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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

27439 

Vol. 87, No. 89 

Monday, May 9, 2022 

1All 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). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

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)) 

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/EERE2021-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: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: 

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov. 

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)) 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27440 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

4See Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 

(Pub. L. 115–31, div. D, tit. III); see also 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 

115–141). 

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)) 

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

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 decisionmaking 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 reVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:08 May 06, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09MYR1.SGM 09MYR1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27441 

5The 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. 6The 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. 

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. 

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 reevaluation 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27442 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

7The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s reevaluation 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). 

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 Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy 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.

ASAP et al .......................... Energy Efficiency Organization; State Official/Agency. 

Attorneys General of New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, 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.

Attorneys General .............. State Official/Agency. 

California Energy Commission ...................................................................................... CEC .................................... State Official/Agency. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern 

California Edison.

CA IOUs ............................. Utilities. 

Center for Energy and Environment Competitive Enterprise 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.

Free Market Organizations Consumer Advocacy Organizations. 

Consumer Federation of America, The National Consumer Law Center ..................... CFA and NCLC .................. Consumer Advocacy 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’’) at NYU School of Law, Montana Environmental 

Information Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of 

Concerned Scientists.

IPI et al ............................... Energy Efficiency Organizations. 

Jean Sherman ............................................................................................................... Sherman ............................. Individual commenter. 

Lutron Electronics Co., Inc ............................................................................................ Lutron ................................. Manufacturer. 

Minimise USA ................................................................................................................ Minimise USA ..................... Energy Efficiency Services 

Company. 

National Association of State Energy Officials .............................................................. NASEO ............................... State Official/Agency. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association .............................................................. NEMA ................................. Trade Association. 

National Retail Federation, Retail Industry Leaders Association .................................. NRF and RILA .................... Trade Association. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ................................... NYSERDA .......................... State Official/Agency. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ............................................................................ NEEA .................................. Energy Efficiency Organization. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council ................................................................. NPC Council ....................... State Organization. 

Project 21—National Research for Public Policy Research ......................................... Project 21 ........................... Research Organization. 

Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice .................................. SC, NRDC, and EJ ............ Energy Efficiency 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

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27443 

8Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2017/01/f34/Statement%20on%20Enforcement

%20of%20GSL%20Standard%20- 

%201.18.2017.pdf. 

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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27444 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

9Although 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.’’). 

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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27445 

10Available at: www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE-2018-BT-STD-0010. 

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 statutorilyimposed 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27446 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

11As 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 shatterprotected 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)) 

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)) 

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; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27448 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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 lowincome 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27450 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

12www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2021/06/08/fact-sheet-biden-harrisadministration-announces-supply-chaindisruptions-task-force-to-address-short-termsupply-chain-discontinuities/. 13www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dotlays-out-actions-strengthen-supply-chains-andrevitalize-economy. 14www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dotlays-out-actions-strengthen-supply-chains-andrevitalize-economy. 

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 higherincome 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 lowervolume 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. 

Further, DOE recognizes the sellthrough 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 nearterm market and supply chain 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27451 

15EPA, ‘‘The Light Bulb Revolution,’’ October 

2017 available at https://www.energystar.gov/sites/ 

default/files/asset/document/LBR_2017-LEDTakeover.pdf. 

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 shortterm 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/businesscenter/guidance/ftc-lighting-facts-labelquestions-answers-manufacturers. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27452 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 costbenefit 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 (‘‘CO2’’) 

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 dioxideequivalent 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 CO2 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27453 

16The methodology is described in ‘‘Utility 

Sector Impacts of Reduced Electricity Demand’’ 

(Coughlin, 2014; Coughlin 2019). 

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 nonew-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-newstandards 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 CO2, nitrous 

oxide (‘‘N2O’’), and methane (‘‘CH4’’). 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27454 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

17See 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). 18www.regulations.gov/. 

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 CO2, CH4, and N2O 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-changerelated 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 CO2, CH4, and N2O 

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 CO2, N2O 

and CH4 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. 

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–CO2) values used across agencies. 

The IWG published SC–CO2 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 CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 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–CH4) and 

nitrous oxide (SC–N2O) using 

methodologies that are consistent with 

the methodology underlying the SC– 

CO2 estimates. The modeling approach 

that extends the IWG SC–CO2

methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has 

undergone multiple stages of peer 

review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

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–CO2 estimates, the 

IWG announced a National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

review of the SC–CO2 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–CO2 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–CO2 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)). 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished 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–CH4 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27455 

19For 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. 

