the effective date of the backstop standard. Id. 
DOE also recognized the unique circumstances created by the delay in 
correctly addressing the applicability of the backstop. Id. DOE stated 
that were it to issue a final determination that the backstop has been 
triggered, DOE proposes to use its enforcement discretion to provide 
the necessary flexibility to avoid undue market disruption. Id. DOE 
presented an example of a discretionary enforcement approach, in which 
DOE would consider a staggered implementation that weighs factors such 
as the point of manufacture, the point of sale, and the anticipated 
inventory of different lamp categories. Id. DOE stated that this 
flexible enforcement approach takes into account the disruptive supply 
chain effects of stranded inventory and the significant consumer and 
environmental benefits of full compliance, and would best balance 
Congress's intent to facilitate a smooth transition with Congress's 
intent that the different efficacy standards were to be in place as of 
January 1, 2020. Id. DOE requested input of this consideration and on 
additional considerations for enforcement. Id.
    Several commenters addressed whether DOE has discretion in 
enforcing the 45 lm/W backstop standard. NEMA asserted that DOE 
acknowledged in the December 2021 NOPR that it has the discretion to 
set an effective date that recognizes the need for an appropriate 
transition period to discontinue sales. (NEMA, No. 51 at pp. 3-4) GE 
Lighting stated that following a new energy efficiency standard, 
Congress has generally provided three years for manufacturers to 
prepare for a transition of products followed by an unlimited amount of 
time to sell through existing inventory. (GE Lighting, No. 59 at p. 2) 
NEMA also commented that the statutory scheme reflects Congressional 
intent that manufacturers and retailers have at least three years to 
plan for and adjust to any sales restrictions. (NEMA, No. 51 at p. 4) 
NEMA stated that Congress makes laws with due regard to market forces 
and therefore Congressional intent is that DOE act with global market 
forces and consumer demand in mind when exercising agency authority. 
(NEMA, No. 51 at p. 2) NEMA stated that while supply and demand for 
incandescent lamps is declining, demand persists and in a free market 
economy manufacturers and retailers respond by supplying products. 
(NEMA, No. 51 at p. 2) NEMA stated that a 60-day transition period is 
inconsistent with that Congressional intent and a transition period of 
365 days, though two years sooner than Congress intended, would give 
manufacturers necessary time to adjust to the sales ban. NEMA also 
commented that while the Administrative Procedure Act requires a 
minimum of 30 days before a rule may become effective, it does not set 
a maximum period for an effective date. (NEMA, No. 51 at p. 4)
    GE Lighting commented on its understanding that DOE recognizes the 
practicalities of the transition to new standards and that this 
challenge can be mitigated through DOE's enforcement discretion. GE 
Lighting further supported NEMA's proposal to phase in

[[Page 27448]]

the regulation in three steps. (GE Lighting, No. 59 at p. 2) NEMA and 
GE Lighting requested that DOE clearly state specific enforcement 
timelines to avoid negative outcomes for businesses and ensure 
availability of lighting for consumers. (NEMA, No. 51 at p. 4; GE 
Lighting, No. 59 at p. 2) NEMA stated that the proposed regulatory text 
in the December 2021 NOPR (see 86 FR 70755, 70770) would impose an 
immediate ban on sales of covered lamps and is inconsistent with DOE's 
statements in the December 2021 NOPR regarding enforcement discretion. 
(NEMA, No. 51 at p. 5)
    NRF and RILA stated they want to ensure changes resulting from the 
45 lm/W backstop implementation do not cause adverse environmental and 
economic impacts and are widely accepted by consumers. (NRF and RILA, 
No. 55 at p. 2)
    CEC stated that, while it agrees with the DOE's stated concerns 
regarding the potential immediate imposition of a sales prohibition, 
DOE's proposal to exercise its enforcement discretion is inconsistent 
with EPCA and Congressional intent. (CEC, No. 53 at p. 3) CEC stated 
that Congress provided manufacturers with notice that if DOE did not 
meet its statutory obligations by January 1, 2017, there would be a 
mandatory sales prohibition on any GSL, as defined, that could not meet 
a minimum efficacy of 45 lm/W. CEC stated that DOE indicated the 
backstop would be automatically triggered as early as March 17, 2016. 
CEC asserted that on January 1, 2017, manufacturers knew that DOE had 
not met the statutory requirements. CEC argued that stakeholders knew 
or should have known, three years in advance, that EPCA's backstop 
sales prohibition would be in effect on January 1, 2020. CEC further 
argued that Congressional intent is for DOE to enforce the backstop for 
all noncompliant GSLs, as defined by EPCA, immediately, without 
exercising its enforcement discretion. (CEC, No. 53 at pp. 3-4) 
Additionally, CEC asserted that because Congress provides state 
Attorneys General with the authority to enforce the ``applicable 
standard established under section 6295(i)'' against any GSIL that 
doesn't meet the standard, state Attorneys General could enforce the 
backstop to ensure consumer protection in their states regardless of 
DOE's enforcement discretion. (CEC, No. 53 at p. 4; citing 42 U.S.C. 
6304)
    In this document, DOE has determined that the backstop provision in 
42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) has been triggered and the Secretary must 
prohibit the sale of any GSL that does not meet a minimum efficacy 
standard of 45 lm/W. DOE recognizes that implementation of the 
backstop, which is a sales prohibition, presents different challenges 
than most DOE standards, which are based on the date of manufacture. 
DOE recognizes that a transition period is often necessary for the 
market to adjust to the implementation of a standard.
    Congress structured 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(v) so as to provide 
manufacturers with a lead time (with a possible shorter lead time for 
California and Nevada) to adjust to different efficacy standards--
either standards adopted by DOE through rulemaking or the imposition of 
the statutory backstop. In addition, Congress expressly required DOE to 
consider phased-in effective dates by considering ``the impact . . . on 
manufacturers, retiring and repurposing existing equipment, stranded 
investments, labor contracts, workers, [ ] raw materials,'' and ``the 
time needed to work with retailers and lighting designers to revise 
sales and marketing strategies.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv). 
Therefore, Congress did not intend for there to be an instantaneous 
imposition of a new 45 lm/W efficacy standard for GSLs. Such a possible 
outcome exists now only because of DOE's delay in correctly addressing 
the applicability of the backstop. DOE must balance Congress's intent 
to facilitate a smooth transition to different efficacy standards 
through the provision of lead time with the clear intent of Congress 
that these different efficacy standards were to be in place as of 
January 1, 2020. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(jjj),(v). Hence, in order to 
provide for a smooth transition, DOE will account for the 
practicalities of this transition to Congress's backstop efficacy 
standard through use of its enforcement discretion.
    As previously stated, once DOE determines that the backstop has 
been triggered, Congress provides a specific date on which the 
prohibition begins--January 1, 2020. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)). 
However, as noted, DOE understands the practicalities associated with 
an immediate implementation of the 45 lm/W backstop standard for GSLs 
and therefore, will issue guidance regarding enforcement of the 
standard. DOE's enforcement guidance will be applicable to all states 
(except for California and Nevada, see section II.A.3).
    The enforcement guidance will be informed, in part, by the comments 
received to the May 2021 RFI and December 2021 NOPR. In the December 
2021 NOPR, DOE discussed the comments received on enforcement in the 
May 2021 RFI. DOE also received several comments on the December 2021 
NOPR regarding enforcement including the date of enforcement, phased-in 
enforcement approach, and consumer education. These comments are 
discussed in the following sections.
1. Prompt Enforcement
    DOE received comments recommending DOE begin enforcing the 45 lm/W 
backstop requirement as soon as possible. SC, NRDC, and EJ stated that 
in light of delays, DOE should act swiftly to finalize the proposed 
rule and begin enforcing EPCA's backstop. (SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 at 
p. 1) CEC, SC, NRDC, and EJ, ASAP et al., and NASEO stated that DOE 
missed the December 31, 2021 deadline set by President Biden in 
Executive Order 13990 to complete the review of the backstop rule. 
(CEC, No. 53 at p. 3; SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 at p. 2; ASAP et al., 
No. 63 at pp. 1-3; NASEO, No. 45 at p. 1) SC, NRDC, and EJ stated that 
the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(``OIRA'') took approximately two and a half months to review the 
December 2021 NOPR pursuant to E.O. 12886, and that this pace fails to 
reflect that the December 2021 NOPR is simply corrections of unlawful 
legal interpretations from the prior administration. SC, NRDC, and EJ 
urged DOE to cease what they characterized as its ongoing, unlawful 
efforts to avoid implementing the transformative advance in lighting 
efficiency that Congress enacted in 2007. (SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 at 
p. 2)
    SC, NRDC, and EJ, CFA and NCLC, CEC, CA IOUs, ASAP et al., NASEO, 
the Attorneys General, and IPI et al. stated that DOE should implement 
prompt enforcement of the backstop standard. (CEC, No. 53 at p. 5; CA 
IOUs, No. 56 at pp. 2, 4; SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 at p. 2; ASAP et 
al., No. 63 at p. 3; NASEO, No. 45 at p. 1; CFA and NCLC, No. 52 at p. 
3; Attorneys General, No. 60 at pp. 2, 3, 4; IPI et al., No. 54 at p. 
3) CEC stated that DOE should not exercise its proposed enforcement 
discretion, as it would allow manufacturers to shift the costs of 
inefficient and unlawful lighting onto the environment and consumers. 
(CEC, No. 53 at p. 3) CEC added that exercising enforcement discretion 
would undermine President Biden's commitment to addressing the climate 
crisis. (CEC, No. 53 at pp. 1-2) CEC asserted that the law regarding 
the statutorily required implementation of the backstop is clear, and 
stakeholders were on notice of the sales prohibition since January 1, 
2017, and that DOE

[[Page 27449]]

should carry out enforcement immediately. (CEC, No. 53 at p. 2) CEC 
further stated that DOE is required to implement the backstop 
immediately, and that no environmental or economic analysis is required 
to implement the backstop. (CEC, No. 53 at pp. 2-3)
    CEC, CFA, and NCLC asserted that each month of additional delay in 
backstop implementation costs consumers nearly $300 million in lost 
bill savings and results in 800,000 tons of carbon emissions. (CEC, No. 
53 at p. 2; CFA and NCLC, No. 52 at pp. 1-2) ASAP et al. stated that 
inefficient GSLs sold during a six-month period add nearly 5 million 
metric tons (``MMT'') of carbon emissions to the atmosphere and cost 
consumers $1.8 billion in higher utility bills. ASAP et al. further 
stated that allowing lamp manufacturers to continue the manufacture and 
sale of inefficient lamps would benefit manufacturers at the expense of 
consumers and the planet. (ASAP et al., No. 63 at p. 3) CEC argued that 
although manufacturers and distributors may experience losses from 
stranded inventory, if inefficient GSLs are permitted to remain in the 
market consumers will experience higher energy bills and the grid will 
have unnecessary load. CEC further stated that DOE's proposed 
enforcement discretion is inconsistent with Executive Order 13990 and 
places unreasonable weight on stranded costs without accounting for 
economic and environmental costs to consumers and the environment. 
(CEC, No. 53 at pp. 4)
    The Attorneys General cited DOE's estimates of savings from the 
backstop and stated that prompt implementation of the backstop will 
facilitate manufacturers' deployment of more efficient technologies, 
increase consumer choice, significantly reduce energy costs, and ensure 
equitable distribution of lighting efficiency benefits. (Attorneys 
General, No. 60 at pp. 1, 2-3) The Attorneys General stated that, in a 
recent GSL market survey of New York state commissioned by the NYSERDA, 
retailers and distributors reported that they rely on manufacturers to 
provide products that comply with regulatory requirements, and 
manufacturers revealed that they anticipate efficiency standards to 
increase in stringency but will not initiate product changes without a 
high level of certainty that the requirements will go into effect. The 
Attorneys General also stated the survey showed that LED lamps across 
product types are now widely available in New York. (Attorneys General, 
No. 60 at pp. 2-3) IPI et al. asserted that the backstop's net benefits 
are likely considerably higher than DOE's estimates due to perceived 
discrepancies in social cost estimates and discount rates. (IPI et al., 
No. 54 at p. 36) IPI et al. stated that DOE should implement the 
backstop as soon as possible to ensure the backstop's net benefits to 
the public are maximized and available earlier. (IPI et al., No. 54 at 
p. 36)
    SC, NRDC, and EJ, CFA and NCLC, ASAP et al., NYSERDA, NASEO, and 
the Attorneys General stated that prompt implementation of the backstop 
standard will benefit low-income consumers. (SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 
at p. 2; NYSERDA, No. 48 at p. 2; Attorneys General, No. 60 at p. 3; 
CFA and NCLC, No. 52 at pp. 2, 3) ASAP et al. and NASEO stated that 
low- and moderate-income households spend a disproportionate share of 
their incomes on higher electric bills. (ASAP et al., No. 63 at pp. 1-
2; NASEO, No. 45 at p. 1) ASAP et al. further stated that low-income 
households spend nearly ten times as much of their income on energy 
bills as other households, 10.4 percent compared to 1.2 percent. (ASAP 
et al., No. 63 at p. 2) The CFA and NCLC commented that most low-income 
households are typically renters who often have older preinstalled and 
less efficient incandescent lamps or CFLs. (CFA and NCLC, No. 52 at p. 
2) SC, NRDC, and EJ, ASAP et al., NYSERDA, and the Attorneys General 
stated that low-income consumers often lack access to retailers that 
stock affordable, lasting, energy efficient lamps. (SC, NRDC, and EJ, 
No. 58 at p. 2; ASAP et al., No. 63 at p. 2) NYSERDA, CFA, and NCLC 
cited a 2018 study conducted by the University of Michigan which they 
stated found that retailers serving disadvantaged communities had 
higher availability of less efficient lamps or set prices higher than 
retailers in other communities. (CFA, NCLC, No. 52 at p. 2) NYSERDA 
further stated that while LED lamps made up 73 percent of all 2020 GSL 
sales in New York, over half the lamps in certain locations and through 
some sales channels were less efficient lamps. NYSERDA stated that DOE 
should limit enforcement discretion as it will deny savings from 
consumers most in need. (NYSERDA, No. 48 at p. 2) The Attorneys General 
stated that mandating the backstop standard would ensure that low-
income consumers, who have fewer options for energy efficient lamps, do 
not unnecessarily purchase lamps that ultimately cost more to own and 
operate. (Attorneys General, No. 60 at p. 3)
    NYSERDA encouraged DOE to implement the backstop immediately after 
the proposed 60 days for as many lamp types as possible, especially for 
popular A-lamps. NYSERDA also stated that DOE should consider the 
associated risks and rewards and provide thorough justification for any 
enforcement discretion decisions. (NYSERDA, No. 48 at pp. 2-3)
    The NPC Council stated that it supported the proposed 60-day 
effective date if the backstop is implemented to allow manufacturers 
and retailers to transition existing inventory. The NPC Council 
supported DOE's exercise of its enforcement discretion, especially for 
small towns and rural areas where inventory turnover is slower, and 
consumers have less access to large retailers. The NPC Council, also 
commented that the delays to date in implementing the backstop have 
likely resulted in higher costs for consumers in those rural areas due 
to lack of access to low-cost LED lamps. (NPC Council, No. 46 at p. 2)
    NEMA stated that commentators have overstated the energy savings 
from the backstop. (NEMA, No. 51 at p. 5) ALA opposed the proposed 60-
day effective date arguing that it would not allow for a smooth 
transition and would cause economic damage to manufacturers and 
retailers. ALA recommended that DOE provide manufacturers and retailers 
a reasonable amount of time to fulfill existing supply contracts and 
sell through inventory without causing harmful financial losses. (ALA, 
No. 57 at p. 2) NEMA asserted that logistical, contractual, and other 
immutable challenges make 60 days insufficient for businesses to 
respond and for retailers to change their inventory to avoid empty 
shelves. (NEMA, No. 51 at p. 2) NEMA further stated that a 60-day 
effective date would potentially cause irrecoverable financial losses 
for U.S. businesses throughout the supply chain. (NEMA, No. 51 at p. 3) 
GE Lighting stated the backstop requirement eliminates all halogen and 
incandescent lamps manufactured at this time and that a 60-day 
effective date would adversely impact the availability of GSILs and 
substitute products, leading to significant market disruption and harm 
to manufacturers, component suppliers, and retailers. (GE Lighting, No. 
59 at p. 2) Lutron stated that while LED lamps are expected to meet the 
45 lm/W standard, compliance has additional burden and DOE should use 
its enforcement discretion to prevent unintended market disruption. 
(Lutron, No. 62 at p. 2)
    NRF and RILA stated that the 60-day effective date is a significant 
challenge for the retail industry since retailers maintain a 6 to 12 
months inventory of incandescent lamps for consumers who

[[Page 27450]]

have not transitioned to LEDs. (NRF and RILA, No. 55 at p. 2) 
Specifically, NRF and RILA stated that lower-income households have not 
transitioned to LED lamps at the same rates as higher-income households 
due to higher initial purchase costs. (NRF and RILA, No. 55 at p. 2) 
VALU Home Centers stated that while it supports the 45 lm/W backstop 
and mostly sells LED lamps, it would like to sell through the lamps 
that will not meet the backstop standard to avoid extra costs to 
vendors and retailers. (VALU Home Centers, No. 43 at p. 1)
    DOE appreciates these comments relating to timing for enforcement 
of the 45 lm/W backstop standard. As previously noted in this rule, 
once DOE determines that the backstop has been triggered, Congress 
provides a specific date on which enforcement of the prohibition 
begins--January 1, 2020. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)). Since this date 
has already passed, DOE will use enforcement guidance to provide 
stakeholders with more certainty as to how they must comply with the 
new standard. This guidance will be released simultaneously with this 
rulemaking. DOE also notes that because this rule is a ``major rule'' 
under Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act, the rule 
cannot be effective prior to 60 days after publication in the Federal 
Register as required by 5 U.S.C. 801. To ensure the effective date for 
the 2022 Definition Final Rule occurs before the effective date of this 
final rule so that the amended definitions of GSL, GSIL and the other 
supplemental definitions are final before the standards in this rule 
are effective, the 2022 Definition Final Rule has a 60-day effective 
date and this rule will be effective within 75 days of publication 
instead of the 60-day effective date as proposed. This will ensure that 
the full scope of GSLs subject to the backstop requirement is 
established before the sales prohibition for GSLs that do not meet the 
45 lm/W backstop requirement goes into effect. Regarding comments 
related to the estimated energy savings, DOE address these comments in 
section II.D.1. of this document.
2. Phased-In Enforcement
    NEMA and GE Lighting stated that the effective date of the backstop 
should be 12 months after the publication of the final rule. (NEMA, No. 
51 at p. 4; GE Lighting, No. 59 at pp. 2-3) NEMA stated manufacturers 
need at least 12 months following the publication of the final rule to 
cease the production of incandescent/halogen lamps and adjust supply 
chains. (NEMA, No. 51 at p. 3) NEMA further stated that these timeline 
estimates are based on normal market conditions, independent of current 
supply and logistics challenges, and are optimistically short. (NEMA, 
No. 51 at p. 3) GE Lighting supported NEMA's proposal and added that 
the supply chain for incandescent lamps is both long and complicated, 
involving transportation to points of manufacture outside of the U.S., 
shipping all finished products to exporting foreign ports, and 
importation into the U.S. (GE Lighting, No. 59 at pp. 2-3)
    NRF and RILA stated that some retailers will need at least a 12-
month sell-through period beyond a manufacture-by date to fully deplete 
existing inventories, reduce unnecessary waste, and give consumers time 
to adjust to the new product mix. (NRF and RILA, No. 55 at p. 2) ALA 
further stated that separate sales ban dates for retailers and 
manufacturers are necessary to allow retailers to clear their inventory 
and avoid negative effects on the small businesses that make up the 
residential lighting industry. (ALA, No. 57 at p. 2) NEMA and GE 
Lighting stated that after the 12-month manufacture-by (import) date, 
two separate phases of sell-through for high-volume and lower-volume 
lamps should be included as part of DOE's enforcement discretion. NEMA 
stated that retailers would need a minimum of 12 months to sell through 
high-volume A-line GSIL and R30/BR30 IRL inventory, with additional 
time potentially necessary to sell through all other slow-moving GSLs 
and those newly added to the expanded definition of GSL. (NEMA, No. 51 
at pp. 3-5) GE Lighting stated support for a 12-month sell-through of 
halogen A-line lamps and added that additional time, up to a second 
year, will be needed to clear inventory of slower moving products added 
per the expanded definition of GSL. (GE Lighting, No. 59 at p. 3)
    NEMA stated that the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly complicated 
supply chain forces and has produced transportation and timing 
challenges outside the control of manufacturers or retailers. (NEMA, 
No. 51 at p. 2) NEMA stated that supply chain delays have persisted 
from 2020 through 2022 and include COVID protocols and lack of 
employees, logistics and shipping delays doubling lead times from 5-6 
weeks to up to 10-12 weeks for imported products which are also greatly 
increasing shipping costs, and electronic chip shortages that are 
affecting LED lamp production. NEMA further stated that the pandemic's 
impacts have caused delays for everything from component sourcing to 
delivery of goods from the factory to the store shelf, and are 
persisting into 2022 with no immediate end in sight. (NEMA, No. 51 at 
p. 3) NEMA recommended that any definition of manufacturing considered 
in DOE's enforcement policy should allow for departure from foreign 
ports in recognition of the unprecedented and unpredictable supply 
chain activities. (NEMA, No. 51 at p. 4) GE Lighting stated that 
previously weeks-long processes now take months and that the three most 
pressing issues for increasing production and inventory of new LED 
lamps are electronic chip component shortages, shipping and port delays 
for imported products, and COVID-related production delays. (GE 
Lighting, No. 59 at p. 3) NEMA asserted that DOE has an obligation to 
protect U.S. businesses, manufacturers, and retailers from unnecessary 
negative financial impacts and encouraged DOE to review all past NEMA 
comments on the backstop rule and its implementation. (NEMA, No. 51 at 
pp. 2, 5)
    DOE is aware of the near-term supply chain issues resulting from 
the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. In June 2021, the Short-Term Supply 
Chain Disruptions Task Force (``Task Force'') was created and is led by 
the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Commerce, 
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Task Force focuses on 
the mismatch of supply and demand in semiconductors, among other 
issues.\12\ The Task Force has moved ports toward 24/7 operations and 
reduced long-dwelling containers sitting on the docks.\13\ Moreover, on 
February 23, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced $450 
million of funding available for ports across the country to make 
infrastructure upgrades.\14\ While these and other efforts have been 
undertaken to address supply-chain issues, DOE acknowledges that issues 
remain on-going.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/08/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-supply-chain-disruptions-task-force-to-address-short-term-supply-chain-discontinuities/.
    \13\ www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot-lays-out-actions-strengthen-supply-chains-and-revitalize-economy.
    \14\ www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot-lays-out-actions-strengthen-supply-chains-and-revitalize-economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, DOE recognizes the sell-through issue that arises because 
the backstop requirement is a sales prohibition, and that manufacturers 
and retailers may have been disadvantaged by DOE's position changes 
regarding whether the backstop requirement has been triggered. In using 
its enforcement discretion, DOE will consider the near-term market and 
supply chain

[[Page 27451]]

environment to provide the necessary flexibility to avoid undue market 
disruption.
    The CA IOUs commented that although DOE's use of enforcement 
discretion will decrease energy savings, they support DOE's application 
of short-term enforcement discretion that is based on transparent 
market data, to protect consumers from market disruptions outside of 
California following implementation of the backstop. The CA IOUs stated 
that enforcement discretion can prevent temporary shortages of low-
volume GSLs that are currently less common in LED versions but should 
not be applied to GSILs, IRLs, or other popular, widely available GSLs. 
The CA IOUs recommended that industry demonstrate which GSL types 
necessitate enforcement discretion by making available their supply of 
LED GSL inventory and showing that the supply chain is insufficient to 
meet demand. The CA IOUs stated that any DOE enforcement discretion 
applied should end no later than 12 months following the effective date 
of the GSL backstop. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 3)
    DOE acknowledges the importance of avoiding market disruptions for 
manufacturers, retailers, and consumers, which DOE will consider in 
using its enforcement discretion. DOE also agrees that use of its 
enforcement discretion should be transparent, which is why DOE will 
issue an enforcement policy prescribing how its enforcement discretion 
will be applied.
    Minimise USA stated that while the backstop requirement may cost 
manufacturers billions of dollars in potential profits, any transition 
period for compliance should only be afforded to U.S. companies that 
manufacture products completely in the United States, and only a one-
year transition period be given for the sale of existing inventory that 
has been manufactured on or before the date of the final rule. Minimise 
USA stated that DOE should not consider China's request for a 
transition period of at least three years. Minimise USA stated that the 
debate regarding the 45 lm/W requirement has been ongoing for five 
years, which was sufficient time for manufacturers to be positioned for 
implementation of the standard. (Minimise USA, No. 38 at p.1) As 
stated, Congress has provided the specific date on which the backstop 
sales prohibition begins, and DOE seeks to give meaning to that mandate 
even though the date has passed. In exercising its enforcement 
discretion to avoid market disruption, the enforcement policy is being 
made public to foster transparency and equal application to all 
manufacturers.
    Lutron stated that having to re-test LED lamps to meet the DOE 
requirement of testing in a National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 
Program (``NVLAP'') accredited lab will be burdensome, particularly for 
small and medium sized lamp companies that have only made LED lamps. 
Lutron also stated that GSLs such as LED lamps with 50,000-hour 
lifetimes may require a full year of testing to certify compliance and 
the option of de-rating lamp lifetimes would confuse consumers. Lutron 
stated that given retesting time, DOE should consider an 18-24 month 
phase-in period, thereby preventing the risk of lower adoption of LEDs 
resulting from marketplace confusion. (Lutron, No. 62 at p. 2) Once the 
backstop is triggered, Congress directs DOE to prohibit the sale of any 
GSL that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)). Regarding testing by an accredited 
laboratory, DOE requires testing of GSLs be conducted by test 
laboratories accredited by an Accreditation Body that is a signatory 
member to the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) 
Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). A manufacturer's or importer's 
in-house laboratory, if accredited, may conduct the applicable testing. 
10 CFR 430.25. NVLAP is a signatory of ILAC MRA. Manufacturers must 
make representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of 
integrated LED lamps per DOE's test procedure in appendix BB to subpart 
B of 10 CFR part 430 (appendix BB). Thus, manufacturers selling 
integrated LED lamps should already be testing their products at an 
accredited laboratory as specified in 10 CFR 430.25. Regarding the LED 
lamp lifetime, the statutory requirement implemented in this rule does 
not establish a standard on lifetime.
3. Consumer Education
    NEMA commented that the December 2021 NOPR did not address 
education and communication to manage potential negative consumer 
reactions. NEMA provided examples of such communication, including 
manufacturers and retailers creating point of purchase material and 
signage, identifying and coding cross-referencing options, developing 
and posting web page content, and planning and implementing employee 
training to reliably assist consumers. NEMA stated that considerable 
time was put into such efforts leading into the 2012-2014 incandescent 
phaseout to ensure that consumers were not surprised when certain lamp 
types were not on shelves. NEMA encouraged DOE to acknowledge the lead 
times necessary to ensure a smooth transition by allowing time for 
education and communication. (NEMA, No. 51 at p. 4)
    EEI stated that increasing consumer education as part of 
implementation of the backstop requirement would ensure a smooth and 
flexible market transition for consumers, including electric companies 
operating significant demand side management programs. (EEI, No. 61 at 
p. 2) GE Lighting stated that time is needed for retailers to educate 
those consumers that buy halogen and incandescent lamps on the issues 
and benefits of converting to LED technology, as well as to change and 
plan new LED store sets during the retailer reset period in the spring 
or fall. (GE Lighting, No. 59 at p. 3)
    DOE agrees that consumer education can facilitate market transition 
and consumer acceptance of new technologies and notes the availability 
of existing consumer education resources. LED technology is not a new 
technology and, as indicated by commenters, occupies a substantial 
share of the lighting market. A number of big box retailers have moved 
to selling only LED lighting. \15\ Retail locations also have provided 
displays to educate consumers on lamp selection, including on the 
selection of LED lamps to meet consumer needs. Moreover, DOE and ENERGY 
STAR have developed and made available educational materials to assist 
consumers in replacing incandescent lamps with LED lamps. See e.g., 
``LED Bulbs Made Easy'' (available at www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/purchasing_checklist_revised.pdf; DOE's Energy 
Saver (available at www.energy.gov/energysaver/led-lighting). In 
addition, the Federal Trade Commission maintains a website that 
contains significant consumer- and manufacturer-focused content on 
lighting products available to all consumers and manufacturers at 
www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc-lighting-facts-label-questions-answers-manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA, ``The Light Bulb Revolution,'' October 2017 available 
at https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/LBR_2017-LED-Takeover.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE appreciates the comments received regarding the enforcement of 
the implementation of the backstop. DOE understands the challenges 
associated with inventory transition as well as the importance of 
ensuring lamps are available to consumers. As

[[Page 27452]]

explained in the NOPR, DOE will issue an enforcement policy separately 
from this rulemaking, which will be informed by all of these comments. 
The policy will reflect DOE's balancing of the consumer benefits 
associated with energy bill savings, along with the need for a 
practical transition time for lamps to be sold through the distribution 
chain. In order to avoid negative outcomes for businesses and ensure 
availability of lighting for consumers, the enforcement policy will 
provide a clear timeline for implementation of the backstop at the 
point of manufacturer and at the point of sale for all general service 
lamps subject to the backstop.
    Although DOE is not using this rulemaking to set an enforcement 
policy, DOE appreciates the input it received to help inform its 
policy, which DOE anticipates will evolve with experience. DOE's final 
enforcement policy to support the implementation of the Congressional 
backstop will be posted at www.energy.gov/enforcement/.

D. Impacts

    DOE received several comments on the potential impacts of 
implementing the 45 lm/W backstop requirement including market trends 
and energy savings; benefits and costs to the consumer; features of LED 
lamps; and potential health and safety impacts of LED lighting. These 
comments are discussed in the following sections.
1. Market Trends and Energy Savings
    NEMA commented that other commenters have overstated the energy 
savings potential resulting from the backstop requirement as the 
lighting market has already undergone a dramatic shift to LED lamps 
since the time this rulemaking began in 2014. NEMA stated that a small 
part of the market continues to choose halogen lamps due to personal 
preferences for dimming, color appearance, or simply first cost and 
that very few halogen lamps will be sold in half a decade due to market 
forces alone. NEMA further stated that additional savings potential 
from a DOE regulation is low compared to data reflecting savings 
already achieved from the market transition to LED lamps. (NEMA, No. 51 
at p. 5) The Free Market Organizations asserted DOE failed to consider 
non-regulatory approaches and market forces have already resulted in 
the average lamp being 70 lm/W. They added that DOE has forecasted LED 
lamps will be 84 percent of the market by 2035 and industry data 
indicates that GSILs are no more than 18 percent of current sales. The 
Free Market Organizations further stated that overall energy savings 
resulting from the backstop standard will be minimal due to growth of 
LEDs and therefore, will not meet EPCA's requirement that an amended 
standard result in significant energy savings. (Free Market 
Organizations, No. 65 at pp. 5-6)
    The CA IOUs commented that although market data show decreased 
savings potential from a national GSL standard, due to the market 
transition to LED lamps since 2017, the data also show that the size of 
the U.S. lighting market and the high energy efficiency of LED 
technology provide significant remaining savings potential. (CA IOUs, 
No. 56 at p. 2) The CA IOUs stated that they are not aware of technical 
barriers preventing market entry for LED alternatives of any GSL type. 
The CA IOUs asserted that LED lights of all types are available to U.S. 
consumers and the lighting industry has ample capacity to meet demand 
following the effective date of the GSL backstop, as LED products now 
dominate the most popular GSL shapes. (CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 3)
    The CA IOUs also commented that incandescent/halogen lamps continue 
to account for a significant market share for A-type lamps despite 
their higher life-cycle costs and the wide availability of LED 
alternatives. The CA IOUs stated that in 2020, incandescent/halogen 
lamps held a 33 percent share of the national A-type lamp market, which 
the lighting industry projected to decrease to 23 percent by the third 
quarter of 2021. The CA IOUs further stated that decorative and 
specialty incandescent/halogen GSLs also have a higher market share. 
(CA IOUs, No. 56 at p. 2) NEEA commented that in 2020, 82 percent of 
GSLs in stores met the 45 lm/W standard, and estimated that in the 
Northwest, LED and CFL products made up approximately 74 percent of all 
GSL sales. NEEA stated that this indicates that implementing the 
backstop will not adversely affect the market. (NEEA, No. 64 at p. 2) 
The Attorneys General commented that while the LED share of the overall 
lighting market in New York is over 70 percent, over half of the GSLs 
for sale in some locales are incandescent/halogen lamps. (Attorneys 
General, No. 60 at p. 1) CFA and NCLC stated that LED market share is 
about 60 percent and that the remaining 40 percent of sales are 
incandescent products that increase consumer costs. (CFA and NCLC, No. 
52 at p. 2)
    DOE is appreciative of information regarding market trends and 
energy savings. This is not a discretionary standards rulemaking 
subject to evaluation of the factors at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). As noted in 
section II.A.3, this final rule determines that the backstop standard 
has been triggered because DOE failed to complete the first cycle of 
rulemaking as prescribed by EPCA in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). However, 
consistent with Executive Order 12866, DOE notes that it has provided a 
cost-benefit analysis of implementing the 45 lm/W backstop for GSLs, 
which is discussed in greater detail for the public in section IV.A.
2. Benefits and Costs
    The SC, NRDC, and EJ, ASAP et al., EEI, and NASEO supported 
implementation of the 45 lm/W backstop, citing reductions in air 
pollutants, carbon dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>'') emissions, and 
electricity consumption. (SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 at p. 2; ASAP et 
al., No. 63 at p. 1; EEI, No. 61 at p. 3) SC, NRDC, and EJ commented 
that applying the 45 lm/W backstop requirement to GSLs as proposed by 
DOE will result in more than $3 billion in net consumer benefits over 
30 years. (SC, NRDC, and EJ, No. 58 at pp. 2-3) ASAP et al. and NASEO 
stated that per analysis performed for DOE, consumers will save an 
estimated $2.7 billion on an annualized basis and 222 MMT of cumulative 
avoided carbon dioxide-equivalent over the next 30 years from 
implementing the backstop standard. (ASAP et al., No. 63 at p. 2; 
NASEO, No. 45 at p. 1) Minimise USA commented that, according to ASAP, 
a phaseout of incandescent light lamps would reduce energy use for 
lighting and eliminate 9.5 MMT of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions per year. 
(Minimise USA, No. 38 at p.1) CEC stated that the LED alternative of a 
typical A-type 60 W incandescent lamp results in 80 percent energy 
savings. (CEC, No. 53 at p. 2) ASAP et al. commented that an average 
household with about 20 sockets will save more than $100 per year and 
an average household with more than 50 sockets will save more than $200 
per year. (ASAP et al., No. 63 at p. 2) CFA and NCLC stated that 
switching one lamp from incandescent to LED saves $40-$90 over ten 
years which, using the midpoint of $65 and estimating 45 sockets in a 
household, translates to $3,000 net savings per household over ten 
years. (CFA and NCLC, No. 52 at p. 2) CEC stated that for a typical A-
type 60 W incandescent lamp, any higher initial cost of the LED version 
is recovered in less than a year. (CEC, No. 53 at p. 2)
    CFA and NCLC commented that LEDs are no longer a new, expensive 
lighting technology, and manufacturers can now produce LED lamps in 
almost every type of lamp that consumers purchase for

[[Page 27453]]

their homes. CFA and NCLC further stated that consumers who have 
switched to LED lamps have saved on energy costs and gained the 
convenience of not having to replace them as often due to their long 
life. (CFA and NCLC, No. 52 at p. 3) NEEA commented that based on its 
lighting market study, which includes point of sale data and in-person 
shelf surveys, LED products have grown since 2012 and their price has 
trended downwards. (NEEA, No. 64 at pp. 1-2) CFA and NCLC stated that a 
2019 CFA survey found two-thirds of respondents support federal 
efficiency standards for lamps, compared to fewer than one-third who 
oppose standards. CFA and NCLC further stated that consumers that have 
had experience with LEDs are more likely to support efficiency 
standards compared to those who have no experience. CFA and NCLC stated 
that implementing the backstop standard will result in broader economic 
benefits, as cost savings in the commercial and industrial sectors are 
passed on to consumers through lower costs for goods and services, 
allowing money to be spent in other areas of the economy with greater 
multiplier effects. (CFA and NCLC, No. 52 at p. 2)
    NASEO commented that the backstop requirement is important to the 
states, which rely on cost-effective federal appliance and equipment 
energy efficiency standards to help them meet their energy 
affordability, air quality, climate, electric reliability, and energy 
resilience goals. (NASEO, No. 45 at p. 1)
    Project 21 stated that adopting the 45 lm/W backstop standard for 
GSLs will benefit LED manufacturers at the expense of companies that 
provide Edison lamps and consumers that will no longer have the choice 
of cost and features provided by Edison lamps. Project 21 stated that 
in the December 2019 Final Determination, DOE had determined not to 
implement the 45 lm/W backstop because it would harm consumers and 
would increase the cost of Edison lamps by 300 percent, resulting in a 
lamp costing approximately $8.10. Project 21 stated this DOE's prior 
determination recognized the trend towards LEDs and continued research 
in new technologies while making existing options affordable. Further, 
Project 21 commented that the cost of LEDs and incandescent lamps is 
not comparable and low-income consumers will be forced to pay more. 
(Project 21, No. 44 at pp. 1-2) Project 21 stated that EPCA allows DOE 
to revise standards for lamps and other appliances but does not intend 
for the executive branch to wield arbitrary power over the kinds of 
appliances consumers can use. (Project 21, No. 44 at p. 1) Hough 
opposed the backstop requirement, commenting that 36 percent of the 
American lamp market, i.e., incandescent lamps used in approximately 2 
billion sockets, would become illegal. Hough stated that the 
requirement needlessly micromanages the economy and sides with green 
special interests that deny choice and affordable options. Hough stated 
the backstop requirement will make Edison lamps including candelabra 
base, globe shape, and colored lamps prohibitively expensive to produce 
(i.e., as much as 300 percent over current costs). (Hough, No. 39 at p. 
1) One anonymous commenter stated that claims that switching to LED 
lighting will save consumers up to $300 per year do not seem possible 
as their lighting costs were $96 per year prior to moving to LED lamps. 
This commenter expressed hope that DOE uses realistic estimates. 
(Anonymous, No. 50 at p. 1)
    The Free Market Organizations stated their support for DOE's 
determination not to set more stringent standards in the December 2019 
Final Determination as such standards would have eliminated 
incandescent lamps by making them prohibitively expensive, costing 
consumers more than could be earned back in energy savings. They stated 
DOE has the authority to reassess the existing standard for GSILs, not 
by imposing a 45 lm/W standard but by considering an amended standard. 
They added that the review process for an amended standard under EPCA 
cannot prioritize efficiency above all else and must also ensure 
products remain available and product features, performance and 
reliability are preserved for consumers. (Free Market Organizations, 
No. 65 at p. 2)
    As noted in section II.A.3 of this document, this is a non-
discretionary rulemaking, not a routine standards rulemaking that 
considers all the factors under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Instead, Congress 
mandated the 45 lm/W backstop requirement if the Secretary fails to 
complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv) of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) or if the final rule does not produce savings that 
are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy 
standard of 45 lm/W. As explained, DOE has determined that it failed to 
satisfy these statutory criteria. As such, the backstop requirement has 
been triggered.
    While analysis is not statutorily required to implement the 
backstop requirement once triggered, consistent with E.O. 12866 DOE did 
conduct a cost-benefit analysis of implementing the 45 lm/W backstop 
for GSLs. DOE estimated the annualized national economic costs and 
benefits associated with the implementation of the 45 lm/W backstop 
relative to a no-new standard case. DOE first considered the product 
price and energy use of commercially available lamp options in the GSL 
definition, including those that would be prohibited under 
implementation of the 45 lm/W backstop and more efficacious GSLs that 
would continue to be available. DOE then developed a shipments model to 
project GSL shipments for a thirty-year period between 2022-2051 in the 
no-new-standard case and for the 45 lm/W backstop case. Shipments were 
estimated using a consumer-choice model sensitive to first cost, energy 
savings, lamp lifetime, and the presence of mercury. The shipments 
analysis also considered the impact of price learning on product price. 
Based on the shipments projections, DOE calculated the national 
consumer economic impacts of the 45 lm/W backstop by comparing the 
total installed product costs and operating costs in the 45 lm/W 
backstop case to the no-new-standards case.
    DOE also analyzed the reduction in several greenhouse gases that 
would result from the expanded GSL definition and the 45 lm/W backstop 
using emissions intensity factors intended to represent the marginal 
impacts of the change in electricity consumption associated with 
amended or new standards.\16\ As part of the development of this final 
rule, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive 
Order 12866, DOE considered the estimated monetary benefits from the 
reduced emissions of CO<INF>2</INF>, nitrous oxide 
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and methane (``CH<INF>4</INF>'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The methodology is described in ``Utility Sector Impacts of 
Reduced Electricity Demand'' (Coughlin, 2014; Coughlin 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-
30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued 
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of 
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in 
effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that 
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the 
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from 
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the 
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were 
issued by the Interagency Working Group on

[[Page 27454]]

the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize 
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of 
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior 
to the injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and 
permissible under law.
    For the purpose of complying with the requirements of Executive 
Order 12866, DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in 
emissions of CO<INF>2</INF>, CH<INF>4</INF>, and N<INF>2</INF>O by 
using a measure of the social cost (``SC'') of each pollutant (i.e., 
SC-GHGs). These estimates represent the monetary value of the net harm 
to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions of these 
pollutants in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. 
These estimates are intended to include (but are not limited to) 
climate-change-related changes in net agricultural productivity, human 
health, property damages from increased flood risk, disruption of 
energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the 
value of ecosystem services. DOE exercises its own judgment in 
presenting monetized climate benefits as recommended by applicable 
Executive Orders and guidance, and DOE would reach the same conclusion 
presented in this notice in the absence of the social cost of 
greenhouse gases, including the February 2021 Interim Estimates 
presented by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases.
    DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO<INF>2</INF>, 
CH<INF>4</INF>, and N<INF>2</INF>O reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the 
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group 
on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG) (IWG, 2021).\17\ The SC-
GHGs is the monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a 
marginal increase in emissions in a given year, or the benefit of 
avoiding that increase. In principle, SC-GHGs includes the value of all 
climate change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net 
agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from 
increased flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy 
systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of 
ecosystem services. The SC-GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value 
of reducing emissions of the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-
GHGs is the theoretically appropriate value to use in conducting 
benefit-cost analyses of policies that affect CO<INF>2</INF>, 
N<INF>2</INF>O and CH<INF>4</INF> emissions. As a member of the IWG 
involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD), the DOE 
agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates represent the most appropriate 
estimate of the SC-GHG until revised estimates have been developed 
reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, 
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 
Washington, DC, February 2021. Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf 
(last accessed March 17, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-GHGs estimates are presented in DOE's technical support 
document (``TSD'') \18\ and were developed over many years, using 
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science 
available at the time of that process, and with input from the public. 
Specifically, in 2009, an interagency working group (IWG) that included 
the DOE and other executive branch agencies and offices was established 
to ensure that agencies were using the best available science and to 
promote consistency in the social cost of carbon (SC-CO<INF>2</INF>) 
values used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO<INF>2</INF> 
estimates in 2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely 
cited integrated assessment models (IAMs) that estimate global climate 
damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes 
and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The 
three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each 
model for future population, economic, and CO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)--a measure of 
the globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric 
CO<INF>2</INF> concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 
based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016 the IWG published 
estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-CH<INF>4</INF>) and nitrous 
oxide (SC-N<INF>2</INF>O) using methodologies that are consistent with 
the methodology underlying the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates. The 
modeling approach that extends the IWG SC-CO<INF>2</INF> methodology to 
non-CO<INF>2</INF> GHGs has undergone multiple stages of peer review. 
The SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-N<INF>2</INF>O estimates were developed by 
Marten et al. (2015) and underwent a standard double-blind peer review 
process prior to journal publication. In 2015, as part of the response 
to public comments received to a 2013 solicitation for comments on the 
SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates, the IWG announced a National Academies of 
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review of the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> 
estimates to offer advice on how to approach future updates to ensure 
that the estimates continue to reflect the best available science and 
methodologies. In January 2017, the National Academies released their 
final report, Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the 
Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and recommended specific criteria for 
future updates to the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates, a modeling framework 
to satisfy the specified criteria, and both near-term updates and 
longer-term research needs pertaining to various components of the 
estimation process (National Academies, 2017). Shortly thereafter, in 
March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which 
disbanded the IWG, withdrew the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 
ensure SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates used in regulatory analyses are 
consistent with the guidance contained in OMB's Circular A-4, 
``including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus 
international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount 
rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 5(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ www.regulations.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, 
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. 
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other 
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the 
recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 
with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal 
analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. 
that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking 
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in 
February 2021, specifically the SC-CH<INF>4</INF> estimates, are used 
here to estimate the climate benefits for this rulemaking. The E.O. 
instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller update of the SC-GHG estimates 
by January 2022 that takes into consideration the advice of the 
National Academies (2017) and other recent scientific literature.
    The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a complete discussion of the 
IWG's initial review conducted under E.O. 13990. In particular, the IWG 
found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect 
the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways. First, the IWG found 
that a global perspective is essential for SC-GHG

[[Page 27455]]

estimates because it fully captures climate impacts that affect the 
United States and which have been omitted from prior U.S.-specific 
estimates due to methodological constraints. Examples of omitted 
effects include direct effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and 
investments located abroad, supply chains, and tourism, and spillover 
pathways such as economic and political destabilization and global 
migration. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 
activities requires consideration of how those actions may affect 
mitigation activities by other countries, as those international 
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and 
residents. If the United States does not consider impacts on other 
countries, it is difficult to convince other countries to consider the 
impacts of their emissions on the United States. As a member of the IWG 
involved in the development of the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees 
with this assessment and, therefore, in this final rule DOE centers 
attention on a global measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as 
that taken in DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. Prior to 
that, in 2008 DOE presented Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates based 
on values the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
identified in literature at that time. As noted in the February 2021 
SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments in the 
literature, including more robust methodologies for estimating a U.S.-
specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the public of 
the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE will 
continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this 
issue.
    While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, 
peer reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it 
set the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates developed by 
the IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely 
on the same models and harmonized inputs and are calculated using a 
range of discount rates. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, 
the IWG has recommended that agencies revert to the same set of four 
values drawn from the SC-GHG distributions based on three discount 
rates as were used in regulatory analyses between 2010 and 2016 and 
subject to public comment. For each discount rate, the IWG combined the 
distributions across models and socioeconomic emissions scenarios 
(applying equal weight to each) and then selected a set of four values 
recommended for use in benefit-cost analyses: An average value 
resulting from the model runs for each of three discount rates (2.5 
percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, selected as 
the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 percent discount rate. 
The fourth value was included to provide information on potentially 
higher-than-expected economic impacts from climate change. As explained 
in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE agrees, this update reflects 
the immediate need to have an operational SC-GHG for use in regulatory 
benefit-cost analyses and other applications that was developed using a 
transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, and the science 
available at the time of that process. Those estimates were subject to 
public comment in the context of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well 
as in a dedicated public comment period in 2013.
    The SC-CO<INF>2</INF> values used for this final rule were 
generated using the values presented in the 2021 update from the IWG's 
February 2021 TSD. The SC-CO<INF>2</INF> estimates from the latest 
interagency update are presented in DOE's TSD. For purposes of 
capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE 
has determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-
CO<INF>2</INF> values, as recommended by the IWG.\19\ DOE multiplied 
the CO<INF>2</INF> emissions reduction estimated for each year by the 
SC-CO<INF>2</INF> value for that year in each of the four cases. To 
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> values 
in each case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change may be lower than 3 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-N<INF>2</INF>O values used for this 
final rule were generated using the values presented in the 2021 update 
from the IWG.\20\ The SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-N<INF>2</INF>O estimates 
from the latest interagency update are presented in DOE's TSD. To 
capture the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE 
has determined it is appropriate to include all four sets of SC-
CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-N<INF>2</INF>O values, as recommended by the IWG. 
DOE multiplied the CH<INF>4</INF> and N<INF>2</INF>O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O estimates for that year in each of the cases. To 
calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the cases using the specific discount 
rate that had been used to obtain the SC-CH<INF>4</INF> and SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O estimates in each case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, 
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 
Washington, DC, February 2021. Available at: www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf 
(last accessed March 17, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated monetary health benefits from the reduced emissions 
of sulfur dioxides (``SO<INF>2</INF>'') and nitrogen oxides 
(``NO<INF>X</INF>'') emissions was estimated based on the latest 
benefit per ton estimates for the relevant sector from the EPA's 
Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and Ozone Precursors 
from 21 Sectors. www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/source-apportionment-tsd-oct-2021_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE converted the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized 
values based on the present value in 2022, as shown in Table IV.1, and 
cumulative economic costs and benefits in Table IV.2. DOE calculated 
the present value using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent for consumer 
costs and health benefits from the reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions and case-specific discount rates for the value 
of the other greenhouse gas (``GHG'') (CO<INF>2</INF>, N<INF>2</INF>O, 
and CH<INF>4</INF>) reduction benefits. For presentational purposes, 
the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent 
discount rate are shown in Table IV.1 and Table IV.2, but the 
Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it 
emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits 
calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.
    EEI commented that DOE should utilize metrics in its cost and 
benefit calculations for the backstop regulations that reflect the 
ongoing efforts by the electric sector on reducing emissions and 
deploying clean energy. EEI suggested specifically that the site to 
power plant conversion factor utilized in the previous modeling was 
outdated. (EEI, No. 61 at p. 3)
    DOE notes that in both the LBNL report cited in the December 2021 
NOPR and in DOE's analysis for the final rule, the latest projections 
for the electric power sector from Energy Information Administration's 
Annual Energy Outlook 2021 were used, which reflect the ongoing and 
expected changes in U.S. electricity generation. In addition to 
addressing EEI's comment regarding the analytical baseline, this 
approach is conceptually consistent with DOE's approach in the March 
2016

[[Page 27456]]

NOPR, but with updated site to power plant conversion factors.
    IPI et al. submitted comments on the application of the social cost 
of greenhouse gases in analysis associated with the December 2021 NOPR. 
(IPI et al., No. 54 at pp. 1-37). They stated that DOE should expand 
upon its rationale for adopting a global damages valuation and for the 
range of discount rates it applies to climate effects. Their key 
comments were as follows: (1) DOE should affirm that, in its expert 
judgment, the working group's social cost estimates are appropriate but 
conservative lower bounds that omit significant categories of climate 
damages; (2) DOE should provide additional justification for its 
reliance on global climate damage valuations, while considering 
additional analysis of domestic effects; (3) DOE should provide 
additional explanation for its discount rate choices and conduct 
sensitivity analysis using lower rates; (4) DOE should defend against 
common criticisms of the working group's methodology; (5) DOE should 
reconsider its timeframe for costs and benefits and disclose the social 
cost of greenhouse gas estimates it applies to year 2051; (6) The 
December 2021 NOPR's high net benefits suggest that DOE should favor 
early implementation of the backstop standard.
    Comments (1) through (4) previously mentioned relate to the social 
cost of greenhouse gas emission estimates recommended by the IWG in its 
February 2021 TSD.
    DOE used the estimates for the SC-GHG from the most recent update 
of the IWG in its February 2021 TSD. DOE has determined that the 
estimates from the February 2021 TSD (as described more below), are 
based upon sound analysis and provide well founded estimates for DOE's 
analysis of the impacts of the reductions of emissions anticipated from 
the final rule.
    The SC-GHG estimates in the February 2021 TSD are interim values 
developed under E.O. 13990, for use until revised estimates of the 
impacts of climate change can be developed through a more comprehensive 
review based on the most recent science and economics. 86 FR 7037, 7040 
(Jan. 25, 2021). The SC-GHG estimates used in this analysis were 
developed over many years, using a transparent process, peer-reviewed 
methodologies, the best science available at the time of that process, 
and with input from the public. Specifically, an IWG that included DOE, 
the EPA and other executive branch agencies and offices used three 
integrated assessment models (IAMs) to develop the SC-CO<INF>2</INF> 
estimates and recommended four global values for use in regulatory 
analyses. Those estimates were subject to public comment in the context 
of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well as in a dedicated public 
comment period in 2013. While DOE recognizes the potential for consumer 
and environmental benefits from the prohibition on the sale of GSLs 
with an efficacy of less than 45 lm/W, these monetized values for the 
estimated emissions reductions are presented for informational 
purposes. DOE reiterates that because the backstop requirement in 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) has been triggered, the statute requires DOE to 
prohibit sales of GSLs that do not meet the minimum efficacy of 45 lm/
W. This backstop requirement is statutorily prescribed by Congress and 
no further analysis is required for its implementation.
    Regarding comment (5) mentioned previously, DOE clarifies that it 
estimates costs and benefits over the lifetime of GSLs shipped between 
2022 and 2051. The final year of the analysis period is 2084. The SC-
GHG values applied between 2051-2070 are the same as those used by the 
EPA in a recent regulation strengthening greenhouse gas emission 
standards for automobiles.\22\ DOE derived values after 2070 based on 
the trend in 2060-2070 in each of the four cases. DOE's technical 
report provides the time-series of annual SC-GHG values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Washington, DC, December 2021. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/420r21028.pdf (last accessed January 
13, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding comment (6) favoring early implementation, as discussed 
in section II.C of this document, Congress prescribed a specific date 
for the backstop sales prohibition once triggered. Recognizing the 
practicalities associated with the immediate implementation of the 45 
lm/W backstop standard for GSLs, DOE will issue guidance regarding 
enforcement of the standard.
3. Features of LED Lamps
    DOE received several comments regarding features of LED lamps. One 
anonymous commenter asked if DOE accounted for the lower power factors 
of LED lighting, which is at 70 percent for Energy Star lamps compared 
to incandescent lighting which have a 100 percent power factor). 
(Anonymous, No. 41 at p. 1) A separate anonymous commenter asked if DOE 
is considering the loss of energy savings due to the ``rebound effect'' 
of less dimming of LED lighting compared to incandescent due to some 
LED lamps not being dimmable, others not dimming as far as incandescent 
lamps, or some consumers replacing dimmers with toggle switches to 
lower the cost of switching from incandescent lamps to non-dimmable LED 
lamps. (Anonymous, No. 42 at p. 1) A third anonymous commenter stated 
that if 10 percent of lighting in a home is on a dimmer DOE should 
account for the cost of replacing incandescent dimmers with LED-
compatible dimmers, and further stated that such dimmers cost anywhere 
from $20-50 and the cost of the electrician labor is at least $100 per 
visit. (Anonymous, No. 40 at p. 1) Project 21 stated LED lamps cannot 
dim the same way Edison lamps do and result in loss of aesthetics as 
they cannot function in older fixtures such as antique chandeliers. 
(Project 21, No. 44 at pp. 1-2) The Free Market Organizations stated 
that LED lamps are more efficient and longer-lasting but cost more than 
incandescent bulbs and have inferior dimming. (Free Market 
Organizations, No. 65 at p. 4)
    As DOE has previously noted, this is not a discretionary standards 
rulemaking subject to evaluation of the factors at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 
However, consistent with E.O. 12866, DOE notes that it has provided a 
cost-benefit analysis of implementing the 45 lm/W backstop for GSLs, 
which is discussed in greater detail for the public in section IV.A. 
Power factor is the ratio of the real power (wattage used by the lamp) 
to the apparent power (voltage multiplied by current drawn by the lamp 
circuit and what the electrical grid must withstand). A low power 
factor indicates that the lamp circuit is drawing more current than is 
being utilized. DOE's review of the market indicates that there are a 
substantial number of LED lamps with a power factor of 0.9 or greater. 
It also indicates that dimmable versions of LED lamps are readily 
available as well as a wide range of LED lamps with decorative shapes 
such as bullet, candle, flare and globe. Additionally, in response to 
the August 2021 Definition NOPR, NEMA commented that the rapid shift of 
decorative lamps (i.e., T-Shape, B, BA, F, G16-1/2, G25, G30, S and M-
14 shapes) to LED technology has been occurring for over 9 years and is 
nearing completion by market forces alone. NEMA also estimated the 
total market volume of decorative lamps at 950 million; and 520 million 
out of 665 million on mostly switch-controlled sockets have already 
been converted to LED technology, with 285 million incandescent 
decorative lamps on dimmers that would need to switch to LED 
technology. (NEMA, EERE-2021-

[[Page 27457]]

BT-STD-001, No. 20 \23\ at pp. 3-4) NEMA's estimations indicate that a 
substantive conversion to LED dimmer technology has been taking place 
for decorative lamps and therefore, is economically feasible for 
consumers. Additionally, dimming of solid-state lighting is the subject 
of continual research and development such as dim-to-warm LED products 
which can mimic the dimming of incandescent lamps.\24\ DOE notes that 
while the costs of replacing dimmers is not quantified here, the cost 
is not significant with respect to the operating costs savings of LED 
lamps relative to incandescent lamps. Regarding the rebound effect, DOE 
clarifies that it assumed no rebound in its estimate of the annualized 
national economic costs and benefits as a result of the implementation 
of the backstop (see section IV.A), consistent with the analysis in the 
March 2016 NOPR and in the December 2019 Final Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0012.
    \24\ U.S. Department of Energy, Dim-to-Warm LED Lighting: Stress 
Testing Results for Select Products, January 2020, available at 
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2020/04/f73/ssl-d2w-led-stress-testing-2020.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Potential Health and Safety Concerns
    Sherman commented that they are unable to see clearly or spend more 
than a few minutes under LED or fluorescent lighting without severe 
problems such as headaches. (Sherman, No. 35 at p. 1) Maier asserted 
that the backstop requirement violates the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (``ADA'') and requested that incandescent lamps continue to be 
available. Maier referenced a comment on the DOE website, in which the 
commenter stated they have a disability and cannot tolerate LED lamps 
and states that such an individual is protected under the ADA to use 
incandescent lamps. Maier further stated that Title 2 of ADA requires 
that individuals be consulted before implementation of such standards 
and that Title 1 of ADA requires reasonable accommodation for those 
with disabilities. (Maier, No. 47 at p. 1)
    As discussed, DOE is codifying the backstop requirement as mandated 
by EPCA. DOE notes that the backstop requirement does not mandate the 
use of a particular technology and instead prohibits the sale of lamps 
below a specified efficiency (i.e., 45 lm/W). (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v)) Though the public comments do not include 
quantitative evidence of specific lighting technology characteristics 
relevant to health, DOE has considered these public comments. DOE 
researched studies and other publications to ascertain any known 
impacts of LED lamps on human health and has not found any evidence 
concluding that LED lighting used for general lighting applications 
directly results in adverse health effects.\25\ Additionally, DOE notes 
that the ADA does not apply to DOE for purposes of this rule, as the 
ADA only applies to private employers and not Federal agencies. 
Individuals wishing to file complaints under the ADA can visit 
www.ada.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ European Commission, ``Scientific Committee on Health, 
Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) Report,'' June 2018. 
Available at https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/files/2019-02/scheer_o_011_0.pdf; Cleveland Clinic, ``Are LED Lights Damaging Your 
Retina?'' August 9, 2019. Available at https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-led-lights-damaging-your-retina/; 
Light Europe, ``Frequently Asked Questions on alleged LED health 
related issues,'' December 2016. Available at https://www.lightingeurope.org/images/publications/general/FAQ_on_alleged_LED_related_health_issues_-_December_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Glass and Walton commented regarding their concerns with the 
detrimental effects of LED technology in transportation applications 
(e.g., motor vehicle lamps, street lamps, construction equipment). 
(Glass, No. 36 at p. 1; Walton, No. 37 at pp. 1-2)
    GSLs and GSILs are covered under Part B of EPCA, which authorizes 
the regulation of certain consumer products. For the purpose of Part B, 
the definition of ``consumer product'' excludes products used in 
automobiles. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) Further, covered GSILs do not 
include those consumer products designed solely for use in recreational 
vehicles and other mobile equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)) 
Additionally, the GSL definition adopted in the 2022 Definitions Final 
Rule excludes lamps with lumens greater than 3,300 lumens (see section 
II.B of this document). Streetlamps and lighting for construction 
applications are generally 5,000 lumens or greater. Further, the 
definition of GSL excludes street signal lamps. As such, the lamps 
relevant to the concerns raised by Glass and Walton are generally not 
covered as GSLs and are not subject to the backstop requirement.
    Sherman commented that incandescent lamps provide additional 
warming which can offset heating costs and can be used to keep water 
pipes from freezing where otherwise a space heater is used, which can 
be a fire hazard. (Sherman, No. 35 at p. 1) Glass stated that LED lamps 
are uncomfortable and also disruptive to animal and plant life. (Glass, 
No. 36 at p. 1)
    Regarding the ability of incandescent lamps to provide heat in 
certain circumstances (e.g., to keep pipes from freezing), DOE notes 
that the statutory backstop requirement applies to GSLs, which as 
defined exempts infrared lamps which have the primary purpose of 
providing heat (see section II.B of this document).
    DOE researched this issue and did not identify any studies 
indicating that LED lamps have an adverse impact on animal and plant 
life.
    A private citizen commented that incandescent/halogen lamps are 
being banned while less-efficient gas lights are still allowed to be 
sold in the U.S. They stated that a gas light uses 2500 British thermal 
units (``Btu'') or 732 W to produce the same amount of light as a 60 W 
incandescent or a 42-43 W halogen lamp and has a continuously burning 
pilot light that uses energy. (Anonymous, No. 49 at p. 1)
    The 45 lm/W backstop requirement is applicable to all GSLs, and is 
not specific to any one lighting technology such as incandescent or 
halogen lighting. Therefore, the sale of any lamp that meets the 
definition of a GSL and has an efficacy less than 45 lm/W will be 
prohibited.

III. Conclusion

    DOE has determined that the statutory 45 lm/W backstop requirement 
that applies to GSLs in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) has been triggered. 
This final rule codifies the backstop requirement at 10 CFR 430.32.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866

    This final rule is an economically significant regulatory action 
under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 
(October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review by 
OIRA in the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB''). Pursuant to 
section 6(a)(3)(C) of the Order, DOE has provided to OIRA an 
assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs 
anticipated from the regulatory action, together with, to the extent 
feasible, a quantification of those costs. This assessment can be found 
in DOE's technical report that accompanies this rulemaking and the 
methodology is summarized in section II.D.2 of this document.

[[Page 27458]]



                         Table IV.1--Summary of Annualized Costs and Benefits, 2022-2051
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Million 2020$/year
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Low-net-benefits  High-net-benefits
                                                          Primary estimate       estimate           estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................            2,955.1            2,788.0            3,128.8
Climate Benefits *.....................................              591.0              571.1              606.0
Health Benefits **.....................................            1,100.5            1,063.8            1,128.2
Total Benefits [dagger]................................            4,646.6            4,422.9            4,863.0
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............              148.9              150.9              145.0
Net Benefits...........................................            4,497.7            4,272.0            4,718.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings........................            2,864.5            2,725.3            3,010.0
Climate Benefits *.....................................              591.0              571.1              606.0
Health Benefits **.....................................              960.8              932.4              982.3
Total Benefits [dagger]................................            4,416.4            4,228.8            4,598.4
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]............              177.6              180.3              173.0
Net Benefits...........................................            4,238.8            4,048.5            4,425.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with all GSLs shipped in 2022-2051. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2051 from the products shipped in 2022-2051. This analysis
  presents costs and benefits assuming compliance beginning in 2022. As DOE has explained, DOE will release
  enforcement guidance simultaneously with this rulemaking. If significant compliance behavior changes result
  from enforcement discretion, both benefits and costs could be reduced for the relevant years, although DOE
  expects the net benefits will not be significantly changed.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane
  (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates;
  95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). Together these represent the global social cost of greenhouse
  gases (SC-GHG). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-
  GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate. See the accompanying technical report for details.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
  the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. On March 16,
  2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for
  stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-
  1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
  effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. The
  preliminary injunction enjoined the Federal government from relying on the interim estimates of the social
  cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse
  Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of
  further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present
  monetized benefits in accordance with applicable Executive orders.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.


 Table IV.2--Summary of Cumulative Monetized Economic Benefits and Costs
                         for All GSLs, 2022-2051
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Billion 2020$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................               59.7
Climate Benefits *...................................               11.9
Health Benefits **...................................               22.2
Total Benefits [dagger]..............................               93.8
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..........                3.0
Net Benefits.........................................               90.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings......................               38.0
Climate Benefits *...................................               11.9
Health Benefits **...................................               12.8
Total Benefits [dagger]..............................               62.7
Consumer Incremental Product Costs [Dagger]..........                2.4
Net Benefits.........................................               60.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with all
  GSLs shipped in 2022-2051 using a present year of 2022. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2051 from the
  products shipped in 2022-2051.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
  social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide
  (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent
  discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate). Together
  these represent the global social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG).
  For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits
  associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are
  shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate.

[[Page 27459]]

 
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
  and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
  precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
  benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
  effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
  emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of
  3 and 7 percent.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health
  benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both
  the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-
  GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a
  single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance
  and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG
  estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
  22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay
  pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result
  of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer
  in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's appeal of
  that injunction or a further court order. The preliminary injunction
  enjoined the Federal government from relying on the interim estimates
  of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the
  Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on
  February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas
  emissions. In the absence of further intervening court orders, DOE
  will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present
  monetized benefits in accordance with applicable Executive orders.
[Dagger] Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as
  installation costs.

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 (``IRFA'') 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, 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 E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 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 
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website 
(energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 
19, 2003. DOE is revising the Code of Federal Regulations to 
incorporate and implement the backstop requirement for general service 
lamps that Congress prescribed in EPCA. Because DOE is not imposing 
additional costs beyond those required by statute, DOE concludes and 
certifies that this final rule has no significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities and the preparation of a FRFA is 
not warranted.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule 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

    DOE has analyzed this regulation in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations 
(10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical exclusion 
for rulemakings interpreting or amending an existing rule or regulation 
that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation 
being amended. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A5. DOE has 
completed the necessary review under NEPA and has determined that this 
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion A5 because it is 
amending a rule that does not change the environmental effect of the 
rule and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a 
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. 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 
final rule. DOE's CX determination for this final rule is available at 
energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusioncx-determinations-cx.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 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 final rule and has 
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
products that are the subject of this proposed 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 12988.

[[Page 27460]]

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``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 
energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    This final rule codifies the sales prohibition of GSLs with an 
efficacy of less than 45 lm/W prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v). 
As this final rule would incorporate requirements specifically set 
forth in law, an assessment under UMRA is not required and has not been 
conducted.

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 E.O. 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). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. 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

    E.O. 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 a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Small businesses.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 26, 
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original 
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes 
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal 
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been 
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for 
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 28, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 
chapter II 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.


0
2. Amend Sec.  430.32 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text to paragraphs (n)(5) and (6), (u)(1), 
and (x)(1);

[[Page 27461]]

0
b. Revising paragraphs (x)(2) and (3);
0
c. Revising the introductory text to paragraphs (bb)(1) and (2); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (dd).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (5) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this 
section, and except as provided in paragraph (n)(6) of this section, 
each of the following incandescent reflector lamps manufactured after 
November 1, 1995, shall meet or exceed the lamp efficacy standards 
shown in the table:
* * * * *
    (6) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this 
section, each of the following incandescent reflector lamps 
manufactured after July 14, 2012, shall meet or exceed the lamp 
efficacy standards shown in the table:
* * * * *
    (u) * * *
    (1) Medium Base Compact Fluorescent Lamps. Subject to the sales 
prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this section, a bare or covered (no 
reflector) medium base compact fluorescent lamp manufactured on or 
after January 1, 2006, must meet the following requirements:
* * * * *
    (x) * * *
    (1) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this 
section, the energy conservation standards in this paragraph apply to 
general service incandescent lamps:
* * * * *
    (2) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this 
section, each candelabra base incandescent lamp shall not exceed 60 
rated watts.
    (3) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this 
section, each intermediate base incandescent lamp shall not exceed 40 
rated watts.
* * * * *
    (bb) * * *
    (1) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this 
section, rough service lamps manufactured on or after January 25, 2018 
must:
* * * * *
    (2) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this 
section, vibration service lamps manufactured on or after January 25, 
2018 must:
* * * * *
    (dd) General service lamp. Beginning July 25, 2022 the sale of any 
general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 
45 lumens per watt is prohibited.

[FR Doc. 2022-09477 Filed 5-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>