20See 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). 

21Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing 

Directly-Emitted PM2.5, PM2.5 Precursors and Ozone 

Precursors from 21 Sectors. www.epa.gov/system/ 

files/documents/2021–10/source-apportionmenttsd-oct-2021_0.pdf. 

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 benefitcost 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–CO2 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–CO2

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–CO2 values, 

as recommended by the IWG.19 DOE 

multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction 

estimated for each year by the SC–CO2

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–CO2 values in each case. 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this final rule were generated using 

the values presented in the 2021 update 

from the IWG.20 The SC–CH4 and SC– 

N2O 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–CH4 and SC– 

N2O values, as recommended by the 

IWG. DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

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–CH4

and SC–N2O estimates in each case. 

The estimated monetary health 

benefits from the reduced emissions of 

sulfur dioxides (‘‘SO2’’) and nitrogen 

oxides (‘‘NOX’’) 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

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 SO2 and NOX

emissions and case-specific discount 

rates for the value of the other 

greenhouse gas (‘‘GHG’’) (CO2, N2O, and 

CH4) 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27456 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

22See 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). 

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, peerreviewed 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–CO2 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. 

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– 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27457 

23Available at www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE–2021–BT–STD–0012. 

24U.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-stresstesting-2020.pdf. 

25European 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-lightsdamaging-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. 

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 dimto-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. 

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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27458 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.1—SUMMARY OF ANNUALIZED COSTS AND BENEFITS, 2022–2051 

Million 2020$/year 

Primary estimate Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

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 † .......................................................................................................... 4,646.6 4,422.9 4,863.0 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .................................................................... 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 † .......................................................................................................... 4,416.4 4,228.8 4,598.4 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .................................................................... 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. 

† 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. 

‡ 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 † .............................................................................................................................................................................. 93.8 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ........................................................................................................................................ 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 † .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62.7 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ........................................................................................................................................ 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

† 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. 

‡ 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/officegeneral-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/categoricalexclusioncx-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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
27460 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 430.32 by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text to 

paragraphs (n)(5) and (6), (u)(1), and 

(x)(1); 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 27461 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (x)(2) and (3); 

■ c. Revising the introductory text to 

paragraphs (bb)(1) and (2); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (dd). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2021–BT–STD–0012] 

RIN 1904–AF22 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Definitions for General Service Lamps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On January 19, 2017, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

published two final rules adopting 

revised definitions of general service 

lamp (‘‘GSL’’) and general service 

incandescent lamp (‘‘GSIL’’), and other 

supplemental definitions, to go into 

effect January 1, 2020. (‘‘January 2017 

Final Rules’’). Prior to that effective 

date, on September 5, 2019, DOE 

withdrew the revised definitions of 

GSL, GSIL, and the other supplemental 

definitions. Upon further review and 

consideration, on August 19, 2021, DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) proposing to 

amend the definitions of GSL, GSIL and 

the other supplemental definitions as 

previously set forth in the January 2017 

Final Rules. DOE responds to comments 

received on the NOPR in this final rule 

and adopts the definitions of GSL and 

GSIL and the associated supplemental 

definitions set forth in the January 2017 

Final Rules as proposed in the NOPR. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

July 8, 2022. The incorporation by 

reference of other material listed in this 

rulemaking was approved by the 

Director of the Federal Register on 

March 23, 2009. 

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/EERE2021-BT-STD-0012. 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: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: 

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule 

II. 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 

Subsequent Review 

E. August 2021 Notice of Proposed Rule 

III. General Discussion 

A. September 2019 Withdrawal Rule 

B. Reflector Lamps 

C. Consumer Choice, Health Impacts 

D. Potential Revisions to the Proposed 

Definitions 

1. Lumens 

2. Base Type and Voltage 

3. Color Tunable Lamps 

E. Market Share, Cost Savings, Energy 

Savings, and Emission Reductions 

1. Market Share 

2. Consumer Costs, Energy Savings, 

Emission Reductions 

F. State Preemption 

G. Effective Date 

1. GSL Definitions Effective Date 

2. GSL Backstop Effective Date 

H. Analysis 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES