[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7276-7322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-32013]



[[Page 7275]]

Vol. 82

Thursday,

No. 12

January 19, 2017

Part X

Book 3 of 3 Books

Pages 7275-7630





Department of Energy





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



10 CFR Part 430



Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General 
Service Lamps; Final Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2017 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 7276]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0051]
RIN 1904-AD09


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: On March 17, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing standards 
for general service lamps (GSLs) pursuant to the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as amended. DOE responds to comments 
received on the NOPDDA in this final rule and adopts a revised 
definition of GSL and other supplemental definitions.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The docket, 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, some documents listed in the index may not be publicly 
available, such as those containing information that is exempt from 
public disclosure.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4. This Web page contains a link to the docket 
for this document on the www.regulations.gov site. The 
www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to 
access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1604. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Authority and Rulemaking Process
III. Adopted Definition of General Service Lamp
    A. General Service Lamp Definition
    1. GSILs
    a. Exemptions Proposed To Be Discontinued in October 2016 NOPDDA
    b. Exemptions Proposed To Be Maintained in October 2016 NOPDDA
    c. Amended Definition for GSIL
    2. CFLs
    3. General Service LED Lamps and OLED Lamps
    4. Other Lamps
    a. Product Availability
    b. General Lighting Applications
    c. ANSI Bases
    d. Lumen Range
    e. Operating Voltage
    f. Exempted Lamps From GSL
    g. Lamps Subject to Other Rulemakings
    5. Summary and Adopted Regulatory Text Definition
    B. Supporting Definitions
    1. Black Light Lamp, Colored Lamp, Plant Light Lamp, and Bug 
Lamp
    2. Infrared Lamp
    3. Appliance Lamp
    4. Marine Lamp
    5. Showcase Lamp
    6. Traffic Signal Lamp
    7. Silver Bowl Lamp
    8. Specialty MR Lamp
    9. Designed and Marketed
    10. Other Definitions
IV. Energy Conservation Standards
    A. Energy Conservation Standards Proposed in the March 2016 GSL 
ECS NOPR
    B. Backstop
    C. Preemption
V. Manufacturer Impacts
VI. Clarifications to Regulatory Text
VII. Effective Date
VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

    Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other 
Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances 
(collectively referred to as ``covered products'').\1\ Subsequent 
amendments expanded Title III of EPCA to include additional consumer 
products, including general service lamps (GSLs)--the products that are 
the focus of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Part B was re-designated Part A on codification in the U.S. 
Code for editorial reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, amendments to EPCA in the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) directed DOE to engage in rulemakings 
regarding GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)) EPCA, as amended by EISA 
2007, directs DOE to initiate a rulemaking no later than January 1, 
2014, to determine whether standards in effect for GSLs should be 
amended and determine whether exemptions for certain incandescent lamps 
should be maintained or discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) The 
scope of the rulemaking is not limited to incandescent lamp 
technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) Further, for this first 
cycle of rulemaking, the EISA 2007 amendments provide that DOE must 
consider a minimum standard of 45 lumens per watt (lm/W). (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE fails to complete a rulemaking in accordance 
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv) or 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 beginning on January 1, 
2020. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v))
    In March 2016, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 
that proposed a revised definition of GSL and energy conservation 
standards for certain GSLs (hereafter the ``March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR''). 
81 FR 14528 (March 17, 2016). In conjunction with the March 2016 GSL 
ECS NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the complete technical 
support document (TSD) for the proposed rule, which described the 
analyses DOE conducted and included technical documentation for each 
analysis. The TSD also included the life cycle cost (LCC) spreadsheet, 
the national impact analysis spreadsheet, and the manufacturer impact 
analysis (MIA) spreadsheet.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The spreadsheets developed for this rulemaking proceeding 
are available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE held a public meeting on April 20, 2016, to hear oral comments 
on and

[[Page 7277]]

solicit information relevant to the proposed rule. At this meeting, DOE 
heard concerns from stakeholders regarding the expansion of scope in 
the proposed GSL definition and DOE's approach to analyzing the 22 GSIL 
exemptions. In addition, DOE received written comments that reiterated 
concerns, and also provided additional data for DOE's consideration. 
Specifically, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 
provided new data and information on the 22 exempted lamp types to 
inform DOE's evaluation of whether the exemptions should be maintained 
or discontinued as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II).
    After the publication of the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR, DOE analyzed 
the data submitted by NEMA and collected additional data where 
available. DOE published a notice of proposed definition and data 
availability (hereafter the ``October 2016 NOPDDA'') to: (1) Propose a 
revised definition of GSL; (2) announce the availability of the NEMA 
data and supplemental data collected by DOE; (3) request public comment 
on proposed definitions and compiled data; and (4) request any 
additional data that stakeholders may have in support of this 
evaluation. 81 FR 71794 (October 18, 2016). DOE also held a public 
meeting on October 21, 2016 to hear oral comments and solicit 
information relevant to the October 2016 NOPDDA.
    Utility Coalition urged DOE to finalize this rulemaking before the 
January 1, 2017 deadline set by EISA 2007. Additionally, Utility 
Coalition recommended that if any of their comments would cause DOE to 
miss the deadline, then the comments should be deferred to the next GSL 
rulemaking. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at pp. 1-2) Philips Lighting 
(Philips) also urged DOE to complete the rulemaking on time. (Philips, 
No. 96 at p. 2)
    The following sections of this preamble respond to comments 
received on the October 2016 NOPDDA and during the NOPDDA public 
meeting, except those specifically related to incandescent reflector 
lamps, and describe the adopted GSL definition and additional data in 
more detail. In a separate final rule DOE is responding to comments 
specifically related to incandescent reflector lamps.

II. Authority and Rulemaking Process

    DOE is required under the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA to undertake 
the present rulemaking. Under EPCA, DOE shall initiate a rulemaking to 
determine whether standards in effect for GSLs should be amended to 
establish more stringent standards; and determine whether exemptions 
for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) In addition to that mandate, DOE has the 
authority to qualify lamps as general service lamps upon determining 
that they are ``used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally 
served by general service incandescent lamps.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB)(i)(IV))
    An additional statute relevant to this rulemaking is section 312 of 
the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. 
L. 114-113, 129 Stat. 2419; hereafter referred to as the 
``Appropriations Rider'') that prohibits expenditure of funds 
appropriated by that law to implement or enforce: (1) 10 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).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This provision of the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2016 has been extended to the current 
appropriations authorization. See, The Continuing Appropriations and 
Military Construction, Veteran Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2017 and Zika Response and Preparedness Act, 
2017 (Pub. L. 114-223, 130 Stat. 908).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule constitutes a decision on whether to maintain or 
discontinue various lamp exemptions and, in addition, DOE is 
determining that certain types of lamps should be included as GSLs 
because they are used for lighting applications traditionally served by 
GSILs. This final rule does not determine whether DOE should impose or 
amend standards for any category of lamps, such as GSILs or GSLs.
    As discussed in more detail, DOE is grounding the first of those 
decisions, namely which exemptions to maintain or discontinue, on an 
assessment of whether lamps within a given exemption would provide a 
convenient unregulated alternative to lamps that will be subject to 
energy conservation standards. In DOE's view, EPCA exempted certain 
categories of lamps because, on the one hand, some lamps in those 
categories have specialty applications; and on the other hand, it was 
not clear, when these lamp provisions were enacted, whether those lamps 
were part of the broader lamp market to which Congress wished to apply 
energy conservation standards. The purpose, then, of the decision that 
Congress entrusted to DOE, to maintain or to discontinue a given 
exemption, was that DOE should assess the role of lamps of that type in 
the broader lighting market, bearing in mind the evident statutory 
purpose of achieving energy conservation by imposing efficiency 
standards for general lighting.
    While the statute does not expressly state a criterion by which DOE 
should decide which exemptions to maintain--it simply identifies one 
important evidentiary input, sales data--DOE understands its 
instruction to be that DOE should maintain an exemption if doing so 
would be consistent with that statutory purpose, and discontinue the 
exemption if it would not. To carry out that instruction, DOE has 
assessed for each exemption whether lamps within that exemption are 
readily substitutable for lamps that are already categorized as general 
service lamps. Sales data, as the statute directs, are an important 
type of evidence informing that assessment.
    The discontinuation of certain exemptions will render the lamps 
within those exemptions GSLs, to the extent they would otherwise 
qualify as GSLs, and for some lamps GSILs. As the October 2016 NOPDDA 
observed, DOE will then either impose standards on these lamps 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.
    Commenters, chief among them LEDVANCE, objected to both the 
procedures that DOE undertook and the substance of what it proposed to 
determine. In general, LEDVANCE contended that DOE cannot make lamps 
subject to a given standard--whether a DOE-developed standard or the 
backstop--simply by undertaking a definitional exercise such as it 
proposed in the October 2016 NOPDDA. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 3) 
LEDVANCE offered multiple, connected arguments in support of that 
general position.
    First, LEDVANCE pointed out that, in general, section 6295 requires 
DOE to conduct certain analyses and carry out certain procedures when 
it amends standards. Under section 6295(o), ``[a]ny new or amended 
energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary under this 
section . . . shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency'' that is ``technologically feasible and economically 
justified.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). DOE cannot generally prescribe a 
new or amended standard if it has not prescribed a test procedure for 
the relevant product, or if DOE determines that the standard will not 
result in ``significant conservation of energy.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3). 
DOE also generally cannot prescribe a new or amended standard if it 
finds that the

[[Page 7278]]

standard would ``result in the unavailability in the United States'' of 
a type of product ``of performance characteristics . . . that are 
substantially the same as those generally available'' at the time. 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). Procedurally, in general to impose a new or amended 
standard, DOE must publish a proposed rule and permit 60 days of 
comment, and it cannot publish a final rule less than 90 days after the 
proposed rule. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p). In addition, DOE has typically taken 
various other procedural steps, such as publication of a framework 
document before the proposed rule, when it amends a standard. 
(LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 4-5)
    LEDVANCE observed that DOE is evidently not engaging in comparable 
substantive analyses with respect to its definition of GSL, and that 
DOE has not undertaken comparable procedures (including 60 days of 
comment). (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 4-6) DOE acknowledges those 
observations to be correct, and it considers its approach appropriate 
and consistent with the statute. The requirements that LEDVANCE cited 
apply, by their terms, only when DOE prescribes a new or amended 
standard. This final rule does neither. Rather, DOE is deciding which 
lamp exemptions to discontinue and which to maintain and determining 
that certain lamps should be GSLs because they are used to satisfy 
lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs.
    DOE acknowledges, of course, that a likely consequence of DOE's 
including additional lamps in the definition of GSL is that those lamps 
will be subject to energy conservation standards. DOE has the authority 
to impose standards for GSLs; and if it does not impose such standards 
or does not impose standards that meet a certain condition, then EPCA 
specifies a minimum standard of 45 lm/W. In LEDVANCE's view, this 
consequence means that DOE must, before including a given lamp as a 
GSL, carry out the same type of rulemaking (in both procedure and 
substance) as it would in prescribing a new or amended standard.
    DOE sees a difference between the two modes in which GSLs may be 
subject to standards. Where DOE develops its own energy conservation 
standards, it carries out the analyses that section 6295(o) calls for 
and provides the procedure that section 6295(p) mandates. But it does 
so in the course of developing the standards, just as sections 6295(o) 
and 6295(p) provide. The decision to include a lamp within the scope of 
GSLs would only be a precursor to that standards development. If DOE 
does not develop its own energy conservation standards for GSLs, 
section 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) requires it to impose a standard of 45 lm/W. 
If that obligation were to come into force, DOE would not perform the 
section 6295(o) analyses or follow the section 6295(p) procedure to 
fulfill it. Because in that circumstance the statute itself would 
require DOE to prohibit sales of lamps below that standard, DOE would 
not be ``prescrib[ing] a new or amended standard,'' the situation in 
which sections 6295(o) and 6295(p) apply. In addition, reading those 
provisions harmoniously with section 6295(i)(6), DOE does not believe 
the section 6295(o) and section 6295(p) requirements were meant to 
apply to a rulemaking imposing the section 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) backstop. 
The backstop provision specifies by number a particular efficacy 
standard and says DOE ``shall'' prohibit sales of lamps below that 
standard. If the general standards-setting provisions applied in that 
context, DOE would have discretion, depending on the evidence, to 
conclude that the 45 lm/W standard is not technologically feasible or 
not economically justified (on the basis of the multiple factors, 
including ``other factors the Secretary considers relevant,'' that 
inform that assessment under section 6295(o)). For DOE to retain that 
discretion would be inconsistent with the mandatory language of the 
backstop.
    Of course, for lamps that will be GSLs only as a consequence of 
this final rule, DOE is exercising some discretion that will result in 
those lamps being subject to some standard (potentially the backstop or 
some standard that DOE develops). Nonetheless, DOE does not believe 
that fact obligates it to engage in section 6295(o) analyses or section 
6295(p) procedures for this rule--either as a matter of law or for the 
sake of sound decision making.
    The scheme that section 6295(i)(6) establishes for GSLs differs in 
important ways from what is in place for consumer products in general 
under section 6295. For most products, DOE has discretion to develop 
the initial standards or to amend, in the course of periodic reviews, 
standards initially set by statute. Using that authority, DOE could in 
principle set any type of standard, such as a level of performance or a 
design requirement, with far-reaching consequences for the products at 
issue. To guide that exercise of discretion, Congress has laid out 
various restrictions on the standards-setting authority and substantive 
factors that DOE must consider. By contrast, in section 6295(i)(6), 
Congress expressed a strong preference for 45 lm/W as an efficacy 
standard. If DOE takes no other action, that will be the standard for 
GSLs. Congress permitted DOE to establish different standards if DOE 
chooses to do so and can demonstrate that an alternative set of 
standards would produce at least as much energy savings. But in the 
rulemaking to consider whether to set different standards, DOE must 
consider the alternative of effectively setting a 45 lm/W standard for 
all GSLs, whereby DOE would simply not take the option that Congress 
provided for setting other standards, and instead adopt Congress's 
default standard.
    At the same time, Congress exempted certain lamps from the GSL 
definition, and included within the scope of GSLs a category that left 
room for some additions. In both of these areas, DOE's authority is 
tightly circumscribed. With respect to the exemptions, DOE maintains or 
discontinues the exemptions as written. With respect to additions to 
the scope of GSLs, DOE can include additional lamps only if they 
satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs. In DOE's 
view, Congress simply deferred the last details of the definition of 
GSL for final assessment by DOE. By postponing the decision in that 
manner, Congress did not implicitly invoke, with respect to its 45 lm/
W, the whole machinery of DOE standards rulemaking under EPCA.
    The backstop reflects a congressional determination that a 45 lm/W 
standard is appropriate. For DOE to conduct an independent assessment 
of the technological feasibility, economic justification, and other 
such factors for the 45 lm/W standard as applied to a given set of 
lamps would risk being inconsistent with that congressional 
determination. DOE believes that the most important consideration with 
respect to the scope of GSLs is whether leaving a given set of lamps 
outside GSLs would undermine the regulation that Congress mandated for 
GSLs, by making readily available an unregulated substitute for lamps 
that are subject to the standard. If so, DOE cannot freely conduct its 
own evaluation of the 45 lm/W standard in the course of defining the 
scope of GSLs. For DOE to exclude from the definition of GSLs a lamp 
that consumers can use and do use in the same way they use GSLs, and do 
so on the ground that the 45 lm/W standard is not sound policy for that 
type of lamp, would be inconsistent with the policy Congress set in 
enacting EISA 2007.
    DOE acknowledges that paragraph (i)(6)(A) did not, upon enactment, 
require that the 45 lm/W default or a DOE-developed substitute apply to

[[Page 7279]]

lamps within the exemptions. But DOE believes it would be inconsistent 
with the EISA 2007 policy for DOE to decide whether to maintain or 
discontinue an exemption by assessing whether the 45 lm/W standard 
would be economically justified--in the sense of section 6295(o)--for 
the exempt lamps. Conducting that analysis could mean that even though 
a lamp is readily substitutable for GSLs, so that the lamp would serve 
as a loophole to GSL standards, DOE would find GSL standards not 
economically justified for that lamp. That conclusion would imply that 
GSL standards are not economically justified in themselves, which would 
contravene the statutory policy.
    Similarly, if DOE were to conclude that a lamp is readily 
substitutable for GSLs, yet the GSL standard is not technologically 
feasible for that lamp--in the sense of section 6295(o)--that 
conclusion would imply that the GSL standard is not technologically 
feasible overall. While it may not be possible to make incandescent 
lamps suitable for many current applications that meet a 45 lm/W 
standard, and consequently the paragraph (i)(6)(A) standards may result 
in the elimination of incandescent lamps covered by the standards, that 
outcome is the evident policy set by EISA 2007 regarding energy use in 
lighting. Therefore it is reasonable not to engage in a section 6295(o) 
analysis of technological feasibility in reviewing the GSL exemptions.
    DOE bases the preceding discussion on the overall structure of 
section 6295(i)(6). The particular language describing DOE's tasks 
regarding the definition of GSLs further supports DOE's conclusion. 
With respect to the exemptions, section 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) says that 
DOE shall make its decision to maintain or discontinue exemptions 
``based, in part, on exempted lamp sales collected . . . from 
manufacturers.'' If DOE were supposed to carry out a full section 
6295(o) analysis for this decision, lamp sales would be one among very 
many strands of evidence; under section 6295(o) DOE is to consider 
factors like the operating costs of a product over its lifetime, the 
energy savings from a proposed standard, how the standard will affect 
the utility of the product, the impact on competition, and other 
factors. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B). It seems odd that, among all the 
things at issue in a section 6295(o) analysis, section 
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) would call out just one specific item, sales data. 
By contrast, DOE believes its task is to assess whether lamps in a 
given exemption are a ready substitute for lamps that are not exempt, 
as that assessment relies upon sales data as an important input. Thus, 
the statutory reference to a decision ``based, in part, on exempted 
lamp sales'' makes much more sense under DOE's reading of the statute.
    With respect to the fourth type of GSLs provided for under the 
statutory definition, the statute requires a specific finding. DOE can 
include a lamp within GSLs if it determines that such lamps satisfy 
lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs. 42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB)(i)(IV). The particularity of that finding is not 
consistent with the notion that DOE should, in making that finding, 
carry out a section 6295(o) analysis. The factual question is whether a 
lamp satisfies traditional GSIL applications. Questions about, for 
example, how a given standard would affect the lamp's operating costs 
do not seem relevant to that factual question.
    LEDVANCE offered several arguments against DOE's interpretation of 
section 6295(i)(6)(A). First, LEDVANCE pointed out that in some other 
parts of section 6295, a decision about what products are covered is 
subject to section 6295(o) analysis and section 6295(p) procedures. As 
examples, LEDVANCE cited sections 6295(g)(7)(B) and 6295(i)(5). The 
former says that DOE shall publish a rule to determine ``whether to 
amend the standards in effect for fluorescent lamp ballasts, including 
whether such standards should be amended such that they would be 
applicable to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts.'' The latter 
requires DOE to begin a rulemaking ``to determine if the standards in 
effect for fluorescent lamps and incandescent lamps should be amended 
so that they would be applicable to additional'' lamps. (LEDVANCE, No. 
90 at pp. 4-6)
    By their terms, however, these provisions say that certain 
decisions about scope involve setting standards, and therefore are 
textually different from sections 6295(i)(6)(A) and 6291(30)(BB). That 
textual difference is also consistent with the preceding framework. In 
a section 6295(g)(7)(B) or 6295(i)(5) rule, DOE would be developing its 
own ``amended'' standard and simultaneously might be imposing that 
amended standard on a new set of products. That is the sort of 
situation in which, pursuant to the preceding explanation, sections 
6295(o) and 6295(p) could come into play. Here, by contrast, DOE is 
conducting a circumscribed coverage decision, in light of 
considerations coming from sections 6291(30)(BB) and 6295(i)(6)(A), 
that may result in products being subject to a standard already set by 
Congress.
    LEDVANCE also observed that in final rules in 2009 and 2015, DOE 
engaged in section 6295(o)-type analysis when deciding what products to 
subject to the standards set in those rules. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 5) 
However, those past situations were different from today's. Both rules 
were, in relevant part, responses to section 6295(i)(5). Thus, the 
statutory requirements were different from those at issue in this rule, 
for the reasons just given. And, apart from the statutory mandate, the 
substantive factors that were important for the decisions were 
different, for the preceding reasons.
    LEDVANCE offered an additional statutory argument based on EISA 
2007. Section 321 of EISA included a provision under which ``[a]ny 
person may petition the Secretary to establish standards for lamp 
shapes or bases that are excluded from the definition of general 
service lamps.'' DOE ``shall grant a petition,'' said section 321, if 
the evidence shows ``that commercial availability or sales of exempted 
incandescent lamp types of have increased significantly . . . and 
likely are being widely used in general lighting applications'' and 
``significant energy savings could be achieved by covering exempted 
products.'' If DOE were to grant such a petition, then it would have to 
conduct a rulemaking ``to determine standards for the exempted lamp 
shape or base,'' and it would be required to complete that rulemaking 
``not later than 18 months after the date on which notice is provided 
granting the petition.'' Public Law 110-140, section 321(a)(3), 121 
Stat. 1579.\4\ According to LEDVANCE, Congress would not have 
simultaneously prescribed this procedure and given DOE what LEDVANCE 
calls ``nearly unfettered discretion to unilaterally remove these same 
exclusions without any substantive economic or technical analysis.'' 
(LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 321 added this provision as paragraph 325(i)(1)(E) 
of EPCA. Section 322(b) of EISA purported to strike paragraph 
325(i)(1) in its entirety and replace it with a different text that 
did not include the material previously quoted. In its consideration 
of the argument that LEDVANCE put forward, DOE need not resolve how 
sections 321 and 322 interact and what is the current status of the 
provisions that section 321 added to EPCA section 325(i)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that its discretion regarding the exemptions is far from 
unfettered, and it rejects the notion that it is allowed to remove 
them, or is removing them, ``without any substantive economic or 
technical analysis.'' As laid out in the October 2016 NOPDDA, and as 
discussed in detail in section III.A.1, DOE's consideration of whether 
lamps in a

[[Page 7280]]

given exemption are ready substitutes for lamps already considered GSLs 
reflects a range of factors. For example, DOE has considered sales data 
as evidence of how lamps are being used. These considerations are not 
the same as the analysis DOE would conduct in developing an amended 
standard, but it is incorrect to suggest that DOE has performed no 
substantive analysis at all.
    In any case, the language in EISA section 321 is more consistent 
with DOE's understanding of its current task. DOE notes that the 
petition process was to proceed in two stages. First, DOE was to decide 
whether to grant a petition. The statute laid out certain criteria for 
that decision, including whether a given lamp type is likely being 
widely used in general lighting applications. Those criteria are 
different from the considerations described in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 
Second, if DOE granted a petition, it was to conduct a rulemaking to 
decide what standards to impose. Presumably, DOE would conduct a 
section 6295(o) analysis in evaluating standards at that point. But the 
section 321 language clearly distinguishes the two stages: It instructs 
DOE to do a standards-setting rulemaking ``if'' it grants a petition, 
and to complete the rulemaking within 18 months ``after the date on 
which notice is provided granting the petition.'' Evidently, the 
decision on the petition itself is not a rule prescribing standards. 
Similarly and by analogy, the current rule defines what are GSLs, and 
is not a rule prescribing standards to which sections 6295(o) and 
6295(p) apply.
    LEDVANCE further contended that the adoption of the petition 
process forecloses DOE's authority to maintain or discontinue 
exemptions as it does in this rule. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 5) However, 
section 321 itself provided both mechanisms: The response to petitions 
and the decision whether to continue or maintain exemptions.\5\ Section 
321 established certain procedures and criteria for responding to 
petitions. For the second type of decision, it did not prescribe the 
same considerations, either explicitly or by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The apparent conflict between sections 321 and 322 of EISA 
does not affect EPCA section 325(i)(6)(A), the provision that is the 
basis for DOE's decisions on the various exemptions. EISA section 
321 added section 325(i)(6), and section 322 did not alter it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE does not read 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) to implicitly 
invoke the same considerations. The petition process is distinct and 
independent from the decision to discontinue an exemption. When DOE 
discontinues an exemption, the previously exempted lamp is included 
among GSLs. By contrast, the petition provision from EISA section 321 
does not suggest that DOE would end an exemption, thus rendering a type 
of lamp a GSL. To the contrary, the petition process applies only to 
lamps that are exempted. Through that process, DOE could, if the 
petition satisfies certain prerequisites, establish standards even 
though the lamps are exempted from being GSLs. Further, because 
discontinuing an exemption under section 6295(i)(6)(A)(i) causes the 
affected lamps to be GSLs, the lamps become susceptible to the backstop 
GSL standard; and, if DOE establishes GSL standards to substitute for 
the backstop, it must include the formerly exempt lamps in its analysis 
of whether the substitute standards are adequate. By contrast, the 
petition process from EISA section 321 does not purport to be part of 
the GSL standards-setting process. Indeed, the section 321 language 
specifically requires DOE to assess whether sales of a given lamp have 
``increased significantly since the date on which the standards on 
general service lamps were established.'' Thus, the section 321 process 
is only available after the initial GSL standards process. Then, after 
granting a petition, DOE would establish whatever standard was 
appropriate in the circumstances, without regard to the 45 lm/W 
backstop. In short, the petition process would be a separate mechanism, 
under which DOE had considerably more latitude regarding standards than 
it does for GSLs. Accordingly, EISA section 321 prescribed specific 
gating criteria before DOE could grant a petition.
    To be sure, the fundamental concerns motivating the petition 
process and the authority granted to DOE to discontinue exemptions seem 
to be similar. The purpose of both, DOE believes, was to ensure that 
unregulated lamps do not present a loophole that would undermine the 
effect and purpose of energy conservation standards. To fulfill that 
purpose with respect to the exemptions, DOE is discontinuing an 
exemption if, considering sales data and technical features, it 
concludes that lamps within the exemption are already used in general 
lighting applications or are ready substitutes for GSLs. That analysis 
is comparable to what the petition provision prescribed. But it is not 
identical, because the processes are not identical.
    The analysis DOE has conducted is more appropriate for the current 
decision, and indeed, the analysis that EISA section 321 describes 
would not be appropriate. EISA section 321 states that the Secretary 
shall grant a petition if ``the petition presents evidence that 
demonstrates that commercial availability or sales of exempted 
incandescent lamp types have increased significantly since the 
standards on general service lamps were established.'' DOE understands 
the point of that assessment to be that if lamp sales have increased 
significantly since the establishment of standards, that increase may 
show the lamp has become a less regulated alternative to GSLs. Thus, 
the baseline--the volume of sales when standards were established--is 
critical for the analysis. At this point, when no standards have yet 
been established, the sales analysis described in EISA section 321 
would not be possible. DOE could assess whether sales of a lamp have 
increased in recent years, but increases or decreases, without 
reference to the baseline and the establishment of standards, would not 
demonstrate in the same way that a lamp has become a loophole to GSL 
standards.
    The other substantive criterion for granting an EISA section 321 
petition is whether ``significant energy savings could be achieved by 
covering exempted products.'' As explained, the various conditions in 
the EISA section 321 petition provision do not apply to this final 
rule, because the paragraph (i)(6)(A)(i) decision about exemptions is 
different. Nonetheless, DOE acknowledges that it would not choose to 
discontinue an exemption unless doing so could achieve significant 
energy savings compared to maintaining the exemption. As discussed in 
the sections that follow, discontinuing the exemptions described in 
section III.A.1 could indeed lead to significant energy savings. As 
shown in Table III.1, six of the lamp categories for which DOE 
discontinued an exemption have annual sales that are several times the 
sales of the 15 lamp categories for which DOE maintained the exemption. 
The seventh lamp exemption that DOE is discontinuing, shatter-resistant 
lamps, presents a significant risk of lamp switching and maintaining 
its exemption could otherwise undermine potential standards for general 
service lamps.
    Fourth, LEDVANCE urged that the D.C. Circuit's decision in Hearth, 
Patio & Barbecue Ass'n v. U.S. Department of Energy, 706 F.3d 499 (D.C. 
Circuit 2013), forecloses DOE from altering a product definition in a 
way that will have standards consequences without performing a section 
6295(o) analysis. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 6) The Hearth, Patio & 
Barbecue opinion did not say so on its face. The case involved a 
question of whether DOE's inclusion of decorative fireplaces within the 
definition ``direct heating equipment''

[[Page 7281]]

was impermissible; the court held that DOE's interpretation of ``direct 
heating equipment'' to permit that coverage was unreasonable. However, 
LEDVANCE argued that the case was ``analogous'' to the current 
situation, in that ``altering a definition to change what falls within 
. . . a category of regulated products . . . `is the essence of 
regulation.' '' (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 6 [quoting 706 F.3d at 508]). 
DOE does not consider the analogy sound. To be sure, this final rule is 
a species of regulation, and will bring certain products newly within 
the scope of regulation as GSLs. But the question, as ever in such 
matters, is what sort of regulation the statute authorizes, and what 
considerations and procedures it prescribes as prerequisites. 
LEDVANCE's comment suggests that because it has labeled sections 
6295(o) and 6295(p) the ``Rulemaking Requirements,'' DOE must comport 
with those provisions every time it engages in regulation under EPCA. 
Having considered the specific statutory provisions that authorize this 
rule, as discussed, DOE concludes that it is not obligated to conduct 
this rulemaking as though it were ``prescrib[ing] a new or amended 
standard'' pursuant to section 6295(o) or 6295(p).
    LEDVANCE raised a second category of objection to the process by 
which it anticipated DOE would reach this final rule. Noting that DOE 
had proposed in March 2016 to amend standards for GSLs, and that the 
October 2016 NOPDDA seemed to contemplate finalizing a definition for 
GSLs without finalizing a standards amendment based on the March 2016 
GSL ECS NOPR, LEDVANCE stated that DOE cannot bifurcate those 
procedures. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 3) In LEDVANCE's view, the statute 
does not permit DOE to issue multiple notices proposing different 
aspects of its GSL decisionmaking--whether to amend standards and 
whether to discontinue the exemptions. LEDVANCE contends that DOE must 
conclude those determinations in a single final rule, and that by 
finalizing amendments to the GSL definition, DOE is impermissibly 
circumventing EPCA rulemaking requirements and the Appropriations 
Rider. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 3) (LEDVANCE also argues, in what DOE 
takes to be an alternative argument, that lamps that qualify as GSLs 
only because of this final rule will not in fact be subject to the 
backstop standard; in this line of argument, LEDVANCE says the backstop 
standard can only apply to lamps that were already subject to 
standards.) Further, LEDVANCE commented that DOE failed to provide 
appropriate notice of the standards that would apply to lamps 
considered under the October 2016 NOPDDA and that DOE must provide, in 
detail, the content and basis of a proposal to allow for meaningful and 
informed comment. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 11-12)
    DOE believes that EPCA does permit flexibility with respect to the 
rulemaking process it undertakes under section 6295(i)(6)(A)(i). Clause 
(i) says that DOE ``shall initiate a rulemaking procedure'' to make two 
distinct decisions: Whether to amend standards, and whether to maintain 
or discontinue exemptions. Because the statute says ``a . . . 
procedure,'' LEDVANCE appears to believe it permits only a single NOPR 
and a single final rule. However, the general presumption in 
interpreting a federal statute is that the singular encompasses the 
plural. 1 U.S.C. 1. Thus, a reference to ``a . . . procedure'' would 
ordinarily permit a single procedure or multiple procedures.
    DOE recognizes that context can lead in some instances to a 
contrary conclusion that a singular word truly means the singular and 
not the plural. But DOE has not identified any such contextual clues 
with respect to section 6295(i)(6)(A). Indeed, it would be unusual and 
counterproductive for a statute to restrict an agency to a single NOPR 
and a single final rule to achieve a specified objective. The decisions 
with which section 6295(i)(6)(A) tasks DOE are complex. DOE, like other 
agencies, often supplements its proposals with additional proposals and 
notices of further data and analysis. Yet if ``a . . . procedure'' 
permitted only a single proposal, then if DOE failed to prepare and 
assemble all of its analyses into a single proposal document the entire 
6295(i)(6)(A) enterprise would fail for lack of authority. It seems 
unlikely that, having called for the 6295(i)(6)(A) assessments, 
Congress intended to make it so uncertain whether they could be 
achieved.
    Further, even if ``a rulemaking procedure'' only permitted a single 
procedure, the statute leaves unclear what constitutes a ``rulemaking 
procedure.'' LEDVANCE appears to take for granted that a ``rulemaking 
procedure'' consists of a single notice and a single final rule. But 
that is not the evident and unambiguous, or even the best, 
understanding of the phrase. A ``rulemaking procedure'' may include 
multiple notices and lead to multiple final rule documents, as and when 
appropriate under the circumstances. For example, in Airtouch Paging v. 
FCC, 234 F.3d 815 (2d Cir. 2000), the FCC followed a proposed rule with 
``two principal reports and orders''; after a petition for 
reconsideration the agency issued a third order, in which it announced 
that it would take up certain issues in yet further orders. The court 
described this series of events as ``a rulemaking procedure.'' Of 
course it was not significant in that case whether the several reports 
and orders constituted a single procedure or multiple procedures. But 
that is consistent with DOE's conclusion here. Whether to conceive of a 
set of proposals and decisions as a single ``rulemaking procedure'' or 
as several ``rulemaking procedures'' is rarely important. To infer that 
because section 6295(i)(6)(A) uses the singular form, DOE can only 
issue a single proposal and a single final rule, would read far too 
much precision into the concept of a ``rulemaking procedure.'' DOE 
declines to do so, especially given how--as discussed--that 
interpretation would undermine the purposes of section 6295(i)(6).
    LEDVANCE suggests that the entire scheme of section 6295(i)(6) 
requires DOE to make its decision in a single integrated rulemaking. 
According to LEDVANCE, DOE is required to decide what standards to 
apply to GSLs in the same rule in which it decides what lamps will be 
GSLs. The backstop standard would come into play only if the standards 
that DOE has set do not ``produce savings that are greater than or 
equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W.'' 
That savings analysis, LEDVANCE asserts, must be holistic and market-
wide rather than product-by-product. In other words, to avoid the 
backstop standard DOE need not impose a standard of 45 lm/W on each and 
every GSL. Rather, DOE can impose a more or less stringent standard on 
various types of lamps so long as the aggregate savings are at least 
the same as a uniform 45 lm/W standard would have achieved. Because, 
LEDVANCE says, DOE cannot know what overall savings its standards will 
achieve unless it knows what lamps will be subject to GSLs, it follows 
that DOE must define GSLs and set standards in the same final rule.
    This argument does not lead to the conclusion LEDVANCE seems to 
draw. If, indeed, DOE were prohibited from imposing the 45 lm/W 
backstop standard unless it had conducted an overall market savings 
analysis, and if that analysis were impossible without defining the 
scope of GSLs, it would only follow that DOE must define GSLs before 
imposing the backstop standard. Once DOE had defined GSLs, it could 
decide what standards to impose, then conduct the savings analysis that

[[Page 7282]]

LEDVANCE stated is required. DOE does not see why this analytical 
process would have to take place in a single final rule. LEDVANCE may 
be suggesting that it is unavoidably arbitrary and capricious for DOE 
to include a lamp as a GSL without simultaneously deciding what 
standards will apply. But DOE regards those questions as analytically 
distinct. Its task with respect to the exemptions is to determine which 
among the lamps currently exempted from regulation as GSLs should be 
brought within the scope of the GSL definition and the applicable EPCA 
standards-setting authority. In that decision, the relevant issue is 
whether maintaining or discontinuing an exemption would better serve 
the purposes of section 6295(i)(6). As discussed, DOE believes an 
exemption should be discontinued if lamps within that exemption would 
be convenient substitutes for GSLs, so that exempting the lamps 
entirely from regulation (or maintaining a less stringent standard for 
the lamps) would open up a possibility for manufacturers and consumers 
to undercut EPCA lamp standards. That potential loophole would exist 
and be damaging regardless what standards DOE might then apply to the 
formerly exempted lamps or to other GSLs.
    Moreover, LEDVANCE's argument seems premised on a notion that EPCA 
obligates DOE to develop standards for GSLs and then analyze the 
overall energy savings from those standards, and that absent the 
development of standards and an analysis that results in insufficient 
savings, the backstop standard would not be applicable. The statutory 
language and structure do not support that premise. Section 6295(i)(6) 
requires DOE to ``initiate'' a rulemaking procedure to decide whether 
to amend the GSL standards and to decide whether to maintain or 
discontinue lamp exemptions. It does not, by its plain terms, require 
DOE to conclude that rulemaking procedure via a final rule on either 
topic, except in one case. If DOE ``determines that the standards in 
effect for [GSILs] should be amended,'' then DOE must publish a final 
rule doing so. (42 U.S.C. 295(i)(6)(A)(iii)) To be clear, DOE infers, 
from the language instructing it to initiate a rulemaking procedure, 
that EPCA authorizes it to complete the rulemaking by issuing final 
rules taking one or more of the actions on which section 
6295(i)(6)(A)(i) calls for rulemaking. Otherwise the mandate to 
initiate a rulemaking would be pointless. It does not follow, and DOE 
does not infer, that DOE must issue final rules on each of those 
items--aside, of course, from the circumstance just mentioned in which 
DOE determines GSIL standards should be amended.
    The structure of section 6295(i)(6)(A) itself is consistent with 
DOE's interpretation. DOE notes that the statute explicitly and 
specifically requires DOE to issue a final rule in one particular 
situation. If the statute were meant to require DOE to issue 
6295(i)(6)(A) rules regardless, it would presumably have said so rather 
than identifying that particular circumstance. (Conversely, reading 
section 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii) to require DOE to finalize the subparagraph 
(i) rules in all circumstances would make superfluous the clause in 
subparagraph (iii) that specifies a particular circumstance.)
    The structure of section 6295 overall also supports DOE's 
interpretation. Repeatedly, the section specifies a point at which DOE 
must issue a proposed rule, and it follows that instruction with a 
requirement to publish a final rule. For example, subsection (b)(3) 
says DOE ``shall publish a proposed rule'' by a certain date on whether 
to amend refrigerator standards; it then says DOE ``shall publish a 
final rule'' by a second date ``which shall contain such amendment, if 
any.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)(A)(i)) Subsection (m) says that within six 
years after amending a given standard, DOE shall publish either a 
notice of a determination that the standard does not at that time need 
to be amended, or ``a notice of proposed rulemaking including new 
proposed standards.'' If DOE publishes the second type of notice, then 
within two years it ``shall publish a final rule amending the 
standard.'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) As a third example (among many that 
could be cited), if DOE receives a petition for an amended standard, it 
must publish a notice either granting or denying the petition. If it 
grants the petition, it must within three years publish either ``a 
final rule that contains the new or amended standards'' or ``a 
determination that no new or amended standards are necessary.'' (42 
U.S.C. 6295(n))
    Thus, throughout section 6295, the statute distinguishes an 
obligation to propose a rule from an obligation to publish a final 
rule. When Congress wanted to require DOE to publish a final rule, it 
specified the conditions in which the requirement holds; the deadline 
for the final rule; and something about the content (e.g., a final rule 
that includes amended standards). Section 6295(i)(6)(A) follows that 
pattern quite closely. It says that if DOE decides GSIL standards 
should be amended (the conditions leading to the requirement), then by 
January 1, 2017 (the deadline), DOE must publish a final rule with an 
effective date at least three years later (the content). Given that 
pattern, DOE believes the most sensible interpretation of section 
6295(i)(6)(A) is that it means exactly what it says. DOE was required 
to initiate rulemaking to decide whether to amend GSL standards and to 
decide which exemptions to maintain or to discontinue. DOE is only 
obligated to issue a final rule if it decides that GSIL standards 
should be amended. DOE has fulfilled the obligation to initiate a 
rulemaking through the publication of a notice announcing the 
availability of a framework document for general service lamps. 78 FR 
73737 (December 9, 2013). It has not thus far concluded that GSIL 
standards should be amended, and therefore nothing in EPCA currently 
obligates DOE to issue a final rule amending GSL standards.
    LEDVANCE contended that DOE cannot finalize a rule pursuant to 
section 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)--regarding the exemptions--without 
finalizing a rule under subclause (I) on amending standards, because it 
cannot exercise the two authorities independently. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at 
p. 8) But LEDVANCE identifies no language in EPCA that would impose 
such a restriction. As discussed, DOE does not believe paragraph (6)(A) 
requires it to complete a standards-setting rule at all. The regulatory 
program that EISA 2007 established was a preference and presumption for 
a 45 lm/W standard. The statute gives DOE the option to establish an 
alternative set of standards, on condition that those standards achieve 
energy savings at least as great as the 45 lm/W standard would. At the 
same time, Congress set some exemptions from the GSL regulatory scheme, 
and it authorized DOE to discontinue those exemptions if appropriate. 
Nothing in this framework would necessitate DOE's exercising the 
authorities just described in a single final rule. Consistent with that 
understanding of the policy underlying paragraph (6)(A), the text of 
the statute does not say DOE must do so.
    LEDVANCE did contend that clause (iv) can support an inference that 
DOE must consider amended standards and discontinued exemptions in a 
single document. Clause (iv) says that DOE ``shall consider phased-in 
effective dates under this subparagraph after considering'' various 
economic issues such as ``the impact of any amendment on 
manufacturers.'' In LEDVANCE's view, Congress would not have required 
DOE to consider those economic factors in isolation. That Congress 
specified

[[Page 7283]]

those factors therefore, LEDVANCE continued, demonstrates that Congress 
intended DOE to consider the section 6295(o) factors in a unitary rule 
about GSLs. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 8)
    DOE regards that inference as inconsistent with the text of 
subparagraph (A) and with its purposes. Clause (iv) refers to ``the 
impact of any amendment.'' Evidently clause (iv) comes into play when 
DOE is considering an amendment to standards. Consistent with that 
understanding, clause (iii) says that if DOE decides to amend the 
standards, the final rule shall be published by January 1, 2017, ``with 
an effective date that is not earlier than 3 years after the date'' of 
publication. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii). Thus, when DOE establishes 
amended standards pursuant to subparagraph (A), it has discretion to 
set the effective date of the amendment (subject to the limitation that 
the effective date cannot be sooner than three years after 
publication). Clause (iv), then, instructs DOE, in the exercise of that 
discretion, to consider phased-in effective dates in light of certain 
factors like ``the impact of [the] amendment.'' However, if DOE fails 
to complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv) 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) says that DOE ``shall prohibit'' sales of lamps below the 
backstop standard ``effective beginning January 1, 2020.'' In that 
case, DOE would not have discretion regarding the effective date of the 
backstop standard. It would be odd, then, for the statute to require 
DOE to consider phased-in dates for the backstop. Clause (iv) can 
readily be interpreted to avoid that inconsistency.
    Thus, all that clause (iv) requires is that DOE consider phased-in 
effective dates if and when it establishes amended standards under 
subparagraph (A). It seems like a non sequitur to conclude, from that 
requirement, that DOE must establish amended standards. That conclusion 
would be particularly strained in light of the preceding observation 
that Congress regularly in section 6295 specified when DOE must 
initiate and when it must conclude a rulemaking. If the intent was to 
require DOE to issue a final rule on amended standards, the ordinary 
way to set that requirement in EPCA would have been to say exactly 
that. To imply it, via the discussion of phased-in effective dates, 
would be an unusual and obscure way to require DOE to amend GSL 
standards. And, as discussed, DOE does not believe the policy of 
paragraph (6)(A) is that DOE must establish GSL standards. Rather, 
Congress established a presumptive standard of 45 lm/W and allowed DOE, 
if it met the qualifications, to vary from that standard. Reading 
clause (iv) to apply only if DOE does vary from the 45 lm/W standard is 
consistent with that policy.
    As an alternative argument, LEDVANCE suggested that even if DOE can 
issue this rule discontinuing certain GSL exemptions, the backstop 
would not apply to the formerly exempted lamps because there were no 
``standards in effect'' for those lamps at the time of the rulemaking. 
(LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 8) DOE notes that the phrase ``standards in 
effect'' does not appear in clause (v), the text that describes the 
backstop. However, DOE takes LEDVANCE's argument to be as follows. 
Clause (i)(I) instructs DOE to initiate a rulemaking to decide whether 
to amend ``standards in effect for general service lamps.'' Under 
clause (iii), if DOE decides that ``the standards in effect'' should be 
amended, it must publish a final rule to that effect by January 1, 
2017. Clause (v) imposes the backstop ``[i]f the Secretary fails to 
complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv).'' 
Because such a rulemaking would be amending ``the standards in 
effect,'' and no standards were previously ``in effect'' for lamps that 
are currently exempt from being GSLs, LEDVANCE seems to be saying, the 
rulemaking ``in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv)'' cannot be 
about the standards for the previously exempt lamps. Therefore, 
LEDVANCE seems to infer, the backstop would not apply to those lamps.
    However, the backstop provision does not limit itself to lamps for 
which standards were in effect. The status and content of the 
``rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv)'' determine 
whether the backstop will apply. But if it does, clause (v) says DOE 
shall prohibit the sale of ``any general service lamp'' that does not 
meet the backstop standard. The word ``any'' sweeps in all general 
service lamps, including those that were exempt before DOE discontinued 
an exemption. Clause (v) describes a prospective standard; it does not 
limit its scope to lamps that were subject to standards before the 
``rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv).''
    Moreover, LEDVANCE's argument, as DOE understands it, risks making 
clause (i)(II) pointless. The argument would logically imply that DOE 
can only, under clause (i)(I), amend standards that were already ``in 
effect''; thus, on LEDVANCE's argument, DOE would not be able to 
establish standards applicable to lamps for which it discontinued 
exemptions. If that were so, and if (as LEDVANCE posits) the backstop 
would not apply to those lamps either, there would be little point in 
discontinuing the exemption. DOE considers it more sensible and more 
consistent with the policies of paragraph (6)(A) to read clause (i) to 
permit it to establish standards for previously exempt lamps.
    As a third category of objection, LEDVANCE stated that paragraph 
(6)(A) requires DOE to conduct a ``fleet-wide analysis'' of total 
energy savings from standards established by DOE. Under clause (v), 
after DOE sets its own standards pursuant to clauses (i) through (iv), 
the backstop would come into force if DOE's standards do not ``produce 
savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from'' a uniform 
45 lm/W standard. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v). According to LEDVANCE, 
the ``fleet-wide energy savings determination is integral to the EISA 
Rulemaking Proceeding and is a prerequisite to application of the EISA 
backstop provision.'' (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 9)
    DOE notes that a ``fleet-wide energy savings determination'' is not 
in fact an exclusive prerequisite to the backstop. Under clause (v), 
DOE will be obligated to effectuate the backstop in either of two 
circumstances: If the energy savings from standards that DOE develops 
are insufficient, or ``if the Secretary fails to complete a rulemaking 
in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv).'' Thus, clause (v) 
expressly contemplates the possibility that DOE will not finalize a 
rule that develops alternative standards for GSLs. In that case, clause 
(v) by its text does not call for an analysis of energy savings; and of 
course there would be no energy savings to analyze. This structure is 
consistent with the understanding of paragraph (6)(A) as laid out 
before, that it sets 45 lm/W as a default and gives DOE the option--not 
the obligation--to develop alternative standards for GSLs. Thus, DOE 
disagrees that it must analyze fleet-wide energy savings from a DOE-
imposed standard; and DOE disagrees that a rule defining GSLs is 
improper without an analysis of hypothetical DOE-imposed standards.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ LEDVANCE observed that under section 6295(o)(2)(B)(III), DOE 
must, in developing a standard, consider the ``total projected 
amount'' of energy savings; and LEDVANCE said DOE has typically 
``conducted a lifetime energy savings analysis for the entire class 
of covered products at issue.'' (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 9.) DOE need 
not address whether an analysis of energy savings pursuant to clause 
(v) would be on a similar basis, because DOE has not, at this point, 
developed energy standards for which that analysis would be 
necessary.

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

[[Page 7284]]

    LEDVANCE suggested that it would also be impermissible for DOE to 
apply the backstop to lamps newly included in the definition of GSLs 
for a reason arising from the Administrative Procedure Act: That DOE 
did not provide adequate notice that application of the backstop would 
be a consequence of defining certain lamps to be GSLs. (LEDVANCE, No. 
90 at p. 16) However, the October 2016 NOPDDA said that if DOE does not 
complete a standards rulemaking pursuant to clauses (i) through (iv), 
the backstop standard will come into effect for GSLs. 81 FR 71794, 
71795 (October 18, 2016). It pointed out that when it discontinues an 
exemption, the lamps within that exemption will become GSLs (to the 
extent they otherwise fall within the definition of GSL). Id. at 71798. 
And DOE proposed ``to discontinue a given exemption if the continuation 
of the exemption would undermine the 45 lm/W standard by providing a 
convenient unregulated alternative to GSLs.'' Id. at 71799. Thus, an 
important premise of the decision as set forth in the notice was that 
DOE would include lamps as GSLs if it was important--in light of the 
considerations described in the notice--to ensure those lamps would be 
subject to the clause (v) backstop provision. Thus, DOE believes it 
provided adequate notice of the possibility that lamps newly included 
as GSLs would be subject to regulation as GSLs, including the clause 
(v) backstop provision if that becomes the standard for GSLs. DOE notes 
that many commenters, including LEDVANCE, discussed the issue in 
written comments and at the NOPDDA public meeting, indicating they were 
indeed aware of it.
    A fourth category of objection, raised by LEDVANCE and by other 
commenters, was that DOE is not authorized to discontinue the 
exemptions set forth in section 6291(30)(D)(ii) and (BB)(ii)--the 22 
exemptions for particular types of lamp that the notice discussed. 
(LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 12-13) DOE notes that clause (i)(II) instructs 
DOE to initiate a rulemaking to decide whether ``the exemptions . . . 
should be maintained or discontinued.'' This language, particularly the 
reference to ``the'' exemptions, strongly suggests that Congress had a 
particular set of exemptions in mind about which DOE might make this 
decision. Consistent with ordinary principles of statutory 
interpretation and in order to fulfill the purposes of paragraph 
(6)(A), DOE is inclined to identify exemptions that it can maintain or 
discontinue pursuant to clause (i)(II).
    LEDVANCE argued that the ``exemptions'' at issue are the exemptions 
that EISA section 321(a)(3) authorized DOE to grant, upon petition. 
(LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 13) DOE does not believe those are the 
exemptions to which clause (i)(II) refers. Clause (i)(II) calls for a 
rulemaking, initiated by January 1, 2014, to decide whether ``the 
exemptions'' should be maintained or discontinued; that mandate 
presumes that ``the exemptions'' at issue existed as of January 2014. 
But the discretionary exemptions that EISA section 321(a)(3) permitted 
would only exist if persons had petitioned for exemptions, and if DOE 
had then granted those petitions. Were clause (i)(II) referring to 
those exemptions that might or might not exist at the beginning of 
2014, a more natural phrasing would have been something like ``any 
exemptions under this subsection.'' Further, DOE could only grant an 
exemption under the process described in EISA section 321(a)(3) if it 
found, after a hearing, ``that it is not technically feasible to serve 
a specialized lighting application . . . using a lamp that meets the 
requirements of this subsection,'' and also found that ``the exempted 
product is unlikely to be used in a general service lighting 
application.'' Thus, to grant an exemption under that process DOE would 
have to engage in an assessment of specific technical issues. It seems 
unlikely, and contrary to the purpose of that petition process, that 
Congress would have called for DOE to initiate an overall rulemaking to 
decide whether to continue any exemptions it might have granted. Such a 
review would seem particularly odd because, given the timing of the 
requirements set in EISA section 321, DOE would not have received any 
petitions earlier than 2011. (In fact, DOE has not received any such 
petitions.) The clause (i)(II) rulemaking was to begin just a few years 
later. It seems unlikely that the technical facts underlying DOE's 
decision on a petition would have changed in such a brief time.
    Given DOE's understanding of the framework Congress set up for 
GSLs, as described, DOE believes it is more consistent with the 
purposes of the statute to read ``the exemptions'' as referring to the 
lamp types that the original definition said are not GSILs or are not 
GSLs. Unlike lamps that DOE might exempt under the EISA section 
321(a)(3) petition process, there has been no determination that these 
lamp types are unlikely to be used for general service lighting. DOE 
believes Congress deferred that determination for DOE's later 
assessment under clause (i)(II).
    LEDVANCE did not identify any other exemptions to which clause 
(i)(II) might refer. However, DOE has also considered whether clause 
(i)(II) might address solely an exemption provided by an amendment in 
EISA section 322.\7\ That amendment imposed minimum efficiency 
standards on certain general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent 
reflector lamps. In delimiting the coverage of those standards, it said 
that ``the standards specified in subparagraph (B) shall not apply to 
the following types of incandescent reflector lamps'': ER30, BR30, 
BR40, or ER40 lamps rated at 50 watts or less; BR30, BR40, or ER40 
lamps rated at 65 watts; and R20 lamps rated 45 watts or less. DOE does 
not believe clause (i)(II) is solely about these exemptions. Clause 
(i)(II) in subparagraph (6)(A) is paired with clause (i)(I), which 
calls for a general rulemaking to review standards for GSLs across the 
board. It seems unlikely that, together with that broad-based 
rulemaking, Congress would have mandated a rulemaking just to assess 
the specific, narrow exemptions from the IRL standards set by EISA 
section 322. It bears mention that the scope of that rulemaking would 
be particularly narrow. Clause (i)(II) refers to ``the exemptions for 
certain incandescent lamps,'' but according to the definition of 
``incandescent lamp'' only reflector lamps above 40 watts are 
incandescent lamps. 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii). Thus, the ``incandescent 
lamps'' exempted from the EISA section 322 standards are only ER30, 
BR30, BR40, or ER40 lamps between 40 and 50 watts; BR30, BR40, or ER40 
lamps of 65 watts; and R20 lamps between 40 and 45 watts. While DOE has 
determined to address the exemption for IRLs in a separate document 
(discussed later in this section), limiting consideration of the 
exemptions only to this narrow set of lamp types would be an odd focus 
for a rulemaking alongside the broad clause (i)(I) standards review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As noted, EISA sections 321 and 322 made conflicting 
amendments to section 325(i)(1) of EPCA. In assessing whether clause 
(i)(II) refers solely to the exemptions stated in the EISA section 
322 amendment, DOE need not resolve the conflict; DOE assumes for 
purposes of argument that the EISA section 322 amendments are part 
of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that the clause (i)(II) authority to 
discontinue exemptions relates only to five types of lamps addressed by 
section 6295(l)(4). That paragraph requires DOE to collect sales data 
on five types of lamps (rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, 
3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300

[[Page 7285]]

lumen general service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps), 
and construct a model to extrapolate sales after 2006 from historical 
sales. 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4). For each type, if annual sales grow to be 
more than 100 percent above the extrapolated historical sales would 
have been, DOE is required to establish either a backstop mandated by 
the statute or come up with its own energy conservation standard.
    DOE does not believe section 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II), which requires 
DOE to initiate a rulemaking on whether to maintain or discontinue 
``the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps,'' refers to this 
framework of comparisons to forecast sales. The language of section 
6295(l)(4), unlike that of section 6291(30)(D)(ii) and (BB)(ii), does 
not seem to describe exemptions. Paragraph (l)(4) simply says DOE 
``shall prescribe an energy efficiency standard'' for the five types of 
lamp ``in accordance with this paragraph.'' It does not purport to 
exclude the five lamp types from being GSILs or GSLs; it simply sets a 
framework including a default standard for when sales grow more than 
expected. By contrast, section 6291(30)(D)(ii) and (BB)(ii) actually 
say certain lamps are ``not included'' as GSILs or GSLs; that language 
sounds much more like an exemption. Furthermore, subsection (l)(4) 
specifies conditions and timing for when DOE is to undertake a 
rulemaking for each of the five lamp types. It would be odd if 
subsection (i)(6)(A) required DOE to assess, separately, whether to 
cancel subsection (l)(4) for each type.
    The remaining exemptions are those in the definitions of GSIL and 
GSL at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D)(ii) and (BB)(ii). For the reasons 
discussed, DOE believes that those are the ``exemptions'' to which 
clause (i)(II) applies. It bears emphasis that DOE interprets clause 
(i)(II) to address both the (D)(ii) and the (BB)(ii) exemptions. DOE 
recognizes that clause (i)(II) refers to ``the exemptions for certain 
incandescent lamps,'' and subparagraph (BB)(ii) relates to GSLs rather 
than GSILs. However, the first type of exemption in subparagraph 
(BB)(ii) simply refers back to subparagraph (D)(ii): It says GSL does 
not include ``any lighting application or bulb shape described in any 
of subclauses (I) through (XXII) of subparagraph (D)(ii).'' DOE takes 
``the exemptions'' to encompass the subparagraph (D)(ii) exemptions 
both as exemptions from the definition of GSIL and through their effect 
on the definition of GSL.
    DOE recognizes that clause (i)(II) is ambiguous on this point 
because, as previously noted, it does not identify ``the exemptions'' 
specifically and does not say what ``the exemptions'' are exemptions 
from. However, DOE believes the interpretation described here 
appropriately fulfills the purposes of subsection (i)(6)(A). DOE notes 
that clause (i)(II) is a counterpart to clause (i)(I), which instructs 
DOE to consider developing standards for GSLs. Thus, clause (i) as a 
whole is about GSL standards, and it would be natural for ``the 
exemptions'' involved in subclause (II) to include exemptions from the 
definition of GSL. If subclause (II) only involved the definition of 
GSIL, it would be hard to see why Congress would require DOE to 
initiate a rulemaking on that issue at the same time as it initiated a 
rulemaking on GSL standards; DOE already maintained GSIL standards and 
would have reviewed them periodically as for other consumer products.
    DOE recognizes that because discontinuing an exemption from being 
GSILs makes the corresponding lamps GSILs (to the extent they otherwise 
satisfy the criteria in the GSIL definition), those lamps will also 
become GSLs. That fact actually further motivates DOE's interpretation. 
As discussed in the NOPDDA and in section III.A.4.f.i, many of the 22 
exemptions in clause (30)(D)(ii) encompass technologies besides 
incandescent filaments. If ``the exemptions'' in subclause (II) 
nonetheless included only exemptions from the GSIL definition, the 
result of discontinuing an exemption would be that a set of 
incandescent lamps become subject to GSL standards without the 
corresponding non-incandescent lamps being subject to the same 
standards. For example, DOE is discontinuing the exemption for CA shape 
lamps. If DOE were only permitted to regulate incandescent CA shape 
incandescent lamps as GSLs, and not other CA shape lamps such as CA 
shape compact fluorescent lamps, the result would be a skewed 
regulatory regime that seems inconsistent with the purposes of 
subsection (i)(6)(A).
    Subsection (i)(6)(A) actually instructs DOE to avoid that result: 
Clause (ii) of subsection (i)(6)(A) specifies that ``[t]he 
rulemaking''--the rulemaking that clause (i) calls for--``shall not be 
limited to incandescent technologies.'' DOE interprets that language to 
mean that in setting standards and deciding on exemptions under clause 
(i), it should consider non-incandescent lamps alongside incandescent 
lamps. With respect to the exemptions, that means addressing the 
section 6291(30)(BB)(ii) exemptions from the GSL definition.
    LEDVANCE, along with other commenters, contended that the 
definitional provisions--particularly those listing the 22 types of 
lamp in (D)(ii) and (BB)(ii)--cannot be the subject of the clause 
(i)(II) rulemaking because they are ``exclusions'' rather than 
``exemptions.'' (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 12-13) DOE notes that the 
texts of section 6291(30)(D)(ii) and (BB)(ii) do not actually state 
that they provide ``exclusions.'' That word appears only in the 
headings of the provisions. Headings ``can be a useful aid in resolving 
a statutory text's ambiguity,'' United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., 
134 S. Ct. 1395, 1401 (2014); but titling subparagraphs (D) and (BB) 
``Exclusions'' does not clearly indicate that the substance of those 
provisions describe exclusions and not exemptions.
    The texts of those provisions say that the respective defined terms 
(GSIL and GSL) ``do[] not include'' certain lamps. 42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(D)(ii); 6291(30)(BB)(ii). The language ``does not include'' is 
consistent with stating an exemption. ``Exemption,'' in ordinary 
English, simply means freeing or excusing one set of persons or things 
from an obligation to which others are subject (see American Heritage 
Dictionary). GSILs and GSLs are subject to regulatory requirements 
under EPCA; by stating that certain lamps are ``not include[d]'' in 
those categories, subparagraphs (D) and (BB) exempt them from the 
regulatory requirements.
    LEDVANCE stressed that the words ``exclusion'' and ``exemption'' 
are different, and urged that DOE's interpretation of clause (i)(II) 
must reflect that difference.\8\ (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 12-13) While 
DOE recognizes that differences in statutory language are usually 
significant, ``Congress sometimes uses slightly different language to 
convey the same message,'' DePierre v. United States, 564 U.S. 70, 83 
(2011). See also McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 112 (1993) 
(``In its statutory context, we think the normal interpretation of the 
word `institute' is synonymous with the words `begin' and `commence.' 
''). The words ``exemption'' and ``exclusion'' can be synonymous in 
ordinary English.\9\ See, e.g., Public Investors

[[Page 7286]]

Arbitration Bar Ass'n v. SEC, 771 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Brown, 
J., concurring) (``We began in 1978 by interpreting Exemption 8's 
categorically narrow exclusion broadly.''); Friends of Animals v. 
Jewell, 824 F.3d 1033, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citing agency decision 
titled ``Exclusion of U.S. Captive-Bred Scimitar-Horned Oryx, Addax, 
and Dama Gazelle from Certain Prohibitions (`Captive-Bred 
Exemption')'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This argument is somewhat misplaced because, as just noted, 
the text of the GSIL and GSL definitions does not use the word 
``exclusions.''
    \9\ LEDVANCE said that the D.C. Circuit's Hearth, Patio & 
Barbecue decision held that ``exclusions'' and ``exemptions'' are 
different. The opinion actually seems to use the words ``exclude'' 
and ``exempt'' interchangeably. At any rate, DOE acknowledges that 
in many contexts ``exclusion'' and ``exemption'' can refer to 
different concepts. Its observation here is simply that the two 
words can also be synonymous, and that statutory context and purpose 
must inform DOE's interpretation of the word ``exemption'' here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, Congress used them synonymously in other parts of 
subsection (i) added by the same provision of EISA 2007 that added both 
paragraph (6)(A) and the list of 22 lamp types not included as GSILs or 
GSLs. The provision in EISA section 321(a)(3) allowing the public to 
petition DOE to regulate additional types of lamps, discussed, reads as 
follows. ``Any person may petition the Secretary to establish standards 
for lamp shapes or bases that are excluded from the definition of 
general service lamps.'' ``The petition shall include evidence that the 
availability or sales of exempted incandescent lamps have increased 
significantly.'' Surely what Congress had in mind is that when a 
petitioner asks for standards on a given type of lamp, the petition 
should demonstrate that the availability or sales of that type of lamp 
have increased. But in the first sentence refers to the subject of the 
petition as ``lamps excluded from the definition of general service 
lamps,'' and the second calls it ``exempted lamps.'' Evidently Congress 
considered the text that ``exclude[s]'' certain lamps from the 
definition of GSLs to be an exemption.
    A commenter also argued that DOE cannot discontinue exemptions for 
any set of lamps for which EPCA already imposes standards--or for lamps 
for which EPCA specifies future standards like the five lamp types 
addressed by subsection (l)(4). According to this commenter, such lamps 
are not ``exempt'' so there are no ``exemptions'' to discontinue. In 
considering this argument, DOE observes that to complete a concept of 
an ``exemption'' or of ``exempting,'' it is necessary to say what the 
exemption is protecting from. In referring to ``the exemptions,'' 
section 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) does not provide that information, leaving 
an unavoidable ambiguity for DOE to reconcile. On the commenter's view, 
``the exemptions'' means exemptions from regulation under EPCA; thus if 
a type of lamp is subject to regulation of any kind under EPCA, it does 
not enjoy an ``exemption'' that DOE may discontinue under subsection 
(i)(6)(A)(i). However, DOE considers it more sensible to read ``the 
exemptions'' as meaning exemptions from being regulated as GSLs. That 
understanding would be consistent with the structure of clause (i), 
which calls for DOE to consider amending GSL standards and to consider 
discontinuing exemptions. If these two parts of clause (i) are about 
the same content, ``the exemptions'' would be exemptions that protect 
lamps from GSL standards.
    DOE believes its interpretation appropriately fulfills the purposes 
of subsection (i)(6) and of EPCA as a whole. As discussed, DOE believes 
subsection (i)(6) was meant to establish a particular level of energy 
savings, namely the amount that could be achieved by imposing a 45 lm/W 
standard on GSLs. As the fourth category of GSL indicates, Congress 
left some flexibility about the concept of GSL, so that it could 
encompass lamps that fulfill the same sorts of functions as GSILs. 
Consistent with that understanding, DOE believes the purpose of 
discontinuing exemptions is to ensure that a given type of lamp does 
not provide a ready substitute for lamps regulated as GSLs, because the 
availability of such a substitute will significantly erode the savings 
achieved by GSL regulation. On that understanding, it is 
straightforward that Congress would want DOE to assess whether a given 
type of lamps should be exempt from GSL regulation.
    By contrast, to leave lamps out--as the commenter suggested--simply 
because they are subject to other types of regulation and different 
standards would largely defeat the purpose of GSL regulation just 
described. For some lamp types, the criterion that commenters label a 
``standard'' is a definitional limit; for example a G shape lamp is 
exempt only if it has a diameter of 5 inches or more, and a T shape 
lamp is exempt only if it uses less than 40 watts or has a length of 10 
inches or more. Commenters disagree with DOE's characterization of 
these limits as definitional criteria rather than standards. 
Regardless, they are not GSL standards, and they are not of the same 
character or stringency as the GSL backstop that is the default GSL 
standard, and are presumably less stringent than any standard that DOE 
might develop to achieve energy savings comparable to those from the 45 
lm/W backstop standard. It seems unlikely that Congress would have 
considered such criteria adequate alternatives to GSL standards. 
Therefore, DOE considers it more consistent with the scheme of 
subsection (i)(6) that DOE should assess whether to subject to GSL 
regulation the lamps within such an exemption. For example, with 
respect to T shape lamps, DOE must assess whether lamps over 10 inches 
or lamps under 40 watts are ready substitutes for GSLs.
    Commenters also argued that DOE cannot discontinue the exemption 
for incandescent reflector lamps in particular. DOE will address these 
comments in a separate rule. This final rule does not include a 
determination whether to maintain or discontinue the exemption for 
incandescent reflector lamps and does not include those lamps within 
the definition of GSLs. This rule does address the exemption for 
``reflector lamps''; as discussed in section III.A.1.a, the rule 
addresses only reflector lamps that are not ``incandescent reflector 
lamps'' as defined in EPCA.
    In the following sections, DOE provides detailed discussions of how 
the definition of GSL adopted in this final rule is consistent with the 
authorities discussed in this section.

III. Adopted Definition of General Service Lamp

A. General Service Lamp Definition

    The term general service lamp (GSL) includes general service 
incandescent lamps (GSILs), compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), general 
service light-emitting diode (LED) and organic light-emitting diode 
(OLED) lamps, and any other lamps that DOE determines are used to 
satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs; however, 
GSLs do not include any lighting application or bulb shape that under 
42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D)(ii) is not included in the ``general service 
incandescent lamp'' definition, or any general service fluorescent lamp 
or incandescent reflector lamp. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)) The October 
2016 NOPDDA revisited the proposed definition of GSL from the March 
2016 GSL ECS NOPR, including the exemptions contained in the GSIL and 
GSL definitions, and proposed a revised definition of ``general service 
lamp'' in Sec.  430.2 to capture various criteria and delineate the 
lamp types considered to be GSLs. 81 FR 71806-71807. More specifically, 
DOE proposed the a definition for GSL in the October 2016 NOPDDA A 
general service lamp, as proposed, would be a lamp that has an ANSI 
base, operates at any voltage, has an initial lumen output of greater 
than or equal to 310 lumens (or 232 lumens for modified spectrum 
general

[[Page 7287]]

service incandescent lamps) and less than or equal to 4,000 lumens, is 
not a light fixture, is not an LED downlight retrofit kit, and is used 
in general lighting applications. General service lamps include, but 
are not limited to, general service incandescent lamps, compact 
fluorescent lamps, general service light-emitting diode lamps, and 
general service organic light-emitting diode lamps, but do not include 
general service fluorescent lamps; linear fluorescent lamps of lengths 
from one to eight feet; circline fluorescent lamps; fluorescent lamps 
specifically designed for cold temperature applications; impact-
resistant fluorescent lamps; reflectorized or aperture fluorescent 
lamps; fluorescent lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment; 
fluorescent lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra-
violet region of the spectrum; fluorescent lamps with a color rendering 
index of 87 or greater; R20 short lamps; specialty MR lamps; appliance 
lamps; black light lamps; bug lamps; colored lamps; infrared lamps; 
left-hand thread lamps, marine lamps, marine signal service lamps; mine 
service lamps; plant light lamps; sign service lamps; silver bowl 
lamps, showcase lamps, and traffic signal lamps.
    DOE received general comments on its proposed definition.
    California Energy Commission (CEC), Southern California Edison 
(SCE), National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Rutgers Law School 
Environmental Law Society (RELS), Northeast Energy Efficiency 
Partnerships (NEEP), Utility Coalition, and Appliance Standard 
Awareness Project (ASAP) expressed strong support for DOE's proposed 
definition of GSL. CEC and RELS commented that the revised proposal 
encourages high performance requirements for technology-neutral GSLs 
and will result in significant additional energy savings for the nation 
as well as increased consumer savings. NRDC and NEEP noted that the 
revised definition addressed stakeholder input including many of their 
concerns on previous proposals. In particular, NRDC and CEC agreed with 
DOE's approach of including lamps regardless of shape or base type in 
order to prevent gaming of the system. Citing reflector lamps as an 
example, NRDC stated that manufacturers have taken advantage of 
definitions in the past by creating new lamp shapes outside of the 
product definition that then increase in sales. NEEP stated its overall 
support for proposed scope of GSLs, and asserted there will be a wide 
variety of highly efficacious and low cost lamps that will fill the 
needs for consumers. ASAP added that with a few minor changes to the 
definitions, the definitions will be consistent with the statute, and 
DOE will be able to implement the backstop standard as required by 
Congress and issue a final rule to complete this critical rulemaking. 
(CEC, No. 81 at p. 1; SCE, No. 83 at pp. 23-24; NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 9-
10; ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 20-21; NEEP, No. 83 at p. 13; NRDC, No. 85 at 
pp. 1-2; RELS, No. 86 at p. 1; CEC, No. 91 at p. 1)
    SCE stated that both utilities and industry played a critical role 
in transforming the market and added that progress will continue after 
the rulemaking ends. ASAP also emphasized the role of utilities, noting 
that utilities have spent billions of dollars to move the market to the 
level of efficiency available today and remain interested in how to 
make the transition to a GSL standard successful. (SCE, No. 83 at pp. 
23-24; ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 17-19)
    In contrast, Avalos stated that the expanded definition simply 
broadens the scope of GSL and does not clarify what lamps are 
considered GSLs. Avalos added that several lamps are included under the 
revised definition that are not general service lamps and suggested 
defining GSL to include lamps that are used on a regular basis. 
(Avalos, No. 80 at p. 1)
    NEMA also commented that the scope of the proposed GSL definition 
is too broad. NEMA stated that available sales and market data should 
be used to determine the scope rather than speculating whether lamp 
types may become loopholes in the future. NEMA added that the sales 
data collected from the section 6295(l) rulemaking indicates that some 
of the lamp types that look like 60 W incandescent lamps, such as rough 
service and vibration service, are being used as substitutes. However, 
NEMA also noted that there are very small or large lamps, such as 2,000 
lumen sign lamps and G40 lamps, which would fall within DOE's proposed 
definition but that are not effective substitutes for GSILs because 
they cannot fit in the same fixtures or applications. (NEMA, No. 83 at 
pp. 50-52) Westinghouse also expressed concern about DOE's proposed 
definition, stating that because it is so broad some lamp types will be 
inadvertently included in the scope of the GSL definition. 
(Westinghouse, No. 83 at p. 135)
    DOE acknowledges that it has proposed a broad definition for 
general service lamp. However, DOE does not intend for the definition 
to include lamps that are not properly considered general service 
lamps. In the following sections, DOE discusses key aspects of the 
definition and revisions implemented for this final rule.
1. GSILs
    As stated previously, GSLs include GSILs. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB)(i)(I)) The current definition of ``general service 
incandescent lamp'' is 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: An appliance lamp; A black light lamp; A bug lamp; 
A colored lamp; An infrared lamp; A left-hand thread lamp; A marine 
lamp; A marine signal service lamp; A mine service lamp; A plant light 
lamp; A reflector lamp; A rough service lamp; A shatter-resistant lamp 
(including a shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp); A sign 
service lamp; A silver bowl lamp; A showcase lamp; A 3-way incandescent 
lamp; A traffic signal lamp; A vibration service lamp; A G shape lamp 
(as defined in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI C79.1-2002) with a diameter of 5 
inches or more; A T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI 
C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40 watts or has a length of 
more than 10 inches; and 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) of 40 watts or 
less. 10 CFR 430.2.
    In the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR, DOE declined to make a 
determination about discontinuing the 22 GSIL exemptions from the GSIL 
definition. DOE initially concluded that, because the Appropriations 
Rider prohibits DOE from using appropriated funds to implement or 
enforce standards for GSILs, DOE could not re-evaluate the existing 
exemptions for GSILs in the GSL rulemaking. 81 FR 14540. Specifically, 
DOE stated that, by definition, GSL does not apply to any lighting 
application or bulb shape that, under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D), is not 
included within the ``general service incandescent lamp'' definition. 
(42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)) Therefore, based on the GSL definition, the 22 
incandescent lamps that are excluded in EPCA from the definition of 
GSIL would not be GSLs. Further, DOE stated that the formerly exempted 
lamp types would have to be considered GSILs in

[[Page 7288]]

order for DOE to regulate the lamps under its authority to promulgate 
standards for GSLs. Since the Appropriations Rider prohibits the 
expenditure of funds to implement or enforce standards for GSILs, DOE 
reasoned that it would not be able to establish or amend energy 
conservation standards for any of these lamps. As a result, making a 
determination about discontinuing the exemption from the GSIL 
definition for any of the 22 medium screw base lamps would make no 
difference in the GSL rulemaking, and DOE declined to address the 
exemptions at that time. 81 FR 14541.
    Upon consideration of the comments received on the March 2016 GSL 
ECS NOPR and further review of the relevant authorities, DOE revisited 
its interpretation in the October 2016 NOPDDA with respect to the 
proposed definition of GSL and application of the Appropriations Rider. 
DOE noted that the focus of the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR was to propose 
new energy conservation standards for GSLs; in that context, DOE did 
not propose to modify the GSIL exemptions and then impose new standards 
for GSILs. By contrast, the October 2016 NOPDDA neither implemented nor 
sought to enforce any standard. Rather, the October 2016 NOPDDA sought 
to define what constitutes a GSIL and what constitutes a GSL under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II), an exercise distinct from establishing 
standards. As previously noted, the Appropriations Rider restricts DOE 
from ``implementing or enforcing'' the standards imposed on GSILs by 10 
CFR 430.32(x). However, it does not preclude DOE from utilizing its 
authority under EPCA to revisit and alter the scope of GSIL and GSL, 
even if a consequence of that decision will be that additional 
incandescent lamps may become subject to the backstop standard.
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE noted it believes this is a 
reasonable interpretation of the Appropriations Rider because, in 
evaluating the exemptions, DOE followed a directive related to a GSL 
rulemaking to define the scope of GSLs. DOE did not conduct any 
analysis in support of establishing energy conservation standards for 
GSILs. Although a collateral effect is to broaden the scope of the GSIL 
definition, DOE simply proposed to define what lamps constitute GSLs so 
that both manufacturers and DOE can understand how the regulations 
apply to the market. As discussed, DOE's defining the scope of GSL in 
light of the 45 lm/W backstop standard set in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v) is not the same as DOE establishing standards. 
Furthermore, as previously noted, in the event standards were 
established, leaving certain exemptions in place would diminish the 
energy savings that would otherwise be achieved because the excluded 
lamps would provide a less efficient option to meet the same general 
service lighting application. 81 FR 71797-71798.
    Commenters inquired why DOE had apparently changed its 
interpretation of the Appropriations Rider. As noted, the March 2016 
GSL ECS NOPR focused on establishing amended standards. The October 
2016 NOPDDA and this final rule are addressed solely to the definition 
of GSL, recognizing that the additional lamps that DOE includes as GSLs 
will become subject to either a DOE-developed standard or to the 45 lm/
W backstop standard that EPCA set as the default. In this context, 
interpreting the Appropriations Rider to block DOE from assessing the 
22 exemptions would risk undermining the 45 lm/W backstop standard that 
Congress set. That consequence is quite different from what DOE faced 
with respect to the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR, with respect to which a 
broad interpretation of the Appropriations Rider would only have 
restricted DOE's ability to develop its own standards. DOE, therefore, 
interpreted the Appropriations Rider as applying differently in the 
context of the October 2016 NOPDDA, and similarly does not interpret 
the Appropriations Rider as precluding its assessment of the exemptions 
in this final rule.
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE evaluated the 22 lighting 
applications or bulb shapes exempted under the GSIL definition to 
determine whether such exemptions should be maintained or discontinued. 
81 FR 71798. In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed to discontinue 
eight GSIL exemptions (for reflector lamps, rough service lamps, 
shatter-resistant lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, vibration service 
lamps, and lamps with specific shapes) based on compiled sales data and 
consideration of additional, applicable factors. DOE proposed to 
maintain 14 of the GSIL exemptions due to low sales and low potential 
for use in GSL applications.
    In this final rule, DOE is maintaining 15 of the exemptions and 
discontinuing seven of them. To summarize the analytical approach 
discussed later with reference to comments, DOE believes the purpose of 
the decision that subsection (i)(6)(A)(i)(II) calls for is to ensure 
that a given exemption will not impair the effectiveness of GSL 
standards by leaving available a convenient substitute that is not 
regulated as a GSL. Therefore, DOE has based its decision on each 
exemption on an assessment of whether the exemption encompasses lamps 
that can provide general illumination and can functionally be a ready 
substitute for lamps already covered as GSLs.
    The technical characteristics of lamps in a given exemption and the 
volume of sales of those lamps are among the considerations relevant to 
that assessment. High annual sales indicates that the product is likely 
used in general lighting applications,\10\ because the sales of lamps 
for specialty applications tend to be relatively small compared to 
sales for general-purpose lighting. However, sales data are not the 
only consideration. It may be appropriate to discontinue an exemption 
even though current sales are relatively low, if technical 
characteristics of the exempted lamps make them likely to serve as 
ready substitutes for GSLs once GSL standards are in place. For 
example, as discussed in section III.A.1.a, DOE believes shatter-
resistant lamps are similar enough to rough service and vibration 
service lamps that shatter-resistant lamps will be substitutable for 
GSLs just as rough service and vibration service lamps have become 
substitutes for GSILs. Further, as discussed later in this section, for 
a lamp to be a viable substitute for GSLs, DOE does not think the lamp 
has to fit into the same existing fixtures as some type of GSL. Markets 
will shift in response to GSL standards, and DOE would expect some 
substitution of fixtures to occur as part of substituting non-GSL lamps 
for GSLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DOE notes that the annual sales of six lamp categories for 
which exemptions were discontinued in this notice were several times 
greater than the fifteen lamp categories for which exemptions were 
maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received several comments regarding its authority to reconsider 
the 22 GSIL exemptions. NEMA stated that DOE was not authorized to 
redefine GSIL to include any of the 22 lighting applications or bulb 
shapes exempted from the definition of GSIL. (NEMA No. 93 at p. 3) NEMA 
further stated that Congress defined GSIL in very specific terms, 
limiting the term to ``standard incandescent or halogen type lamps'' 
and that the 22 listed lamps are not standard incandescent lamps, and 
are therefore excluded from the GSIL definition. (NEMA No. 93 at p. 3) 
NEMA stated that in contrast to the ``standard'' incandescent lamp, 
some of the 22 excluded lamps lack a ``medium screw base,'' some have 
lower lumen output than the minimum lumens for GSILs, and some of them 
are separately regulated. (NEMA, No, 93 at p. 3) NEMA

[[Page 7289]]

stated DOE has no authority to change the GSIL definition and urged DOE 
to retain the existing definition. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 22)
    EPCA does not define ``standard'' in the context of incandescent 
lamp.\11\ However, DOE considers it unlikely that the exemptions 
encompass solely lamps that are not ``standard.'' Were that the case, 
the exemptions would be superfluous, because the word ``standard'' in 
the definition of GSIL would on its own have ensured that none of those 
lamps are GSILs. For example, one of the 22 exemptions is for 3-way 
incandescent lamps. With respect to this type of lamp, the GSIL 
definition reads: ``a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that'' 
meets four qualifications (``intended for general service 
applications,'' medium screw base, 310-2,600 lumens, and functional at 
110-130 volts), but not including 3-way incandescent lamps. If no 3-way 
incandescent lamps are ``standard,'' then the exemption for those lamps 
was unnecessary. To be clear, DOE acknowledges that this argument does 
not imply that all 3-way incandescent lamps are ``standard,'' or that 
all 3-way incandescent lamps would meet the other GSIL qualifications 
(such as lumen range or screw base). Nonetheless, it seems likely that 
the 22 exemptions cover some lamps that would, absent the exemption, be 
GSILs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ DOE's understanding of the word ``standard'' in this 
context is discussed in section III.A.4.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding DOE's decision to maintain or discontinue the 22 GSIL 
exemptions, PG&E supported DOE's decision to bring previously exempted 
lamp types into the scope of coverage of the GSL rule. PG&E added that 
these lamp types pose a significant risk to energy savings as they can 
easily replace GSLs in many applications. Further PG&E stated that LED 
versions are dropping in price while increasing in efficiency and are 
available in range of shapes, sizes, lumen outputs, correlated color 
temperature (CCT), beam angles, and base types. (PG&E, No. 83 at pp. 
14-15) CEC, Utility Coalition, NEEP, and NRDC also supported DOE's 
proposed approach and agreed with the eight lamp types DOE proposed to 
no longer exempt based on the sales of these lamp types and their 
potential for lamp switching. NEEP and NRDC added that these categories 
all have high-efficiency alternatives that produce general 
illumination. (CEC, No. 81 at p. 1; Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 3; 
NEEP, No. 92 at p. 1; NRDC, No. 85 at pp. 1-2) However, NEMA stated 
that DOE should maintain all 22 GSIL exemptions except for vibration 
service lamps and rough service lamps. (NEMA, No. 83 at p. 93)
    In support of its analysis of whether to maintain or discontinue 
the 22 GSIL exemptions, in the October 2016 NOPDDA DOE presented 
estimated sales data for the 22 exempted lamp types. NEMA stated that 
sales for most of the 22 exempted lamps are declining and that it was 
the intent of Congress to require that DOE find sales increasing as a 
prerequisite to discontinue an exemption. (NEMA, No. 83 at p. 34; NEMA 
No. 93 at p. 12) NEMA pointed to the petition process established under 
section 321 of EISA 2007 as indicative of that intent. (NEMA, No. 93 at 
p. 12-13) NEMA and LEDVANCE noted that Congress required a 
demonstration of increased sales as a prerequisite for DOE to grant a 
petition submitted by the public to reconsider an exemption, and that 
DOE must be guided by the same consideration when determining whether 
an exemption should be maintained under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II). 
(NEMA, No. 83 at pp. 33-34; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 25-27) NEMA and 
LEDVANCE cited the requirement under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) for 
DOE to consider, in part, ``exempted lamp sales'' collected by DOE as 
supporting the requirement for increased lamp sales in order to 
discontinue an exemption. (NEMA, No. 93 at 5; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 
26) NEMA and LEDVANCE added that a determination of lamp switching must 
be driven by data showing increased sales. (NEMA No. 93 at p. 13; 
LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 25-27) NEMA and LEDVANCE concluded that the 
October 2016 NOPDDA did not provide data indicating that lamp switching 
was occurring, and rather data from the Energy Information 
Administration \12\ shows that sales are decreasing. NEMA and LEDVANCE 
commented that if DOE was petitioned under section 325(i)(3)(E), it 
would not grant the petition or decide to regulate these specialty 
lamps and therefore any other action taken under section 325(i)(6)(A) 
is illogical. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 13; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 25-27) 
John Taxpayer stated that DOE's inclusion of these specialty lamps was 
regulatory overreach and Congress had specifically stated these lamps 
should be regulated if and only if their sales increased over 100 
percent. Taxpayer commented that many excluded specialty lamps are not 
available at hardware stores and will not fit in normal table lamps or 
recessed ceiling fixtures. (Taxpayer, No. 84 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Energy Information Administration, Sales of specialty 
incandescent bulbs decline despite exemption from efficiency 
standards (April 2, 2013) available at: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NRDC found the sales data presented by DOE in the October 
2016 NOPDDA to be accurate, it commented that historical lamp sales are 
only one factor for consideration in DOE's determination of whether an 
exemption should be maintained. The California Investor Owned Utilities 
(CA IOUs) and NRDC cautioned that the presented data reflected current 
standards and sales could increase dramatically for exempted lamp types 
when the next more efficient standards go into effect in 2020. (CA 
IOUs, No. 83 at pp. 64-65; NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 29-30, 35) NRDC and CA 
IOUs both commented that the market has previously seen the sales 
volume of lamps increase when the lamps were exempted from standards or 
subject to less stringent standards (e.g., BR lamps and modified 
spectrum lamps) and that historic sales records do not necessarily 
capture the potential for lamp switching. (NRDC, No. 85 at p. 1; CA 
IOUs, No. 83 at pp. 64-65) ASAP noted that market dynamics change as a 
result of setting standards for an inefficient lamp and that in some 
cases, an exempted low-volume, high-priced niche variant of an 
inefficient lamp can become a high-volume, low-priced loophole, thus 
undercutting the effect of the standard. ASAP added that DOE's 
definition of ``designed and marketed'' has not prevented inefficient 
low-volume high-priced specialty lamps from becoming loopholes in 
standards thus far. (ASAP, No. 94 at p. 5)
    As discussed, the petition process from EISA section 321(a)(3) is 
distinct from the decision that subparagraph (6)(A)(i)(II) calls for 
about maintaining or discontinuing exemptions. The statute does not 
require DOE to consider the same factors in the clause (i)(II) decision 
that it would in reviewing a petition. In particular, it does not 
restrict DOE to discontinuing an exemption only if sales of lamps 
within that exemption are increasing. While increases or decreases in 
lamp sales are an important consideration, DOE believes it can in some 
circumstances be appropriate to discontinue an exemption even at a time 
when sales of those lamps are decreasing. As described by GE, LEDVANCE, 
and Westinghouse, incandescent sales can be decreasing because 
consumers are purchasing LED versions of the same lamp. Thus, the lamp 
itself is not unpopular but rather is undergoing a shift in technology. 
For example, GE stated that sales of reflector lamps that are 
incandescent have been declining significantly over the last five years 
but

[[Page 7290]]

that was in large part caused by the increasing sales of LED reflector 
lamps. (GE, No. 83 at pp. 38, 84-85; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 35; 
Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 128-129) Consequently, it can in some 
circumstances be appropriate to consider the overall volume of sales in 
assessing an exemption, even if the volume is currently decreasing.
    DOE also considered the potential of lamp switching that may occur 
in response to any GSL standard. If an exempted lamp has the same 
utility to lamp users as a lamp subject to a standard as a GSL, DOE 
considered the potential increase in the use of the exempted lamp in 
response to a standard. As noted by the comments from CA IOUs and NRDC, 
prior to the effective date of any new standard the sales trends of 
exempted lamps do not necessarily capture the potential for lamp 
switching. As such, current lamp sale trends are only part of the 
consideration. DOE is permitted to account for future changes in 
consumer behavior so as to avoid the creation of loopholes.
    DOE received several comments regarding whether a lamp could serve 
as a replacement for a GSL and therefore present a risk of lamp 
switching. CA IOUs stated that evaluations of the exemptions should be 
based on whether the exempted lamp type could serve as a replacement 
for a general service lamp. (CA IOUs, No. 83 at p. 107) Westinghouse 
stated that there are low-cost products on the market that consumers do 
not use as replacements for GSLs because they are not the appropriate 
shape or design. Avalos noted that a couple of exempted lamp types 
could be considered GSILs but are not due to their lamp structure. 
(Westinghouse, No. 83 at p. 30; Avalos, No. 80 at p. 1)
    GE and LEDVANCE stated that DOE should consider the traditional 
omnidirectional incandescent lamp when considering the potential for 
lamp switching. (GE, No. 83 at pp. 37-38; LEDVANCE No. 83 at p. 59) GE 
stated that the definition of GSIL describes a lamp with a medium screw 
base, that produces between 310 and 2,600 lumens, and can operate on a 
voltage between 110 and 130 V, and that in order for a lamp to be 
considered as having the potential for ``lamp switching'' the lamp must 
maintain these same attributes. (GE, No. 88 at pp. 2-3) NEMA further 
stated that the definition of GSL authorizes DOE to consider ``other 
lamps'' and that ``other lamps'' must be used to satisfy lighting 
applications traditionally served by GSILs. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 6) NEMA 
stated that the use of the word ``used,'' past tense, establishes that 
there must be evidence for the basis of a finding that other lamps are 
operating in applications traditionally served by GSILs. (NEMA, No. 93 
at p. 6) Westinghouse stated that consideration of lamp switching 
should be limited to whether a consumer could use an exempted lamp to 
replace a lamp that the consumer is currently using, and that 
consideration of how the use of fixtures may change in response to 
standards (e.g., changes in fixtures used in new home construction) 
would be inconsistent with EPCA. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 39-40)
    Other commenters stated that consideration of lamp switching should 
include the ability of an exempted lamp to provide similar function as 
a traditional GSIL, regardless of the fixture traditionally used with 
GSILs. ASAP stated that the presence of directional lamps in residences 
in the U.S. has grown significantly over time due to changes in new 
construction. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 38-39) ASAP stated that lighting in 
homes that traditionally was provided by A shape lamps in floor and 
table fixtures is being provided in newer construction through 
reflector lamps in recessed can lighting. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 58-59)
    As previously noted, DOE understands the purpose of the decision 
that EPCA calls for on maintaining or discontinuing exemptions to be to 
ensure that consumers and manufacturers do not switch to readily 
available substitutes once standards for GSLs come into force. In 
making this assessment, the potential for an exempted lamp to be placed 
in a fixture that traditionally used a GSIL, and the potential change 
in the fixtures used to provide lighting in an application that was 
traditionally served by a GSIL are important considerations that DOE 
appropriately takes into account. Separate from the determinations to 
be made regarding certain exemptions, DOE is authorized to include in 
the definition of GSL other lamps that are used to satisfy lighting 
applications traditionally served by GSILs. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB)(i)(IV)) While 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) does not 
expressly direct DOE to consider whether an exempted lamp is used to 
satisfy the lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs, DOE 
has determined this consideration to be instructive in the overall 
assessment regarding the exemptions. As noted by commenters, the 
function traditionally provided by GSILs can, in some instances, be 
provided by more than one type of fixture. In order to minimize the 
potential for loopholes, DOE has considered the potential for a 
consumer to change the type of lamp used in an existing fixture, and 
the potential change in the type of fixture used to provide the same 
function as traditionally provided by a fixture using a GSIL.
    CA IOUs stated that evaluations of the 22 GSIL exemptions should 
also be based on whether the exempted lamp type can be made as an LED 
lamp. (That consideration would be relevant because it is almost 
certain that incandescent lamps will not be able to satisfy the 45 lm/W 
backstop standard if it comes into force.) (CA IOUs, No. 83 at p. 107) 
ASAP further stated that of the 15 lamp types that DOE is proposing to 
continue to exempt there are LED replacements available for all but the 
infrared lamp. ASAP noted LED replacements that are able to function in 
high temperature applications could serve as replacements for appliance 
lamps. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 98-99)
    DOE is aware that LED replacements may exist for some of the exempt 
lamp categories. DOE did consider the existence or absence of LED 
replacements, though not as the only reason to discontinue or maintain 
a GSIL exemption. DOE's consideration of lamps for which no equivalent 
LED replacements exist is discussed in section III.A.4.f.
    NEMA provided updated sales information for this final rule. NEMA 
provided sales data from four members, which represents a significant 
portion of the market, for each of the exemptions that DOE proposed to 
discontinue. NEMA stated that although not all members are included, it 
conferred with other members that did not provide data to confirm the 
general trend of decreasing sales and shipments of specialty 
incandescent lamps since standards went into effect for GSILs between 
2010 and 2012. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 9-10) DOE has updated Table III.1 
to reflect this new data. DOE notes that, except with respect to 
certain lamps discussed in the sections that follow, the data from NEMA 
are consistent with the estimates and data that the October 2016 NOPDDA 
presented.
    NEMA estimated the annual domestic sales of general service lamps 
(as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(BB)(I)-(III)) to be 600 million units. 
NEMA noted that this estimate excludes the shipments of the exemption 
categories proposed to be discontinued noting that each of the exempt 
lamp categories represents well below 1 percent of the total number of 
GSLs. NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that the October 2016 NOPDDA appeared to 
arbitrarily determine that

[[Page 7291]]

any number of annual unit sales above 3 million qualifies to be 
included in the definition of ``general service lamp'' regardless of 
whether lamp switching is occurring. NEMA and LEDVANCE cited the 
example in NEMA's comments on the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR that 
standards for globe lamps, which had an estimated 7 million annual unit 
sales, would not be justified because these lamps would not consume an 
average of 100 kWh of electricity per year as required by section 
322(b) of EPCA. NEMA and LEDVANCE concluded that the decision to 
regulate a specialty lamp with declining sales and energy consumption 
that would not justify regulation as a new consumer product is 
arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 13-
14; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 25-27)
    As discussed previously, DOE is not limited to considering only 
lamp sales when determining whether to maintain or discontinue an 
exemption. EPCA states lamps sales are only to be a part of the 
consideration, signifying that DOE is authorized to include other 
considerations. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) As previously discussed, 
DOE considered the potential for lamp switching in order to minimize 
the potential for loopholes to any standard(s) that may be established. 
Lamp sales are part of that consideration. Again, DOE recognized that 
historical sales data are not always predictive of future lamp 
switching. Lamp sales, therefore, were considered in conjunction with 
the characteristics of a lamp.
    Additionally, the specific direction from Congress to consider 
whether to maintain or discontinue exemptions for certain lamps is 
separate and distinct from the EPCA requirements for classifying a 
consumer product as a covered product under 42 U.S.C. 6292(b), which 
requires minimum energy savings, and from the requirements set out in 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o) for establishing new or amended standards. EPCA 
directs DOE to determine whether to include in the definition of an 
existing covered product lamps currently excluded. DOE is not 
designating previously exempt lamps as separate covered products. DOE 
is determining the scope of an existing covered product pursuant to a 
specific mandate from section 6295(i)(6)(A), and as such, 42 U.S.C. 
6292(b) is inapplicable.
    DOE continues to believe it is reasonable to make decisions about 
the various exemptions without assessing the average household energy 
consumption of each, as it would if it conducted a separate section 
6292(b) analysis for each exemption. For GSLs as a whole, Congress has 
determined that regulation is appropriate. (Although DOE of course 
respects Congress's decision as sufficient, DOE notes that average 
household energy consumption of GSLs is well above the section 6292(b) 
threshold.) The nature of the exemptions is that most of them currently 
represent relatively small portions of the overall lamp market. 
Consistent with the preceding framework, DOE believes the exemption 
decision is meant to ensure that a given type of lamp does not become a 
loophole for the GSL standards at the time when manufacturers are 
required to comply with those standards. If a lamp is a ready 
substitute for GSLs and DOE leaves that type of lamp exempt, energy 
consumption for that lamp type would presumably increase in the future; 
but the average rate of current energy consumption for a particular 
exempt lamp type is not as important a consideration.
    Table III.1 summarizes the exemptions maintained or discontinued in 
this final rule and the sales data for each exemption.

                                Table III.1--Determinations Regarding Exemptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Estimated sales data (units
       GSIL exempted lamp category               annual sales)          DOE's determination on exemption status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Lamp..........................  Approximately 2 million....  Maintain exemption.
Black Light Lamp........................  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Bug Lamp................................  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Colored Lamp............................  <2 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Infrared Lamp...........................  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Left-Hand Thread Lamp...................  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Marine Lamp.............................  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Marine Signal Service Lamp..............  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Mine Service Lamp.......................  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Plant Light Lamp........................  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Reflector Lamp..........................  Approximately 30 million...  Discontinue exemption.
Rough Service Lamp *....................  10,914,000.................  Discontinue exemption.
Shatter-Resistant Lamp..................  689,000....................  Discontinue exemption.
Sign Service Lamp.......................  Approximately 1 million....  Maintain exemption.
Silver Bowl Lamp........................  Approximately 1 million....  Maintain exemption.
Showcase Lamp...........................  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
3-way Incandescent Lamp.................  32,665,000.................  Discontinue exemption.
Traffic Signal Lamp.....................  <1 million.................  Maintain exemption.
Vibration Service Lamp..................  7,071,000..................  Discontinue exemption.
G shape Lamp with diameter of 5 inches    859,867....................  Maintain exemption.
 or more.
T shape lamp of 40 W or less or length    9,750,395..................  Discontinue exemption.
 of 10 inches or more.
B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G25, G30, S, M-14  71,702,637.................  Discontinue exemption.
 lamp of 40 W or less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NEMA submitted revised data for rough service lamps following the publication of the notice of data
  availability for five lamp types. See 81 FR 20261 (April 7, 2016). The revised data showed sales of 10,914,000
  rough service lamps in 2015, which results in a requirement for DOE under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4), to initiate an
  accelerated rulemaking to establish an energy conservation standard for rough service lamps. See ex parte
  memorandum published in the docket at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BT-NOA-0013-0019.

    As shown in Table III.1, based on the revised sales data and a 
consideration of additional, applicable factors, DOE has determined to 
discontinue seven GSIL exemptions. As discussed in section II, DOE 
believes the lamp categories for which it discontinued exemptions 
represent significant energy savings potential either due to high 
annual sales or by preventing a loophole from forming. DOE is 
maintaining 15 of the GSIL exemptions due to low sales and

[[Page 7292]]

low potential for use in GSL applications. DOE discusses each of the 
exemptions and comments received on the proposal in the October 2016 
NOPDDA in the sections that follow.
a. Exemptions Proposed To Be Discontinued in October 2016 NOPDDA
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed to discontinue eight 
exemptions from the definition of GSIL. 81 FR 71799. DOE assessed data 
available for medium screw base reflector lamps that are incandescent 
and preliminarily concluded that these lamps have high annual sales. To 
be clear, the following discussion relates only to reflector lamps that 
are not IRLs. The market includes many reflector lamps that use 
incandescent technology but do not fall within the statutory definition 
of IRL, for example, medium screw base reflector lamps with diameters 
of 2.25 inches or less (e.g., PAR16 or MR16 lamps) or with rated 
wattages less than 40 W (e.g., 39 W PAR20 lamps). At present, IRLs are 
exempt from being GSLs; while DOE proposed to discontinue that 
exemption, DOE will be addressing that proposal in a separate final 
rule and does not discuss it here. Accordingly, in the following 
discussion, except where noted, DOE uses the phrase ``reflector lamp'' 
to refer only to lamps that are not IRLs.
    DOE estimated the sales of medium base reflector lamps that are 
incandescent as approximately 30 million units per year. DOE believed 
medium screw base reflector lamps are capable of providing overall 
illumination and could be used as a replacement for GSILs. Therefore, 
DOE found there was also high potential for lamp switching and 
subsequently creating a loophole. For these reasons, DOE proposed to 
discontinue the exemption for reflector lamps in the October 2016 
NOPDDA. Id. at 71800.
    DOE received several comments in support of its decision to expand 
the scope of the GSL definition to include reflector lamps. ASAP 
commented that they strongly supported covering all reflector lamps in 
the scope of this rulemaking and noted that hundreds of millions of 
reflector lamps (including IRLs) are sold each year. ASAP stated that 
directional lamps of all technology types are a growing presence in 
homes. ASAP noted that there are more efficient alternatives widely 
available at affordable prices, and including reflector lamps that are 
incandescent as GSLs is a step towards technological neutrality which 
will benefit the environment, industry and consumers. (ASAP, No. 83 at 
pp. 38-39; ASAP, No. 94 at pp. 1-2) NRDC and Utility Coalition 
supported DOE's proposal to discontinue the exemption for reflector 
lamps and noted that there would be a significant impact on energy 
savings as a result. (NRDC, No. 83 at p. 11; NRDC, No. 85 at p. 2; 
Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 2) Soraa also supported DOE's proposal 
to include reflector lamps as GSILs noting that they are used or can be 
used to provide overall illumination. (Soraa, No. 87 at p. 2) CEC also 
commented in support of DOE's proposal to discontinue the GSIL 
exemption for reflector lamps due in part to their high lamp sales and 
potential for lamp switching. (CEC, No. 91 at pp. 4-5)
    In contrast, GE recommended that reflector lamps (in GE's comment, 
primarily IRLs) continue to be regulated separately and that it is not 
appropriate to evaluate reflector type lamps as GSLs because these 
products cannot successfully be used to satisfy lighting applications 
traditionally served by GSILs. (GE, No. 88 at p. 2) GE added that each 
reflector lamp has unique optical properties that must be considered 
when applying a minimum efficacy requirement and noted that these 
products cannot meet the same efficiency limits designed for general 
service A shape lamps. (GE, No. 88 at p. 2)
    In support of their assertion that reflector lamps should be 
regulated separately, several commenters disagreed with DOE's 
determination that reflector lamps posed a risk of lamp switching. GE 
stated that reflector lamps would not fit in most fixtures in which 
GSILs are used. Even if a reflector lamp could fit in such a fixture it 
could not deliver the omnidirectional light output provided by the 
GSIL. Therefore, GE asserted reflector lamps would not be suitable 
replacements for the standard GSILs and needed to be evaluated in their 
own rulemaking. (GE, No. 83 at pp. 37-38) LEDVANCE agreed and stated 
that the consumer will not obtain effective light by putting a 
reflector lamp in a fixture that does not have some type of directional 
functionality. (LEDVANCE, No. 83 at pp. 59-61)
    CA IOUs stated that while it may not be always be optimal, 
reflector lamps can be used in general service applications. (CA IOUs, 
No. 83 at p. 66) NRDC stated that reflector lamps can be used in 
applications other than down lights. NRDC pointed out that reflector 
lamps come in various shapes and there was nothing to prevent a 
manufacturer from altering the reflector lamp design so more light goes 
in different directions. (NRDC, No. 83 at p. 45) CA IOUs further noted 
that as the cheaper product, the use of reflector lamps that are 
incandescent in general service applications may increase due to new 
market pressures in 2020. (CA IOUs, No. 83 at p. 66) CEC agreed that 
medium screw base reflector lamps represent a lamp switching risk 
adding that lamp shape does not determine whether a lamp can provide 
general service lighting and general service lamps are not limited to 
omnidirectional lighting. (CEC, No. 91 at pp. 4-5) Utility Coalition 
also stated that LED lamps are suitable replacements for GSLs in many 
applications because they have the same base types and therefore 
represent a significant risk of undercutting the energy savings of the 
45 lm/W standard if they are not included. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 
at pp. 1-2)
    Additionally, Utility Coalition commented that there are LED 
versions of reflector lamps available in a wide variety of shapes and 
sizes, lumen outputs, CCT, beam angles, and base types and that 
decreasing prices and increasing efficiency make these products cost-
effective to consumers. NRDC also noted that there are several cost-
effective, dimmable LED lamps available that serve as excellent 
replacements for reflector lamps that are incandescent in a variety of 
form factors, light outputs, and colors and urged DOE to move forward 
with its proposal to remove the exemption for these lamps. (NRDC, No. 
83 at pp. 45-46; Utility Coalition, No. 95 at pp. 1-2) CEC stated that 
as of June 15, 2015, 658 models of medium screw base reflector lamps 
complied with Tier 1 of the adopted California standard thus indicating 
that cost effective, highly-efficacious LED alternatives exist. CEC 
added that making incremental improvements to existing LED reflector 
lamps was extremely cost-effective and technically feasible. (CEC, No. 
91 at pp. 4-5) Soraa also stated that LED replacements that provide a 
wide variety of product features, such as color rendering index (CRI), 
CCT, beam angle, whiteness rendering, and low flicker, are available 
for the majority of directional incandescent lamps. Soraa noted that 
customers in quality-sensitive fields such as high-end retail and 
hospitality have transitioned from halogen to LED technology. Soraa 
added while there are still some lamp types that are difficult to 
replicate in LED technology, such as narrow-beam MR16 lamps with the 
highest wattages, incremental progress in technology will likely make 
these products available by 2020. Additionally, Soraa stated that the 
limit of 45 lm/W can be met by

[[Page 7293]]

currently-existing products with higher-level features. (Soraa, No. 87 
at p. 2)
    As discussed previously in this document, DOE did not limit its 
consideration of lamp switching to the ability to replace a lamp in a 
fixture currently used by a consumer that had been using a traditional 
incandescent lamp. As indicated by comments from ASAP previously in 
this document, the presence of reflector lamps in residences in the 
U.S. has grown significantly over time due to changes in new 
construction. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 38-39) Lighting in homes that 
traditionally was provided by A shape lamps in floor and table fixtures 
is being provided in newer construction through reflector lamps in 
recessed lighting. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 58-59)
    The basic design characteristic of a reflector lamp, as defined in 
the industry standard by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North 
America (IES) RP-16-10, is that it directs the light. But it is 
possible to direct the omnidirectional light from an incandescent 
filament into a somewhat more limited set of angles and still have a 
lamp that provides general illumination. The reflector lamps now being 
widely used in recessed can lighting are an important example. In such 
an application (with the lamp mounted in the ceiling), the reflector 
redirects light that was initially emitted upward. But the resulting 
light distribution spreads broadly over the area downward from the 
lamp, so that a consumer can readily use the lamp to provide general 
illumination for a room. In light of these observations, DOE concludes 
that ``omnidirectional illumination'' is not a prerequisite for the 
traditional functions of incandescent lamps, as GE suggested. Rather, 
DOE may consider a lamp a ready substitute for GSILs--for purposes of 
assessing an exemption--if the lamp can provide the same sort of 
general illumination that GSILs provide.
    As presented in Table III.1, DOE estimates that the sales of medium 
base reflector lamps that are incandescent (and, as noted, do not meet 
the definition of IRL) are approximately 30 million units per year. 81 
FR 71794, 71800. DOE notes that of the 22 exempted lamp types, the 
category of medium screw base reflector lamps that are incandescent and 
do not meet the definition of IRL is the third highest annual unit 
sales, thus indicating that these lamps are likely used in general 
lighting applications. In addition, because medium screw base reflector 
lamps are capable of providing overall illumination and could be used 
as replacements for GSILs, there is also high potential for lamp 
switching. For these reasons, DOE is discontinuing the exemption from 
the GSIL definition for reflector lamps that are incandescent lamps.
    While DOE proposed to discontinue the exemption for reflector lamps 
generally, DOE noted R20 short lamps would continue not to be subject 
to standards. R20 short lamps are defined as R20 incandescent reflector 
lamps that have a rated wattage of 100 W; have a maximum overall length 
of 3 and 5/8, or 3.625, inches; and are designed, labeled, and marketed 
specifically for pool and spa applications. In a final rule published 
on November 14, 2013, DOE determined that standards for these lamps 
would not result in significant energy savings because such lamps are 
designed for special applications or have special characteristics not 
available in reasonably substitutable lamp types. 78 FR 68331, 68340. 
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E), one consequence of DOE's 
determination is that these lamps are specifically not incandescent 
lamps and therefore do not become GSILs when the reflector lamp 
exemption is discontinued. 81 FR 71800.
    ASAP stated that DOE's analysis on R20 lamps was performed in 2013, 
before LED substitutes were available for R20 lamps. ASAP asserted that 
if DOE performed this analysis again that LED substitutes would be 
available. (ASAP, No. 94 at p. 2)
    DOE acknowledges that the analysis on R20 short lamps was conducted 
in 2013. DOE did consider available LED substitutes at that time. DOE 
has not reconsidered the lamps in this rulemaking. The final 
determination regarding R20 lamps was not based solely on the lack of 
an available substitute. As provided by EPCA, a lamp may be excluded 
from the definition of ``incandescent lamp'' by DOE, by rule, as a 
result of a determination that standards for such lamp would not result 
in significant energy savings because such lamp is designed for special 
applications or has special characteristics not available in reasonably 
substitutable lamp types. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(E), emphasis added) DOE 
determined that in addition to lacking reasonably substitutable lamp 
types, the application-specific design characteristics of the R20 short 
lamp and the marketing and non-traditional distribution channels used 
by these lamp types, are evidence that R20 lamps are designed for pool 
and spa applications (i.e., a specialty application). 78 FR 68331, 
68334. Indeed, R20 lamps must be labeled and marketed specifically for 
pool and spa applications. 10 CFR 430.2. Also relevant to DOE's 
decision not to include R20 lamps as GSILs under this rulemaking, the 
lamp did not experience a market migration to other applications even 
when R20 lamps were perceived not to be regulated (i.e., lamp switching 
did not occur). 78 FR 68331, 68334. For these reasons, DOE is 
maintaining the exclusion of R20 lamps from the definition of 
``incandescent lamp.''
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE also provided data for medium screw 
base incandescent lamps of the following specific shapes: B, BA, CA, F, 
G16-1/2, G25, G30, S, M-14 lamps (as defined in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI 
C79.1-2002) of 40 W or less; G shape lamps (as defined in ANSI C78.20 
and ANSI C79.1-2002) with a diameter of 5 inches or more; T shape lamps 
(as defined in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI C79.1-2002) that use not more than 
40 W or have a length of more than 10 inches. For B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/
2, G25, G30, S, and M-14 lamps of 40 W or less, DOE estimated the 
annual sales as approximately 42 million. For G shape lamps with a 
diameter of 5 inches or more, DOE estimated the annual sales as 
approximately 8 million units. In addition to the sizeable sales of 
larger globe shape lamps, DOE noted it is likely that larger globe 
shape lamps may be used as substitutes for the G16.5, G25, and G30 
lamps if the exemption is not also discontinued. Regarding T shape 
lamps that use not more than 40 W or have a length of more than 10 
inches, DOE estimated the annual sales of these lamps as roughly 7 
million units. Further, the lamps of the specific shapes discussed in 
this paragraph are frequently used in general lighting applications and 
thus DOE believed there is a significant risk for lamp switching. 
Therefore, due to the high potential for lamp switching--reflected in 
part by high sales--DOE proposed to discontinue the GSIL exemption for 
these specific shapes in the October 2016 NOPDDA. 81 FR 71800.
    Regarding T shape lamps, NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that they are 
often used in applications such as museum or other display cases and in 
music stands. NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that 40 W T shape lamps (the 
maximum allowable wattage for these lamps) have low sales volume, and 
because the majority of T shape lamps are 15 W and 25 W lamps, applying 
a 45 lm/W standard to this lamp would not yield significant energy 
savings. They also noted that there is a continuing need for 
incandescent T shape lamps in exit sign fixtures designed for T-shaped 
incandescent lamps, pointing out that the UL-1993

[[Page 7294]]

safety standard specifically warns that CFLs and LED lamps should not 
be used in these fixtures. Therefore, NEMA and LEDVANCE commented that 
eliminating these lamps forces building owners to replace entire exit 
sign fixtures without an analysis of payback or higher initial costs to 
consumers. NEMA also provided sales data that show that over the past 
four years the reported sales of these lamps have fallen by 12.7 
percent. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 17; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 29)
    As presented in Table III.1, DOE revised its estimate of the annual 
sales of T shape lamps of 40 W or less or length of 10 inches or more 
based on the sales data submitted by NEMA. For the year 2015, the most 
recent year for which NEMA submitted data, NEMA estimated the annual 
sales of these T shape lamps as 9,750,395 units. Based on the revised 
estimate, the T shape lamp category has one of the highest annual sales 
of the 22 exempted lamp categories, thus suggesting that these lamps 
are likely used in general lighting applications. In addition to the 
sizable sales of these T shape lamps, DOE determined that T shape lamps 
are capable of providing overall illumination and therefore have a high 
potential for lamp switching. Due to the high potential for lamp 
switching--reflected in part by high sales--DOE is discontinuing the 
exemption from the GSIL definition for T shape lamps of 40 W or less or 
length of 10 inches or more.
    Regarding NEMA and LEDVANCE's concern that incandescent T shape 
lamps are required for use in installed exit signs, DOE was unable to 
find a UL safety requirement that supported this claim. UL-1993, the 
standard cited by NEMA and LEDVANCE, states that emergency exit 
fixtures are outside of the scope of the standard. DOE is aware that 
certain incandescent lamps, particularly those without equivalent LED 
replacements, may need to be maintained for safety reasons. DOE has 
exempted certain specialty lamps as described in section III.A.4.f.
    DOE also received feedback on its estimate of sales for the G shape 
lamp with a diameter of 5 inches or more. NEMA, with LEDVANCE's 
concurrence, stated that unit sales of G shape lamps with a diameter of 
5 inches or more comprise a small portion of the overall unit sales of 
G shape lamps and noted that DOE's sales estimate of 8 million units 
attributed to these G shape lamps is inaccurate. NEMA provided data 
showing that sales of G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 inches have 
decreased each year since 2012 and were under 1 million units in 2015. 
(NEMA, No. 83 at pp. 81-82; NEMA, No. 93 at p. 17; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at 
p. 27)
    Several commenters also disagreed with DOE's assessment that G 
shape lamps with a diameter of 5 inches or more posed a risk for lamp 
switching. NEMA commented that this lamp type, due to its large shape, 
will not fit in most fixtures. Therefore, NEMA noted that instead of 
consumers switching to this lamp type in applications served by GSILs, 
they will continue to use it in the specialty applications that it is 
used in currently. NEMA added that for this reason, and the declining 
annual sales discussed previously, this lamp type does not pose a risk 
for lamp switching. (NEMA, No. 83 at p. 85; NEMA, No. 93 at p. 17) 
LEDVANCE agreed, noting that a consumer is unlikely to replace an A19 
shape lamp with a 5-inch diameter lamp. (LEDVANCE, No. 83 at pp. 59-61) 
NEMA and Westinghouse also argued that the G40 shape incandescent lamp 
typically is more expensive than GSILs, medium screw base CFLs, and 
many general service LED lamps on the market. They concluded that the 
higher price point would also decrease the likelihood of lamp 
switching. (NEMA, No. 83 at p. 85; NEMA, No. 93 at p. 17; Westinghouse, 
No. 83 at pp. 87-88) Westinghouse added that LED products that are not 
UL certified or that are failed market attempts may be priced lower and 
therefore assessments should be based on average prices rather than the 
lowest price. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 87-88) ASAP cautioned that 
lamp prices are fluid and not necessarily tied to the cost of 
materials; instead they often fluctuate with demand. ASAP also stated 
that filament-style G shape LED lamps have become popular in retail 
food establishments and are reasonably priced. ASAP added that if the 
volume of G shape lamps were to increase, the price of G shape lamps 
would likely decrease as well. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 82-83, 86-87, 89)
    In this final rule, DOE has revised its sales estimate for G shape 
lamps with a diameter of 5 inches or greater based on the data 
submitted by NEMA. As shown in Table III.1, the estimated annual sales 
of this lamp category are 859,867 units. In the October 2016 NOPDDA, 
DOE had estimated the sales of this lamp category to be approximately 8 
million units. As described in the October 2016 NOPDDA, in the absence 
of actual data DOE estimated annual shipments by extrapolating from 
DOE's product database based on an inventory of available products. DOE 
accepts the actual data that NEMA submitted as a more accurate 
representation of the level of sales of these lamps.
    These annual sales, which are substantially lower than what DOE had 
previously estimated, have motivated DOE to maintain the exemption for 
G shape lamps with diameter of 5 inches or greater. Low annual sales is 
not, on its own, a dispositive fact. DOE's previous estimate of annual 
sales suggested to DOE that consumers were using G shape lamps with 
large diameters in general lighting applications. However, given the 
low actual sales, DOE believes that the exempt G shape lamps (i.e., G 
shape lamps with diameters over 5 inches) are not used in such 
applications. DOE will continue to monitor the market and may 
reconsider this decision in the future if G shape lamps with a diameter 
of 5 inches or greater are used in general lighting applications.
    DOE also received comments on medium screw base incandescent lamps 
of the following specific shapes: B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G25, G30, S, 
M-14 lamps (as defined in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI C79.1-2002) of 40 W or 
less. NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that medium screw base decorative lamps 
(e.g., B, BA, CA, and F shape lamps) have lower lumen output than GSILs 
and cannot be used interchangeably. They also noted that the sales of 
the medium screw base versions of these lamps are much smaller than the 
candelabra base versions. NEMA and LEDVANCE noted that the decorative 
shape lamps are designed for longer lifetimes, and extend the lifetime 
of incandescent lamp at the expense of lumen output. NEMA and LEDVANCE 
added that the statutory wattage cap of 40 W considerably limits the 
lumen output of decorative shapes compared to typical incandescent or 
halogen lamps. NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that the smaller size of these 
lamps prevents manufacturers from making suitable LED alternatives as 
aesthetically pleasing as incandescent versions or as efficient as 
larger A shape LED lamps, adding that there is insufficient room to put 
the required electronics in these lamps to match the efficiency of the 
A shape LED lamps. NEMA also provided data from its members that show 
sales of these lamps are declining and that the reported sales are 
lower in 2015 than they were in 2012. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 18; LEDVANCE, 
No. 90 at p. 29)
    NEMA and LEDVANCE continued that S-shaped lamps are service lamps 
typically used as sign lamps. They noted that this is a commercial 
product that is unlikely to be used in residential applications or in 
general service lamp fixtures. NEMA and LEDVANCE also commented that M-
14 lamps are no longer manufactured as it is an outdated

[[Page 7295]]

lamp type. NEMA added that as a result, its annual sales have been zero 
units over the past four years. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 19-20; LEDVANCE, 
No. 90 at p. 29)
    Regarding the other globe shape categories within this list, NEMA 
and LEDVANCE stated that G16-1/2 shape lamps are the smallest version 
of a globe shape lamp and that their primary application is in lighting 
used around dressing room mirrors in theaters. They added that lamp 
switching is unlikely with this lamp type due to its small size and low 
lumen output. NEMA and LEDVANCE also noted that the G25 shape is the 
most popular of the globe shape lamps and that it is used primarily in 
bathroom vanities and bathroom lamp strips. They argued that lamp 
switching is also unlikely with this lamp type because of its low lumen 
output. NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that the G30 shape lamp has declined 
in popularity in favor of G25 shape lamps, thus its market share has 
declined significantly. NEMA provided sales data that show sales of 
these globe shape lamps have been declining over the last four years. 
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 19; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 28)
    In addition, NEMA disagreed with DOE's decision to include B, BA, 
CA, F, G16-1/2, G25, G30, S, and M-14 shape lamps all in the same 
category. NEMA argued that they should be categorized separately 
because they are used in different lighting applications. NEMA stated 
that Congress only included these lamps in the same clause of the 
exclusions list to prevent the list of exclusions from being too 
lengthy. NEMA added that several of these lamp shape types currently 
have less than a million units of annual sales with declining sales, 
which makes lamp switching unlikely. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 14)
    In contrast, NRDC argued that DOE's annual sales estimate of 42 
million lamps for the decorative lamps' category is underestimated. 
NRDC added that the estimate seems low based on DOE's LED adoption 
report, ``Adoption of Light Emitting Diodes in Commercial Lighting 
Applications,'' that estimates an installed base of 1.2 billion 
decorative shape lamps, which would primarily be 25 W and 40 W 
decorative shaped lamps. (NRDC, No. 85 at p. 5) Thus, NRDC asked DOE to 
not only focus on the A shape, 5-inch G shape, or 10-inch T shape lamps 
but also on the B, BA, CA shape lamps as they are very common and could 
fit in many applications including table or desk lamps. NRDC commented 
that the pear shape of these decorative lamps (i.e., B, BA, CA, and F 
shape lamps) does not prevent them from providing the same amount of 
light at a low cost. NRDC also added that these lamps, of typically 25 
W or 40 W, are used in applications that have high annual hours of use, 
so they present an opportunity for significant energy savings. NRDC 
noted that the incandescent CA shape lamps, which are used in sets of 5 
or 10 in chandeliers, can be replaced by 7 W LED versions. Further, 
NRDC stated that by discontinuing these exemptions, though 
technological limitations may currently exist, there are tremendous 
benefits that could be gained. (NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 85-86; NRDC, No. 85 
at p. 3)
    Westinghouse elaborated that the challenge for these decorative 
lamp shapes is lumen range and efficiency scale. Westinghouse noted 
that there are not many versions of the decorative lamp shapes in 
halogen technology because it is not easy to put a double-ended halogen 
burner in a small size lamp due to heat and space issues. 
(Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 87-88)
    While NRDC encouraged a conversation regarding potential hardships 
in making LED replacements for these lamp shapes in larger form 
factors, it cautioned DOE not to lose sight of the benefits of 
discontinuing these exemptions. (NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 85-86) ASAP also 
acknowledged that not every application of the LED version can be 
technically and economically feasible. However, citing the popularity 
of the 500 W double-ended halogen lamp ten years ago, ASAP asserted 
that the selection of products manufactured and their price points are 
dictated by market demands. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 89-90)
    DOE revised its estimate in this final rule for the sales of lamps 
with specific shapes based on the additional data submitted by NEMA. As 
shown in Table III.1, the estimated annual sales of this lamp category 
is 71,702,637 units. While DOE understands that some of these lamps are 
smaller than A shape lamps, they can still be used to provide overall 
illumination. DOE further notes that the pear shapes and globe shapes 
characterized by the majority of lamps in this category would not 
prevent consumers from using them in general service lighting 
applications. As indicated by the very high sales data of this 
category, DOE believes that these lamps are very common and can be used 
in general lighting applications. Regarding the technical limitations 
of more efficient versions of these products, DOE reviewed product 
availability to determine which form factor and light output 
combinations may not be available in fluorescent or LED technology. For 
more information on DOE's consideration of technical feasibility 
issues, see section III.A.4.a.
    Regarding the comment from NEMA suggesting that DOE consider the 
lamps excluded under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D)(ii)(XXII) separately, DOE 
notes that Congress listed these lamps together in paragraph (XXII). If 
the lamps were grouped merely for the purpose of drafting convenience, 
as suggested by NEMA, it is not clear why Congress would not have also 
included G shape and T shape lamps in the grouping as well. Instead, G 
shape and T shape lamps are each listed separately in paragraphs (XX) 
and (XXI), respectively. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D)(ii)(XX) and (XXI))
    DOE has considered whether to maintain the exemption for these 
lamps as a group due to its concern with lamp switching. DOE recognizes 
that the lamps listed in clause (XXII) may each not be substituted for 
one another in existing fixtures. However, as discussed previously, DOE 
also considers the potential for lamp switching through the future use 
of different fixtures. There is the potential that inclusion of some 
but not all of the lamps in the group would shift the market to the 
lamp or lamps that remain exempt. Thus, due to the very high sales 
volume and risk of lamp switching of the lamp types, DOE is 
discontinuing exemptions for B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G25, G30, S, M-14 
lamp of 40 W or less.
    Regarding other exempt lamp categories, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(l)(4), DOE is required to collect unit sales data for rough 
service, shatter-resistant, 3-way incandescent lamps, and vibration 
service lamps. Section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 in part amends 
subsection 325(l)(4) of EPCA by adding paragraphs (D) through (H), 
which direct DOE to take regulatory action if the actual annual unit 
sales of any of these lamp types are more than 200 percent of the 
predicted shipments (i.e., more than double the benchmark unit sales 
estimate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)-(H)) DOE published a notice of data 
availability (NODA) in April 2016, which indicated that the shipments 
of vibration service lamps were over 7 million units in 2015, which 
equates to 272.5 percent of the benchmark estimate. 81 FR 20261, 20263 
(April 7, 2016). Furthermore, NEMA submitted revised data for rough 
service lamps that showed sales of 10,914,000 rough service lamps in 
2015, which exceeds 200 percent of their benchmark estimate. Although 
the sales of shatter-resistant and 3-way incandescent lamps have not 
yet exceeded their estimated benchmarks,

[[Page 7296]]

DOE expects these sales will likely increase since these lamps could be 
used as replacements for other regulated lamp types. Based on the high 
sales volume and probability of consumers switching to these lamp 
types, DOE proposed to discontinue the exemptions of rough service, 
shatter-resistant, 3-way incandescent, and vibration service lamps from 
GSILs in the October 2016 NOPDDA. 81 FR 71800.
    NEMA supported the regulation of rough service and vibration 
service incandescent lamps but opposed treating these lamps as 
``general service incandescent lamps'' because they are specialty lamps 
that were intended to be regulated using a wattage cap as indicated by 
the statute (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(4)(D)(ii) and (E)(ii)) rather than a 
lumens per watt or modified lumens per watt regulation. NEMA encouraged 
DOE to adopt NEMA's proposal of maximum wattage caps for regulating 
these two specialty products, which NEMA asserted is consistent with 
the congressional intent reflected in EISA 2007. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 
12) Additionally, NEMA, LEDVANCE, and Philips asserted that DOE is 
authorized to establish standards for rough service lamps, shatter-
resistant, 3-way incandescent, and vibration service lamps only under 
the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4) and that the sales thresholds 
required under that section to regulate shatter-resistant and 3-way 
incandescent lamps have not been met. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 12; LEDVANCE, 
No. 90 at pp. 19-20; Philips, No. 96 at p. 4) LEDVANCE stated that the 
more specific reference to regulate rough service lamps, shatter-
resistant lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps and vibration service lamps 
must be read as governing the regulation of these lamps, as opposed to 
the more general provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II). 
(LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 20)
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4), DOE is required to undertake a 
standards rulemaking for rough service lamps, shatter-resistant lamps, 
3-way incandescent lamps and vibration service lamps when the sales of 
these lamps meet specified thresholds. DOE is also required, in 
consultation with NEMA, to collect sales data for these lamps and 
construct a model to predict future sales. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(B)) 
DOE must then track the actual sales data, and when sales exceed sales 
projected by the model by 100 percent, DOE must initiate a rulemaking. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D), (E), (F), (H)) If DOE does not complete the 
accelerated rulemaking in the specified time period, it must impose a 
backstop requirement for that lamp. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)(ii), 
(E)(ii), (F)(ii), (H)(ii))
    However, this is not the only way in which DOE can regulate these 
lamps. The text of section 6295(i) and 6295(l) does not state that the 
section 6295(l) process operates to the exclusion of regulating these 
lamps as GSLs. As commenters noted with respect to the section 
6295(i)(6)(A)(v) backstop, GSLs may become subject to a default 
standard of 45 lm/W; but DOE is authorized to impose alternative 
standards for GSLs in general so long as the overall savings from such 
a rule are at least as great as a uniform 45 lm/W standard would 
achieve. Thus, in regulating the five types of section 6295(l) lamp as 
GSLs, DOE would be able to establish a range of possible standards. 
However, for these particular lamps, when sales have increased to a 
certain point, section 6295(l) requires DOE to conduct an accelerated 
rulemaking, and absent that rulemaking, specifies certain minimum 
standards. That requirement is not inconsistent with the regulatory 
framework applicable to GSLs, and Congress's decision to set a separate 
backstop for these lamps (conditioned on factual circumstances) does 
not suggest that Congress meant to exclude them from the broader 
regulatory program.
    Additionally, as DOE explained in the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE 
understands the reference to ``data collected'' by DOE under the GSL 
rulemaking provision to mean the data collected as required for rough 
service lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, and 
shatter-resistant lamps. 81 FR 71794, 71798. As noted, DOE is required 
to collect sales data for these lamps. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(B)) The 
consideration of sales data collected by DOE in making a determination 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) further demonstrates that the 
determination is to include rough service lamps, vibration service 
lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps.
    GE agreed with regulating vibration service lamps and rough service 
lamps as the sales of these lamps have been increasing and have 
surpassed the allowed sales threshold. GE added that these lamps 
resemble and, therefore, are being purchased to replace the standard 
incandescent A shape lamp. (GE, No. 83 at p. 72; GE, No. 88 at p. 2) 
However, GE stated that shatter-resistant lamps and 3-way lamps are 
declining in sales, indicating low risk of lamp switching. GE added 
that the risk of lamp switching is particularly low for the 3-way lamp. 
GE explained that these lamps are made in A21 and A23 shapes because 
the filament must be placed farther from the glass due to the increased 
heat. Therefore, these lamps may not fit in existing fixtures where A19 
shape lamps are used and also may not meet the UL wattage limit on many 
fixtures in the home. (GE, No. 83 at pp. 72-73; GE, No. 88 at p. 2) 
NEMA agreed that lamp switching for 3-way lamps is unlikely because the 
A21 lamp size is larger than the size of the regular A19 lamp and is 
not a suitable replacement for a regular incandescent lamp. NEMA also 
added that the safety standard UL 1598 contains a thermal requirement 
for most common general service lighting fixtures that limits lamp 
wattage to 100 W and thus higher 150 W 3-way incandescent lamps cannot 
be used in these fixtures. Further, NEMA commented that many light 
switches are incapable of controlling the 3-way functionality of a 3-
way lamp and it is unlikely a consumer would purchase a more expensive 
3-way lamp if the functionality is not desired or cannot be used. 
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 16)
    NEMA also disagreed with DOE's proposal to consider shatter-
resistant lamps as GSILs noting that sales have fallen 50 percent since 
1997, did not increase when traditional GSILs were phased out from 
2010-2012, and have not exceeded the statutory threshold under section 
325(l)(4)(H). NEMA noted that DOE cannot justify regulating shatter-
resistant lamps using a potential for lamp switching because Congress 
established a clear threshold for the regulation of these lamps of 
exceeding the estimated sales by 100 percent. Thus, NEMA concluded that 
DOE does not have the discretion to determine that shatter-resistant 
lamps are GSLs and must adhere to the limits of the statue. (NEMA, No. 
93 at p. 15) Additionally, NEMA commented that the coating on the 
shatter-resistant lamp reduces the lumen output significantly, making 
it not ideal as a replacement for a GSIL or general service LED lamp. 
NEMA added that the lumen output of a 60 W shatter-resistant lamp is 
identical to the lumen output of a 40 W standard incandescent lamp. As 
a result of the lumen output differences, NEMA noted that lamp 
switching is not likely to occur as consumer will not treat a lower 
lumen lamp as an effective substitute. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 15-16) 
Westinghouse noted that when standards from EISA 2007 became effective 
consumers did not switch to 3-way lamps, rough service lamps, or 
shatter-resistant lamps at the time. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 74-
76)
    In contrast, CA IOUs, NRDC, and Utility Coalition supported the 
proposal to discontinue exemptions for shatter-

[[Page 7297]]

resistant lamps, rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, and 3-
way lamps because these lamps pose a lamp switching risk. (NRDC, No. 83 
at p. 74; CA IOUs, No. 83 at p. 77; Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 3) 
NRDC stated that these lamp types look and operate like a standard 
incandescent lamp and can be used in general service lighting 
applications. NRDC and Utility Coalition further noted that there are a 
wide range of efficient alternatives available for these lamp types and 
NRDC added if they are not regulated their sales would increase 
dramatically when the next standards go into effect. NRDC also 
countered that while the sales of 3-way lamps may not be increasing 
today, there was nothing to prevent them from doing so in the future. 
It would cost very little to put a coating over a standard incandescent 
lamp and make it a shatter-resistant lamp, which would dramatically 
increase sales and reduce purchase price. NRDC added that these lamps 
would also use considerably more energy than lamps that must comply 
with a standard and cost consumers significantly more to operate. 
(NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 10-11, 73-74; NRDC, No. 85 at pp. 1-2; Utility 
Coalition, No. 95 at p. 3) Utility Coalition noted that LED lamps are 
inherently durable and provide the necessary utility to serve in the 
applications of rough service, shatter-resistant, and vibration 
service. Thus, Utility Coalition concluded that these lamp types should 
be held to the same standard as all other LED lamps. Additionally, 
Utility Coalition noted that the incandescent versions of these lamps 
are even less efficient than standard GSILs, with rough service lamps 
commonly performing around 10 lm/W. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 3)
    CA IOUs agreed that LED replacements that provide the same 
functionality are available for these lamp types, in particular the 3-
way lamp type. CA IOUs noted that many of the major manufacturers 
provide 3-way LED replacements and these lamps are highly efficient and 
reasonably priced in the $10-$14 range. Utility Coalition added that 
DOE testing confirmed that 3-way LED lamps are highly efficient with an 
efficiency of 111.4 lm/W at the middle setting. (CA IOUs, No. 83 at p. 
77; Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 3) Westinghouse disagreed citing a 
high cost differential for consumers to switch to 3-way LED lamps. 
Westinghouse stated that a 3-way incandescent lamp costs $2.19 while a 
3-way LED lamp is in the $20-$22 range with older versions on clearance 
at $15-$16. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 74-76)
    DOE reviewed the sales data submitted by NEMA for the shatter-
resistant and 3-way incandescent lamps. The sales of shatter-resistant 
lamps declined between 2012 and 2015. The sales of 3-way incandescent 
lamps increased between 2012 through 2014 and then decreased in 2015. 
However, sales of these lamps have declined over a limited time period. 
Further, NEMA submitted data for 2015 that indicated that almost 32 
million \13\ 3-way incandescent lamps (67.2 percent of the benchmark 
estimate) and nearly 700,000 shatter-resistant lamps (41.1 percent of 
the benchmark estimate) were sold in that year. 81 FR at 20263-64 
(April 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This value was incorrectly stated as 38 million in the 
October 2016 GSL NOPDDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the lamp switching potential of 3-way lamps, as stated by 
NEMA and GE, UL 1598 prescribes wattage requirements for certain 
luminaires. However, UL 1598 is not a comprehensive standard of all 
fixtures that could be used in general lighting applications. DOE notes 
that, as stated previously, lamp switching includes shifting to the use 
of different fixtures in the future and therefore lamp size does not 
necessarily prevent switching. Regarding the lamp switching potential 
of shatter-resistant lamps, DOE notes that shatter-resistant lamps are 
capable of providing overall illumination despite the lower lumen 
output resulting from the shatter-resistant coating. As noted by NEMA, 
a 60 W shatter-resistant lamp is still an appropriate replacement for a 
40 W standard incandescent lamp.
    DOE also expects the sales of these lamps to increase since they 
could be used as replacements for other regulated lamp types. Shatter-
resistant lamps are similar to rough service and vibration service 
lamps, two lamp categories for which sales have already increased as a 
result of standards for GSILs. Whereas rough service and vibration 
service lamps possess a filament strengthened with additional supports, 
shatter-resistant lamps possess a reinforced outer bulb to contain 
glass pieces in the event that the bulb breaks. For all three lamp 
types the consumer may be under the impression that they are purchasing 
primarily a more durable product rather than a lamp with subpar 
performance as claimed by NEMA. Some lamps are even offered with more 
than one of these criteria (e.g., a shatter-resistant lamp with 
vibration service filaments). Although these lamps must be designated 
as rough service, vibration service, or shatter-resistant on the lamp 
packaging, that designation did not prevent rough service and vibration 
service lamps from serving as a loophole to standards for GSILs.\14\ 
Furthermore, for all three of these lamp types, LED versions inherently 
provide the consumer the desired functionality in the sense that LED 
lamps do not have metal filaments and typically do not use glass outer 
bulbs. Because the sales of rough service and vibration service lamps 
have already showed that consumers view these lamps as convenient, 
unregulated substitutes for GSILs and choose them even though LED lamps 
provide the same functionality, DOE expects that sales of shatter-
resistant lamps will similarly increase if left unregulated. Therefore, 
based on the high sales volume and probability of consumers switching 
to these lamp types, DOE is discontinuing the exemptions of shatter-
resistant and 3-way incandescent lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NEMA points out that the coating used to protect shatter-
resistant lamps causes such a lamp to provide less output light, for 
a given wattage, than a comparable non-protected lamp. DOE 
recognizes also that, while it considers shatter-resistant lamps to 
be similar in important respects to rough service and vibration 
service lamps, sales of the former have not thus far increased 
alongside sales of the latter two. These observations do not 
undermine DOE's conclusion here. They may reveal that shatter-
resistant lamps are less desirable substitutes for GSILs at a time 
when GSILs are subject only to their own standards. DOE is 
discontinuing the exemption for shatter-resistant lamps because it 
believes they will be convenient substitutes for GSLs at a time when 
GSL standards effectively preclude the use of incandescent 
technology for GSLs. In that context, DOE does not believe the 
reduction in light output that the shatter-resistant glass coating 
causes will discourage customers from buying these lamps for GSL-
type applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, the sales threshold set by EPCA for vibration service 
incandescent lamps and rough service incandescent lamps has been 
exceeded. The increasing sales of these lamp types and industry's 
feedback on their use indicate that these products are used in general 
lighting applications as substitutes for GSILs. (Westinghouse, No. 83 
at pp. 41-42; NEMA, No. 83 at pp. 52-53; GE, No. 83 at p. 73), 
Therefore, DOE is also discontinuing the exemptions of rough service 
and vibration service lamps from GSILs in this final rule.
    In summary, DOE is discontinuing the following exemptions from the 
definition of GSIL in this final rule: Reflector lamps; T shape lamps 
that use not more than 40 W or has a length of more than 10 inches; B, 
BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G25, G30, S, M-14 lamps of 40 W or less; rough 
service lamps; shatter-resistant lamps; 3-way incandescent lamps; and 
vibration service lamps.

[[Page 7298]]

b. Exemptions Proposed To Be Maintained in October 2016 NOPDDA
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed to maintain 14 exemptions 
from the definition of GSIL. DOE found that medium screw base 
incandescent lamps that are appliance; black light; bug; colored; 
infrared; left-hand thread; marine; marine signal service; mine 
service; plant light; sign service; silver bowl; showcase; and traffic 
signal lamps had low sales data thus indicating that these are low 
volume products. DOE estimated that 12 of the 14 exemptions have annual 
unit sales of 1 million units or less. The remaining two exemptions, 
appliance lamps and colored lamps, were estimated to have less than 3 
million annual unit sales and less than 2 million annual unit sales, 
respectively. DOE also tentatively concluded that several of these 
exempted lamp types are unable to serve in general lighting 
applications and cannot provide overall illumination. Specifically, 
black light; bug; colored; infrared; and plant light lamps produce 
radiant power in specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum 
that would prevent these lamps from serving in general lighting 
applications. Further, DOE noted that proposing definitions for these 
exempted lamp types will help to prevent them from becoming loopholes. 
(See section III.B for a discussion of the definitions proposed for 
exemptions.) 81 FR 71801. DOE received comments on the 14 GSIL 
exemptions proposed to be maintained in the October 2016 NOPDDA.
    CEC supported DOE's decision to maintain the 14 exemptions from the 
GSIL definition that it believes are unable to serve in general 
lighting applications and cannot provide overall illumination. (CEC, 
No. 91 at p. 5) NEMA, Philips, and GE also agreed with the 14 
exemptions from the GSIL definition that DOE proposed to maintain. 
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 22; Philips, No. 96 at p. 3; GE, No. 88 at p. 2) GE 
commented that sales of the 14 exemption categories are small and 
decreasing, while offering little opportunity for energy savings. (GE, 
No. 88 at p. 2) Philips added that these lamps serve many niche 
applications that currently do not have LED replacements in the same 
form factor and are unlikely to in the future due to technology 
limitations. Philips stated that it prefers to leverage improvements in 
SSL technology to improve performance, reduce cost, and offer 
innovative versions of mainstream products rather than invest in low 
volume R&D intensive niche products. Philips concluded that this will 
encourage consumer adoption and increase energy savings. (Philips, No. 
96 at p. 3)
    In contrast, ASAP recommended discontinuing several of the 14 
exemptions from the GSIL definition noting that the proposed 
definitions were not specific enough to prevent potential loopholes.
    ASAP recommended discontinuing the exemptions for marine and mine 
lamps because there is little difference in manufacturing or 
performance of these lamps compared to GSILs, and there are energy-
efficient replacements available. (ASAP, No. 94 at p. 5) Utility 
Coalition also recommended DOE not exempt marine lamps noting that they 
agreed with DOE's determination that marine lamps provide overall 
illumination and argued that DOE should not exempt the incandescent 
versions of these lamps because a potential loophole may result. In 
addition, Utility Coalition stated that LED versions of marine lamps 
are now available with substantially higher efficiencies than the 
incandescent versions. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 7)
    For marine lamps and mine service lamps, as shown in Table III.1, 
DOE estimates that the annual sales were less than 1 million units for 
each lamp type and therefore concludes that marine lamps and mine 
service lamps are low volume products. Further, DOE has adopted 
definitions in this final rule requiring that these lamps are designed 
and labeled for their respective applications in order to discourage 
their use in general lighting applications. (See sections III.B.10 and 
III.B.4 for the adopted definitions of mine service lamp and marine 
lamp, respectively.) For these reasons, DOE has maintained the 
exemptions from the GSIL definition for marine lamps and mine service 
lamps.
    ASAP also recommended discontinuing the exemption for showcase 
lamps to prevent a potential loophole noting they are widely available, 
can fit in many light fixtures, and are similar to the T shape lamps 
that DOE proposed to include. (ASAP, No. 94 at p. 5) DOE determined 
that showcase applications generally have space constraints and 
therefore typically require the use of lamps with specific shapes and 
characteristics to serve in this specialty application. As shown in 
Table III.1, DOE estimates the annual sales of showcase lamps to be 
less than 1 million units and thus concludes that these lamps are low 
volume products. In addition, DOE has adopted a definition in this 
final rule that includes only specific shapes and wattages and requires 
that showcase lamps be designed and labeled for their specialty 
application in order to discourage their use in general lighting 
applications. (See section III.B.5 for the adopted definition of 
showcase lamp.) Given the specific characteristics of showcase lamps 
outlined in the definition, DOE concluded that the continued exemption 
of showcase lamps is unlikely to create a loophole. Thus, DOE has 
maintained the exemption for showcase lamps from the GSIL definition in 
this final rule.
    ASAP noted that the exemption for bug lamp should be discontinued 
because it was found recently in a study presented at the American 
Academy of Arts and Sciences 2016 Annual Meeting that warm light LED 
lamps attracted fewer bugs than incandescents, CFLs, halogens, cool 
light LED lamps, and incandescent bug lamps. (ASAP, No. 94 at p. 5) DOE 
understands that research has been conducted to assess the most 
effective sources for preventing bug attraction. The abstract of the 
study \15\ cited by ASAP stated that it was the first and only study to 
directly compare the effectiveness of different lamp technologies 
designed for outdoor residential use in preventing the attraction of 
bugs. Further, the study appears to be limited to a specific geographic 
region and time of year. DOE appreciates ASAP directing its attention 
to the study but is withholding from making a determination on the 
effectiveness of various technologies based on the limited research 
available thus far. DOE estimates the annual sales of bug lamps to be 
less than 1 million units and thus concludes that these lamps are low 
volume products. In addition, DOE determined that the features of a bug 
lamp, including radiant power in a specific portion of the 
electromagnetic spectrum and visible yellow coating, would discourage 
its use in general lighting applications and limit its ability to 
provide overall illumination. Further, DOE has adopted a definition for 
bug lamp in this final rule reflecting these unique characteristics and 
requiring that bug lamps be specifically designed and labeled for their 
specialty application in order to discourage their use in general 
lighting applications. (See section III.B.1 for the adopted definition 
of bug lamp.) For these reasons, DOE has maintained

[[Page 7299]]

the exemption for bug lamp from the GSIL definition in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Light Pollution and Insects: Insect Attraction to Various 
Types of Residential Lights abstract is available at: http://www.aaas.org/abstract/light-pollution-and-insects-insect-attraction-various-types-residential-lights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding plant light lamps, ASAP commented that the LED versions 
of these lamps are a better alternative to incandescent plant light 
lamps and less expensive to operate. (ASAP, No. 94 at p.5) DOE 
acknowledges the potential for LED lamps to be well suited to provide 
light in specific spectral ranges to encourage plant growth; however, 
DOE also believes this to be an area of continuing research \16\ and is 
not assessing the effectiveness of different technologies on plant 
growth. As shown in Table III.1, DOE estimates the annual sales of 
plant light lamps to be less than 1 million units and thus concludes 
that these lamps are low volume products. In addition, DOE determined 
that plant light lamps produce radiant power in specific wavelengths of 
the electromagnetic spectrum that would prevent these lamps from 
serving in general lighting applications. DOE has adopted a definition 
in this final rule specifying radiant power requirements and requiring 
that these lamps be designed and marketed for their specialty 
application in order to discourage their use in general lighting 
applications. (See section III.B.1 for the adopted definition of plant 
light lamp.) For these reasons, DOE has maintained the exemption for 
plant light lamp from the GSIL definition in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Massa, G., Kim, H.-H., & Wheeler, R. Plant Productivity in 
Response to LED Lighting. HortScience. December 2008. (Last accessed 
November 20, 2016.) <http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/7/1951.full.>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASAP recommended including traffic signal lamps in the definition 
of GSL. (ASAP, No. 94 at p. 4) NRDC stated that the exemption for 
traffic signal lamps is not warranted because these lamps are suitable 
for general lighting applications and are comparable to rough service 
or vibration service lamps through the use of a sturdier filament. NRDC 
noted that these lamps available in medium screw bases, have input 
voltages of 120 V and 130 V, and have significant light output 
comparable to 40 W or 60 W lamps. NRDC added that LED lamps can serve 
as suitable replacements for traffic signal lamps, as they are 
physically durable, have long lifetimes, and already exist at the 
desired voltages and light output levels. (NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 12, 95; 
NRDC, No. 85 at p. 8) Utility Coalition also recommended DOE not exempt 
traffic signal lamps from the GSL definition. Utility Coalition noted 
that they agreed with DOE's determination that traffic signal lamps 
provide overall illumination and argued that DOE should not exempt the 
incandescent versions of these lamps because a potential loophole may 
result. In addition, Utility Coalition noted that LED versions of 
traffic signal lamps are now available with substantially higher 
efficiencies than the incandescent versions. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 
at p. 7)
    DOE understands that traffic signal lamps may share characteristics 
with rough service or vibration service lamps; however, DOE also 
identified a characteristic of traffic signal lamps--a very long 
lifetime, which indicated they were designed for a specialty 
application. As shown in Table III.1, DOE estimates the annual sales of 
traffic signal lamps to be less than 1 million units and thus concludes 
that these lamps are low volume products. In addition, DOE believes 
removing the exemption for traffic signal lamps could result in safety 
concerns or stranded equipment. DOE has adopted a definition in this 
final rule specifying a minimum lifetime requirement and requiring that 
these lamps be designed and marketed for their specialty application in 
order to discourage their use in general lighting applications. (See 
section III.B.6 for the adopted definition of traffic signal lamp.) For 
the reasons discussed in this paragraph, DOE has maintained the 
exemption for traffic signal lamp from the GSIL definition in this 
final rule. DOE will continue to monitor the market and may reconsider 
this decision in the future if traffic signal lamps are used in general 
lighting applications.
    CA IOUs acknowledged that silver bowl lamps are unique in that they 
have an aluminum cover at the top that reflects light back into the 
fixture. However, CA IOUs stated that these lamp types are becoming 
more popular and being used for general illumination, often in 
restaurants, because they can still project light into an area and 
provide overall illumination. CA IOUs and ASAP added that silver bowl 
LED lamps are also becoming more common and offered in different form 
factors. Therefore, CA IOUs recommended that the exemption for silver 
bowl lamps from GSILs be discontinued. (CA IOUs, No. 83 at pp. 107-108; 
ASAP, No. 94 at p.5) Utility Coalition also recommended that DOE not 
exempt silver bowl lamps from the GSL definition. Utility Coalition 
noted that they agreed with DOE's determination that silver bowl lamps 
provide overall illumination and argued that DOE should not exempt the 
incandescent versions of these lamps because a potential loophole may 
result. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 7)
    As shown in Table III.1, DOE estimates the annual sales of silver 
bowl lamps to be approximately 1 million units and thus concludes that 
these lamps are low volume products. In addition, DOE has determined 
that silver bowl lamps use an opaque reflective coating to provide 
diffuse light concentrated in an upward direction which other lamps, 
such as omnidirectional or reflector lamps, are unable to provide 
without the use of additional components. DOE has adopted a definition 
in this final rule specifying the inclusion of an opaque reflective 
coating and requiring that these lamps be designed and marketed for 
their specialty application in order to discourage their use in general 
lighting applications. (See section III.B.7 for the adopted definition 
of silver bowl lamp.) For these reasons, DOE has maintained the 
exemption for silver bowl lamp from the GSIL definition in this final 
rule.
    Utility Coalition also recommended that DOE not exempt left-hand 
thread lamps from the GSL definition. Utility Coalition noted that they 
agreed with DOE's determination that left-hand thread lamps provide 
overall illumination and argued that DOE should not exempt the 
incandescent versions of these lamps because a potential loophole may 
result. In addition, Utility Coalition noted that LED versions of left-
hand thread lamps are now available with substantially higher 
efficacies than the incandescent versions. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 
at p. 7)
    As shown in Table III.1, DOE estimates the annual sales of left-
hand thread lamps to be less than 1 million units and thus concludes 
that these lamps are low volume products. In addition, DOE has adopted 
a definition in this final rule requiring that these lamps be designed 
and marketed for their specialty application in order to discourage 
their use in general lighting applications. (See section III.B.10 for 
the adopted definition of left-hand thread lamp.) Given the very low 
sales and the adopted definition, DOE concluded that the continued 
exemption of left-hand thread lamps is unlikely to create a loophole. 
Thus, DOE has maintained the exemption for left-hand thread lamps from 
the GSIL definition in this final rule. DOE will continue to monitor 
the market and may reconsider this decision in the future if left-hand 
thread lamps are used in general lighting applications.
    Westinghouse stated that the lumen output of heat lamps (or 
infrared lamps) is low but was not sure if it is below 310 lumens which 
would exclude them from the GSL definition. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at p. 
43) DOE notes that

[[Page 7300]]

information available for infrared lamps is very limited and lumen 
output was generally not available since the primary purpose of these 
lamps is to provide heat. DOE determined that infrared lamps 
predominately provide radiant power in the infrared region of the 
electromagnetic spectrum and also typically have a wattage of 125 W or 
greater. As shown in Table III.1, DOE estimates the annual sales of 
infrared lamps to be less than 1 million units and thus concludes that 
these lamps are low volume products. In addition, DOE has adopted a 
definition in this final rule specifying the design parameters and 
requiring that infrared lamps be designed and marketed for their 
specialty application in order to discourage their use in general 
lighting applications. (See section III.B.2 for the adopted definition 
of infrared lamp.) For these reasons, DOE has maintained the exemption 
for infrared lamp from the GSIL definition in this final rule.
    DOE also estimated the sales data of medium screw base incandescent 
lamps that are appliance lamps; black light lamps; colored lamps; 
marine signal service lamps; and sign service lamps. As indicated in 
Table III.1, the annual sales of black light, marine signal service, 
and sign service lamps were 1 million units or less. Appliance lamps 
and colored lamps were estimated to have annual sales of 2 million 
units or less. Having received no comments to the contrary, DOE has 
maintained the exemptions for these lamps due to low sales and the 
inability or unlikelihood of these lamps to serve in general lighting 
applications. Further, DOE adopted definitions for these exempted lamp 
types to prevent them from becoming loopholes. (See section III.B for a 
discussion of the adopted definitions.)
    As discussed in section III.A.1.a, in this final rule, DOE is also 
maintaining the exemption of G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 inches 
or greater. As stated previously, DOE will continue to monitor the 
market and may reconsider this decision in the future if G shape lamps 
with a diameter of 5 inches or greater are used in general lighting 
applications.
c. Amended Definition for GSIL
    Based on the preliminary determinations in the October 2016 NOPDDA, 
DOE proposed a new definition for GSIL. GSILs are included in the 
definition of GSL. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(i)(I)) Thus, any lamp that 
meets the definition of a GSIL would be a GSL. ASAP supported DOE's 
proposed revisions to the GSIL definition stating that it is clearer 
and reduces the chances of loophole products emerging that can undercut 
the energy savings from the 45 lm/W backstop standard. (ASAP, No. 94 at 
p. 3)
    In this final rule, DOE is adopting a revised definition of GSIL, A 
general service incandescent lamp is 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: An appliance lamp; a black light lamp; a bug lamp; 
a colored lamp; a G shape lamp with a diameter of 5 inches or more as 
defined in ANSI C79.1-2002; a n infrared lamp; a left-hand thread lamp; 
a marine lamp; a marine signal service lamp; a mine service lamp; a 
plant light lamp; an R20 short lamp; a sign service lamp; a silver bowl 
lamp; a showcase lamp; and a traffic signal lamp. See the amendments to 
Sec.  430.2 for the revised definition in its entirety.
2. CFLs
    CFLs are also included in the definition of GSL; however, the term 
``compact fluorescent lamp'' was not previously defined. DOE adopted a 
definition for CFL in the August 2016 CFL test procedure final rule. 81 
FR 59386, 59403 (August 29, 2016). DOE incorporated language from the 
industry standards published by IES RP-16-10 and IES LM-66-14 to define 
CFL without inappropriately excluding or including lamps. A CFL is an 
integrated or non-integrated single-base, low pressure mercury, 
electric-discharge source in which a fluorescing coating transforms 
some of the ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury discharge into 
light; the term does not include circline or U-shaped lamps. 10 CFR 
430.2.
    DOE did not receive any comments regarding this definition and 
therefore considers CFLs to be lamps as described in the definition 
adopted in the August 2016 CFL test procedure final rule.
3. General Service LED Lamps and OLED Lamps
    General service LED and OLED lamps are included in the definition 
of GSL under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB). DOE proposed definitions for both 
terms in the October 2016 NOPDDA. 81 FR 71803. NEMA recommended and 
LEDVANCE supported their recommendation that the definition of general 
service LED lamp be modified to include lamps marketed for vibration 
service, rough service, and vibration resistance and exclude specialty 
lamps and specialty base lamps as defined by NEMA. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 
26; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 32-33)
    As described in section III.A.1.a, DOE discontinued exemptions for 
vibration service and rough service lamps from the definition of GSIL 
and therefore these lamps are also included in the definition of GSL. 
81 FR 71801. DOE has addressed other specialty lamps as they relate to 
the definition of GSL in section III.A.4. Therefore, DOE has not 
revised the definition of ``general service LED lamp'' in this final 
rule.
    DOE is definitions for ``general service LED lamp'' and ``general 
service OLED lamp'' as detailed in the amendments to Sec.  430.2.
4. Other Lamps
    As stated previously, the definition of GSL includes (subject to 
the exemptions to the extent DOE maintains them) any other lamps that 
DOE determines are used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally 
served by GSILs. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(i)(IV)) In addition to GSILs, 
CFLs, and general service LED and OLED lamps, DOE proposed in the 
October 2016 NOPDDA a determination that any other lamps that are 
intended to serve in general lighting applications and have specific 
features would meet the statutory criterion of lamps used to satisfy 
lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs. To implement this 
determination in the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed to define 
general service lamp as a lamp capable of serving in general lighting 
applications and that has the following basic characteristics: (1) An 
ANSI base (with the exclusion of light fixtures and LED downlight 
retrofit kits); (2) a lumen output of greater than or equal to 310 
lumens and less than or equal to 4,000 lumens; (3) an ability to 
operate at any voltage; and (4) no designation or label for use in non-
general applications. 81 FR 71807. ``General lighting application'' is 
currently defined at 10 CFR 430.2 as lighting that provides an interior 
or exterior area with overall illumination. The key aspects of the 
proposed definition of GSL and specific comments received regarding 
these features are discussed in the following sections.
a. Product Availability
    Regarding DOE's authority to include other lamps as GSLs, DOE 
received several comments regarding the availability of equivalent LED 
substitutes. Westinghouse commented

[[Page 7301]]

that there should be two considerations: (1) Whether a lamp type can be 
made in an LED form and (2) whether it makes economic sense to make the 
LED version of a lamp type. Westinghouse added that while it is 
sometimes possible to make the LED version of a specialty lamp, it may 
not make sense if the sales are declining and potential energy savings 
are very small. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 62-64) Westinghouse stated 
that there are products with small form factors and high lumen output 
that simply cannot be made as LED replacements. Westinghouse added that 
they are not aware of any current technology pathways to make certain 
lamps despite funding opportunities offered by DOE and the utilities. 
(Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 22-23) GE agreed with Westinghouse that 
there are many halogen lamps used for commercial applications for which 
it would be physically impossible to make LED replacements. (GE, No. 83 
at pp. 129-130) Westinghouse stated that halogen lamps are declining in 
sales due to a shift towards integrated LED fixtures, but that as long 
as these sockets remain, consideration should be given to lamps that 
cannot be made using LED technology. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 126-
129)
    After reviewing product availability, technical information, and 
comments from stakeholders, DOE believes there are three main 
categories of lamps: (1) Lamps with more efficient, equivalent 
replacements (i.e., the same form factor and light output); (2) lamps 
currently without equivalent replacements but for which replacements 
can likely be made in the future; and (3) lamps for which industry is 
unlikely to ever be able to create equivalent replacements using more 
efficient technology.
    Regarding the third category of lamps, DOE believes that there are 
certain lamps that cannot be made with fluorescent or LED technology 
while reasonably maintaining the same form factor and light output, and 
thus more efficient, equivalent replacements are technically infeasible 
for these lamps. For example, certain bipin and double-ended halogen 
lamps have such small form factors that current information shows it is 
unlikely that these lamps can be made using a more efficient technology 
while maintaining a similar form factor and light output. DOE is aware 
of ongoing research regarding the design challenges when adapting LED 
technology to the compact form factors of the incandescent and halogen 
lamps they are intending to replace.\17\ One of the most significant 
challenges for LED lamps is thermal management, as LED lamps must 
dissipate a substantial amount of the heat generated to avoid degrading 
performance (e.g., efficiency, lifetime, color). LED lamps use 
conduction and convection to transfer heat away from the LEDs and 
circuitry to a heat sink and eventually to the ambient environment. 
Comparatively, incandescent lamps dissipate heat generated by the 
filament to the ambient environment directly through infrared radiation 
(i.e., absent a heat sink component).\18\ The additional components 
required for LED lamps create design constraints when attempting to 
maintain the compact form factors of the lamps they are intended to 
replace. Thus, DOE believes that the dimensions of certain lamps 
prevent the development of equivalent LED replacement lamps in the 
desired form factors and lumen outputs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Chen, H., S.Y. Hui, S. Li, S. Tan, and E. Waffenschmidt. 
Power Flow Analysis and Critical Design Issues of Retrofit Light-
Emitting Diode (LED) Light Bulb. IEEE Transactions on Power 
Electronics. 2015. 30(7): pp. 3830-3840.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes this conclusion is significant because the 
unavailability of non-incandescent substitutes for a given lamp 
suggests that lamp is not being used for traditional GSIL applications. 
The applications traditionally served by GSILs involve general 
illumination, and DOE believes non-incandescent lamps such as CFLs and 
LED lamps can adequately serve that application. Indeed, that premise 
is fundamental to the policy set by EISA 2007 regarding energy use in 
lighting; the 45 lm/W default standard would likely preclude the use of 
incandescent technology for any lamp to which it applied. DOE 
recognizes that various lighting applications do not involve general 
illumination, and that many of those applications involve technical 
requirements that necessitate design features in lamps such as specific 
sizes, shapes, and lumen outputs. If the design characteristics of 
lamps for a given application are such that non-incandescent lamps 
cannot be made with the same characteristics, DOE believes it cannot, 
at present, conclude that those lamps are being used for general 
illumination. Consequently, DOE is not including such lamps as ``other 
lamps'' in its definition of GSL. In the discussion that follows, DOE 
refers to lamps that it, for this reason, is excluding from GSLs as 
``specialty products.'' But DOE emphasizes that it uses that language 
only for convenience in explaining its decisions. It is not in fact 
determining that such lamps are ``specialty products.'' Rather, and 
consistent with the ``other lamps'' clause, DOE is simply declining to 
determine that such lamps are used for traditional GSIL applications.
    DOE has reviewed product availability to determine which form 
factor and light output combinations may not be available in 
fluorescent or LED technology. For the second category of lamps, 
products that do not currently have more efficient replacements with 
the same form factor and light output but for which replacements can 
likely be made in the future, DOE believes that it is possible to 
manufacture equivalent replacements but that companies have chosen not 
to do so because the market demand has not yet been great enough. These 
products have been included in the definition of general service lamp, 
to the extent they satisfy other aspects of the definition. As 
discussed in the following sections, DOE has developed multiple 
criteria that together justify a determination that a lamp is used for 
traditional GSIL applications. For lamps that cannot be made with non-
incandescent technology, those criteria may be insufficient and DOE has 
excluded such lamps from being GSLs. But for lamps that can be made 
with non-incandescent technology, DOE believes the criteria it has 
developed will be adequate for the ``other lamps'' determination, just 
as for lamps that are already available with non-incandescent 
technology.
b. General Lighting Applications
    As stated previously, EISA 2007 added the definition of GSL to EPCA 
and defined the term, in part, to include GSILs, CFLs, general service 
LED and OLED lamps, and any other lamp that DOE determines is used to 
satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs (``other 
lamps'' authority). (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(i)(IV)).
    To implement this provision, DOE must determine what types of 
lighting applications have been traditionally served by GSILs; and then 
it must establish criteria for determining whether a given lamp is used 
in such applications. With respect to the first issue, the October 2016 
NOPDDA noted that GSILs have traditionally provided overall 
illumination. DOE bases that conclusion on the definition of GSIL and 
its review of lamps in the market that fulfill that definition. A GSIL, 
as defined in section 6291(30)(D), is (subject to exemptions) ``a 
standard incandescent or halogen type lamp'' that ``is intended for 
general service

[[Page 7302]]

applications''; that ``has a medium screw base''; that has a lumen 
range as specified in the definition; and that is capable of being 
operated between 110 and 130 volts. DOE believes that traditionally, 
lamps that are standard incandescent or halogen and that satisfy the 
other criteria have served general lighting applications. By ``general 
lighting applications,'' DOE means lighting that provides an interior 
or exterior area with overall illumination. As described in the October 
2016 NOPDDA, DOE considers the term ``overall illumination'' to be 
similar in meaning to the term ``general lighting'' as defined in the 
industry standard ANSI/IES RP-16-10 (hereafter ``RP-16''). RP-16 states 
that ``general lighting'' means lighting designed to provide a 
substantially uniform level of illuminance throughout an area, 
exclusive of any provision for special local requirements.
    GE stated that the phrase ``used in general lighting applications'' 
that DOE included in the proposed definition of GSL was too vague and 
DOE should instead include the phrase ``used to satisfy lighting 
applications traditionally served by general service incandescent 
lamps.'' GE explained that for a product to satisfy light applications 
traditionally served by GSILs it should have a medium screw base, 
produce between 310 and 2,600 lumens, and operate on a voltage between 
110 and 130 V per the current definition of GSILs. (GE, No. 83 at p. 
130; GE, No. 88 at pp. 2-4)
    NEMA commented that the authority to include other lamps that are 
used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs is 
limited to consideration of new technologies given that the EISA 2007 
amendment establishing the GSL definition was enacted when halogen 
technology was just beginning to be introduced and development of LED 
technology was underway. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 3-4)
    DOE acknowledges that the phrase identified by GE is the same one 
used in the statutory definition of GSL. While including the phrase 
would ensure consistency with the statutory definition, it is clear 
from the comments on this rulemaking that the phrase is ambiguous and 
needs further clarification.
    With respect to NEMA's comment, nothing in the language of the 
statute limits the consideration of ``other lamps'' to ``new 
technologies.'' EPCA directs DOE to consider how GSILs have 
traditionally been used (i.e., in what applications GSILs served). 
Also, it would frustrate the purposes of the statute for DOE to assess 
what counts as a ``new technology.'' DOE would have to conduct a 
historical assessment to see what the status of a given lighting 
technology was in 2007, and DOE would need to know what degree of 
development would have been sufficient for Congress to have considered 
in 2007 whether to include that technology explicitly in the statute. 
Moreover, DOE would be presuming that if a technology had reached a 
certain degree of development, then Congress certainly would have 
decided whether to include or exclude the technology. Yet there are no 
signs in the statute or the legislative history that Congress engaged 
in that searching analysis of technological developments. If DOE were 
mistaken in its presumption that Congress would have considered a 
technology during the 2007 deliberations, then it might end up 
overlooking a set of lamps that could be widely used to provide general 
illumination. This ``new technology'' assessment, for which the statute 
provides no guidance, seems inconsistent with the framework established 
by EISA 2007. Rather, DOE believes that Congress deferred to DOE the 
assessment whether, over the course of time, a given set of lamps is 
being used for GSIL-type applications--regardless whether that set of 
lamps existed in 2007 as a technological matter.
    In developing a definition for GSL that includes ``other lamps,'' 
DOE has also considered how to determine whether a lamp is used for 
traditional GSIL applications. EPCA does not specify to what extent a 
lamp must be used to satisfy those applications in order to be 
considered a GSL, and DOE does not interpret the definition to require 
that the use of other lamps be extensive. As in its consideration of 
whether to maintain an exemption under the GSL definition, DOE also 
considered the potential of lamp switching that may occur in response 
to any GSL standard when evaluating ``other lamps.'' Even if a lamp is 
currently used in only very limited instances to satisfy lighting 
applications traditionally served by GSILs, that use has the potential 
to increase in response to a standard for GSLs.
    DOE does not have data on every application in which a lamp is 
used, so absent complete data on actual use, DOE considers the 
characteristics of a lamp relevant for assessing whether it is used to 
satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs. In looking 
at the application of a GSIL, DOE considered the lighting 
characteristics of a GSIL, i.e., DOE considered what lighting 
characteristics allow a GSIL to meet the needs of a general service 
application and what lighting characteristics would satisfy a lighting 
application traditionally served by a GSIL. DOE believes that if a lamp 
is capable of being used in general lighting applications and has the 
additional features that DOE is including in the definition of GSL, 
that lamp is actually being used to some extent in applications 
traditionally served by GSILs. As GSILs have traditionally provided 
overall illumination, a lamp that would satisfy the same application as 
traditionally served by GSILs is one that would provide overall 
illumination. 81 FR 71803-71804.
    Utility Coalition and CA IOUs asserted that the scope of GSL is not 
limited to residential products. The definition of ``general lighting 
application'' means ``lighting that provides an interior or exterior 
area with overall illumination,'' with no mention of sector. Utility 
Coalition stated that the inclusion of all voltages and bases in the 
proposed GSL definition reinforces that this rulemaking is not specific 
to only residential products. Further Utility Coalition asserted that 
the existence of exemptions for clearly non-residential lamps, such as 
marine lamps and traffic signal lamps, indicated that the scope of GSLs 
is not only residential products. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 4; 
CA IOUs, No. 83 at p. 136)
    With respect to whether ``other lamps'' must be for residential 
use, DOE notes that GSLs are regulated under Title III, Part B of EPCA, 
The Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than 
Automobiles; i.e., GSLs are regulated as consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 
6291-6309) ``Consumer product'' is not necessarily restricted to a 
product used in a residential setting. EPCA defines ``consumer 
product,'' in part, as any article of a type which to any significant 
extent is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by 
individuals, without regard to whether such article of such type is in 
fact distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by an 
individual. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(B)) Because a consumer product need only 
be distributed ``to a significant extent'' for consumer use, evidently 
many sales of the product type could be for non-consumer uses; and the 
definition explicitly says that a particular product with no consumer 
sales can still be a consumer product if it is of a type that is ``to a 
significant extent'' sold for consumer use. Meanwhile, the phrase 
``applications traditionally served by general service incandescent 
lamps'' is

[[Page 7303]]

not limited to residential applications. Thus, GSILs can be sold 
extensively for non-consumer applications and the ``other lamps'' 
provision does not suggest DOE should regard ``applications 
traditionally served'' by GSILs as comprising only consumer use. 
Accordingly, DOE did not limit its analysis to certain market sectors 
when considering which lamps served in these applications.
    Nothing in the language of the statute limits the consideration of 
``other lamps'' to ``new technologies.'' EPCA directs DOE to consider 
how GSILs have traditionally been used (i.e., in what applications 
GSILs served). Also, it would frustrate the purposes of the statute for 
DOE to assess what counts as a ``new technology.'' DOE would have to 
conduct a historical assessment to see what the status of a given 
lighting technology was in 2007, and DOE would need to know what degree 
of development would have been sufficient for Congress to have 
considered in 2007 whether to include that technology explicitly in the 
statute. Moreover, DOE would be presuming that if a technology had 
reached a certain degree of development, then Congress certainly would 
have decided whether to include or exclude the technology. Yet there 
are no signs in the statute or the legislative history that Congress 
engaged in that searching analysis of technological developments. If 
DOE were mistaken in its presumption that Congress would have 
considered a technology during the 2007 deliberations, then it might 
end up overlooking a set of lamps that could be widely used to provide 
general illumination. This ``new technology'' assessment, for which the 
statute provides no guidance, seems inconsistent with the framework 
established by EISA 2007. Rather, DOE believes that Congress deferred 
to DOE the assessment whether, over the course of time, a given set of 
lamps is being used for GSIL-type applications--regardless of the state 
of the technology of the set of lamps in 2007.
    As described in the October 2016 NOPDDA, GSILs have traditionally 
provided overall illumination. Therefore, a lamp that would satisfy the 
same application as traditionally served by GSILs is one that would 
provide overall illumination. DOE included the phrase ``is used in 
general lighting applications'' in the definition of GSL because 
``general lighting application'' means lighting that provides an 
interior or exterior area with overall illumination. As described in 
the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE considers the term ``overall 
illumination'' to be similar in meaning to the term ``general 
lighting'' as defined in the industry standard ANSI/IES RP-16-10 
(hereafter ``RP-16''). RP-16 states that ``general lighting'' means 
lighting designed to provide a substantially uniform level of 
illuminance throughout an area, exclusive of any provision for special 
local requirements.
    DOE acknowledges the point that some commenters made, that the 
``other lamps'' subclause in the GSL definition refers to lamps that 
``are used'' for traditional GSIL applications, not lamps that could be 
so used or are likely to be so used. DOE's approach is consistent with 
that language. A lamp that is capable of being used for general 
illumination could, in many cases, be used for traditional GSIL 
applications. But, as previously described, that capability is not 
sufficient, on its own, to qualify a lamp as an ``other lamp'' under 
DOE's definition. Rather, a lamp must have specific additional 
characteristics, described in later sections. DOE believes that this 
set of market characteristics, in light of market realities, is 
sufficient to identify lamps that are used for traditional GSIL 
applications.
    As noted, DOE does not interpret ``are used'' to impose a 
particular threshold of how prevalent a GSIL-type use must be before a 
lamp can qualify as an ``other lamp.'' In addition, the statute does 
not specify that the GSIL-type uses be the only uses of a lamp for it 
to qualify as an ``other lamp.''
    Finally, DOE does not believe that by referring to lamps that ``are 
used'' for GSIL-type applications, EPCA requires DOE to have direct 
evidence of such uses. As usual with factual determinations, this one 
can be made on the basis of expert judgment and circumstantial 
evidence. The criteria discussed in later sections are relevant in that 
respect; these are characteristics that make a lamp particularly 
suitable for consumers' use as a substitute for GSILs. DOE notes that 
lamps--like other products--tend to be designed and optimized for the 
applications in which buyers actually use them. Consistent with that 
observation, specialty lamps tend to have a range of design 
characteristics which make them especially suitable for their 
particular applications, and at the same time make it more difficult to 
use them in the same applications as GSILs. Thus, if a lamp that is 
capable of providing general illumination has design features that make 
it highly suitable for performing that task in the sort of application 
that GSILs have traditionally served, DOE infers that manufacturers of 
that lamp are, to some extent, serving buyers that use the lamps in 
that way. The marketing or labeling of a lamp also helps reveal the 
uses to which a lamp is actually put. If a lamp is marketed solely for 
specialty purposes, that fact makes it less likely that the lamp is 
used for traditional GSIL applications. DOE has reflected this 
consideration by excluding from the definition of GSL certain specialty 
lamps.
c. ANSI Bases
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed that a GSL must have an 
ANSI base, with the exclusion of light fixtures and LED downlight 
retrofit kits. DOE noted that it considers an ANSI base to be a lamp 
base standardized by the American National Standards Institute. To 
better clarify the term ANSI base, DOE proposed a definition in the 
October 2016 NOPDDA. 81 FR 71804. More specifically, an

    ANSI base, as proposed, would be a base type specified in ANSI 
C81.61-2016 or IEC 60061-1:2005. Id.

    Utility Coalition supported DOE's proposal to include all bases 
specified in ANSI C81.61-2016 or IEC 60061-1:2005 in the GSL definition 
and noted the wide availability of base types in LED lamps. (Utility 
Coalition, No. 95 at p. 4) ASAP also commented that the ANSI base type 
specification is appropriate. ASAP noted that bases commonly found in 
residential applications are driven by the applications or fixture 
types that are popular at that point in time and can be driven by 
changes in the market or manufacturing decisions to take advantage of 
existing standards. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 117-118)
    However, GE commented that base type needs to be limited because 
lamps are included in the GSL scope that have never been nor cannot 
ever be used in a home, and instead are intended for use in specialty 
commercial or industrial applications. GE explained that most fixtures 
in homes have predominantly medium screw base sockets with some 
candelabra base sockets and very few intermediate base sockets. (GE, 
No. 83 at p. 130) NEMA stated that DOE should include only common base 
types as only they would be used to satisfy lighting applications 
traditionally served by GSILs. Maxlite agreed that the ANSI base 
specification is too broad and suggested limiting general service lamps 
to those with bases that are common in consumer and residential 
products. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 27-28; Maxlite, No. 83 at p. 123)
    As noted in section III.A.4.b, EPCA directs DOE to include as GSLs 
lamps that are used to satisfy lighting

[[Page 7304]]

applications traditionally served by GSILs. DOE has determined that 
lamps that would satisfy the same applications as traditionally served 
by GSILs are ones that would provide overall illumination. DOE is not 
directed to limit its analysis to lamps that provide overall 
illumination in only the residential sector or, more specifically, only 
in homes. Therefore, DOE has not used this criterion in deciding 
whether certain lamps are general service lamps.
    For this final rule, DOE reviewed available product offerings by 
ANSI base type. While DOE is maintaining the specification that GSLs 
must have an ANSI base, DOE has concluded that certain incandescent/
halogen lamps without more efficient, equivalent replacements should 
not--for the reasons previously given--be included in the definition of 
GSL. As described in more detail in section III.A.4.f, DOE is excluding 
lamps with the following ANSI bases from the definition of GSL: Wedge 
bases; prefocus bases; reflector lamps with a diameter less than 2 
inches that do not have E26/24, E26d, E26/50x39, E26/53x39, E29/28, 
E29/53x39, E39, E39d, EP39, or EX39 bases; and J, JC, JCD, JCS, JCV, 
JCX, JD, JS, and JT shape lamps that do not have Edison screw bases. 
DOE did not receive comments specific to its proposed definition of 
ANSI base. However, upon further deliberation, DOE has concluded that 
the term ``ANSI base'' is clear enough that it does not need a specific 
regulatory definition.
d. Lumen Range
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed to prescribe a maximum 
lumen output when defining GSL. DOE noted that it believes that lamps 
with lumen outputs greater than 2,600 can be used in overall 
illumination and therefore would meet the definition of GSL. However, 
DOE reviewed available product information and proposed a maximum lumen 
output in the definition of GSL. At the time of the October 2016 
NOPDDA, DOE noted that overall product offerings of general service 
lamps significantly decreased around 4,000 lumens. Using product 
offerings as a proxy for overall sales, DOE concluded that sales of 
lamps with lumen outputs greater than 4,000 lumens were also much lower 
than lamps with lumen outputs between 310 and 4,000 lumens. While sales 
are not necessarily an indication of use in general lighting 
applications, DOE tentatively concluded that the limited and unique 
product offerings above 4,000 lumens indicated that these lamps may be 
used mainly in specialty applications rather than for applications 
traditionally served by GSILs. Therefore, DOE proposed that general 
service lamps must have lumen outputs greater than or equal to 310 
lumens and less than or equal to 4,000 lumens. 81 FR 71804.
    NEMA and LEDVANCE argued that DOE cannot regulate high lumen lamps 
(2,601-3,300 lumen lamps) unless the sales threshold specified in 42 
U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(G) is met (i.e., at least 100 percent higher than 
modeled unit sales). (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 20; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 21) 
NEMA stated that sales for high lumen lamps have declined each year 
from 2012. (NEMA, No. 93 p. 20) Additionally, LEDVANCE stated that high 
lumen lamps are not in any ``exclusion'' or ``exemption'' from the 
definition of GSIL and that DOE does not have authority to amend the 
definition of GSIL to alter the lumen range. (LEDVANCE No. 90, at p. 
21)
    NEMA commented that DOE does not acknowledge that sales of high 
lumen incandescent lamps have been decreasing over the last several 
years and that DOE states that most product offerings between 2,601 and 
3,300 lumens are CFLs and LED lamps without providing sales data to 
support this claim. NEMA stated that although this observation may be 
correct, DOE is proposing to eliminate high lumen incandescent lamps 
from the market by applying the 45 lm/W backstop standard without 
considering the statutory requirement for regulating this lamp type. 
NEMA stated that DOE cannot include all three lamp technologies in one 
category noting that DOE has not provided evidence that such a standard 
would be economically justified for high lumen CFL and LED lamps or 
would achieve significant energy savings. NEMA added that DOE did not 
identify high lumen incandescent lamps as posing a lamp switching risk 
and noted that, following DOE's proposed reasoning, these lamps provide 
no lamp switching risk. In addition, NEMA stated that DOE must adhere 
to the requirements outlined by Congress for regulating these lamps and 
cannot use its discretion alone. Further, NEMA concluded that these 
lamps are not used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally 
served by GSILs, noting that high lumen incandescent lamps are mostly 
used in commercial and outdoor applications where very bright light is 
required. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 21)
    As DOE explained for shatter-resistant incandescent and 3-way 
incandescent lamps in III.A.1.a, 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(G) requires DOE 
to complete a rulemaking for high lumen lamps when the sales threshold 
is met. However, as previously explained, the mandatory rulemaking 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4) is not the only avenue for DOE to regulate 
high lumen lamps. Additionally, DOE is not making a determination as to 
the lumen limit in the definition of GSIL. As commenters noted, the 
definition of GSIL applies to lamps that have 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). The definition of GSIL remains limited to lamps that 
have 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). DOE is adding a lumen range 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 to the definition of GSL for ``other lamps.'' As discussed 
previously in this document, consideration of including lamps in the 
definition of GSL under the ``other lamps'' authority is a separate 
consideration from whether to maintain or discontinue an exemption from 
the GSL (and GSIL) definition. DOE is establishing this lumen range as 
part of the definition of GSL as authorized under the ``other lamps'' 
provision in the statutory definition of GSL. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB)(i)(IV)).
    The consideration of ``other lamps'' is not limited by a lumen 
range. Where Congress intended to limit the definition of GSL based on 
certain lamp characteristics, it did so (e.g., Congress initially 
excluded from the definition of GSL the lighting applications and bulb 
shapes excluded from the definition of GSIL). (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB)(ii)(I)) While the statutory definition of GSIL includes a 
lumen limit, Congress did not provide a comparable lumen range for 
lamps that may be determined to be ``other lamps.'' DOE is to consider 
whether a lamp is used to satisfy a lighting application traditionally 
served by a GSIL. The lumen range of a GSIL may be informative for this 
consideration, but Congress did not impose it as a limit. Instead 
Congress directed DOE to consider a lamp's application. As previously 
discussed, DOE considers the characteristics of a lamp to determine 
whether it is used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally 
served by GSILs. In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed that lamps 
within the lumen range of greater than or equal to 310 lumens (or 232 
lumens for modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps) and 
less than or equal to 4,000 lumens and

[[Page 7305]]

that meet the other characteristics of GSL as defined in this final 
rule have the capacity to satisfy lighting applications traditionally 
served by general service incandescent lamps.
    DOE also received comments recommending both raising and lowering 
the upper lumen limit. NRDC commented that they support the upper lumen 
limit of 4,000 lumens but noted that they identified several lamps 
around 3,910 lumens, and therefore suggested increasing the lumen range 
to around 4,500 lumens to prevent a potential loophole. (NRDC, No. 83 
at pp. 10; 138) While supporting an upper lumen bound, NEMA and GE 
stated that DOE should not set the maximum lumens for GSLs beyond 3,300 
lumens per Congress' definition of high lumen incandescent lamps (42 
U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(G)). (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 23; GE, No. 88 at p. 3) NEMA 
stated that high lumen lamps above 3,300 lumens are too bright to be 
used in households, where GSILs are predominantly used. NEMA further 
stated that 200 W incandescent lamps and 40-45 W CFLs in the 2,650-
3,600 lumen range are not found in homes because, in addition to being 
too bright, they are extremely expensive (i.e., about $15-16 for CFLs 
and $10-$12 for incandescent lamps). (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 23-24) GE 
stated that fixtures typically have wattage limits prescribed by UL and 
very few fixtures found in homes can accommodate 200 W (i.e., 4,000 
lumen) lamps. (GE, No. 83 at pp. 139-140) Philips recommended DOE align 
with the definition of GSILs and set the upper lumen limit of GSLs at 
2,600 lumens. Philips stated that while the proposed 4,000 lumen 
maximum would exclude higher wattage high intensity discharge (HID) 
lamps, it does not exclude all such lamp types. (Philips, No. 96 at p. 
4)
    For this final rule, DOE reviewed available product offerings to 
determine whether to raise, lower, or maintain the 4,000 lumen upper 
limit proposed in the October 2016 NOPDDA. As described in section 
III.A.4.b, DOE did not limit its analysis to lamps used in only the 
residential sector. DOE is aware that implementing any lumen limits, 
regardless of the value, may encourage industry to develop products 
just outside of the prescribed range. However, DOE believes that lumen 
output is an important characteristic for determining whether a lamp is 
used in traditional GSIL applications, particularly since the 
definition of GSIL itself includes only lamps up to 2,600 lumens in 
output. While, as noted, that limit in the definition of GSIL does not 
circumscribe DOE's authority to include lamps as ``other lamps,'' it 
does illustrate what applications GSILs have traditionally served. 
Applications that require high-output lamps have not traditionally been 
served by lamps up to 2,600 lumens. DOE's current approach recognizes 
that fact, but also recognizes that lamps with higher outputs are 
actually used for some of the same applications as GSILs.
    Upon reviewing current product offerings, DOE has concluded that it 
is appropriate to lower the upper lumen bound from 4,000 to 3,300 
lumens. DOE determined that there are lamps within the range of 3,301 
to 4,000 lumens not intended for use in general lighting applications. 
For example, lamps marketed for use in stage and studio applications 
fall within the range of 3,301 to 4,000 lumens. Further, as noted in 
the October 2016 NOPDDA, although the reported sales of these 
incandescent lamps are declining, the majority of product offerings 
between 2,601 and 3,300 lumens are CFLs or LED lamps and are thus not 
captured in the sales data. Based on product offerings, DOE found that 
establishing the upper lumen limit at 3,300 was appropriate for 
including lamps used in applications traditionally served by GSILs.
    DOE also received several comments regarding the lower lumen bound 
in the proposed definition of GSL. NRDC, NEEP, and ASAP stated that DOE 
should reduce its proposed minimum lumen output for GSLs from 310 to 
120 to include 25 W and 40 W equivalent decorative lamps. NRDC added 
that this would prevent manufacturers from tweaking the lumen output of 
their current incandescent products, such as globe shape lamps at 320 
lumens, to exclude them from the GSL definition. (NRDC, No. 85 at pp. 
5-6; NEEP, No. 92 at p. 3) NRDC further stated that lamps between 120 
and 310 lumens should be included in the GSL definition because 
hundreds of millions of sockets contain these lamps; they have high 
hours of use in commercial settings; and they are available in LED 
replacements that are mostly dimmable and offered in a variety of 
shapes, base types, and optics. (NRDC, No. 85 at p. 6; NEEP, No. 92 at 
p. 3; ASAP, No. 94 at p. 3) RELS agreed with NRDC's proposal, stating 
that a more inclusive GSL definition would lead to more energy savings, 
lowering the environmental impact of these products. (RELS, No. 86 at 
p. 1)
    NEEP noted that when many bulbs are used together (e.g., in a 
chandelier), 25 W and 40 W equivalent lamps can provide acceptable 
general illumination. NEEP further stated that there are over 80 ENERGY 
STAR[supreg] LED lamps with less than 310 lumens. NEEP recommended 
lowering the lower lumen limit from 310 to 120 lumens for all GSLs or, 
if that change would cause unintended consequences, to lower it to 120 
lumens for B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S or M-14 lamps that are 
less than or equal to 40 W. (NEEP, No. 92 at p. 3)
    CEC recommended a few changes to the lower lumen limit in the 
definition of GSL to maintain consistency with its own regulations. CEC 
stated that its general service LED lamp regulation applies to E12 base 
lamps with 150 lumens or greater and all other lamps of 200 lumens or 
greater. CEC stated that because 25 W equivalent lamps with lumens less 
than 310 are used for general illumination (e.g., chandeliers) and have 
more efficient replacements, they should be included in the GSL 
definition. (CEC, No. 91 at p. 7) Utility Coalition also recommended 
DOE align the GSL minimum lumen limit with CEC's general service LED 
lamps rulemaking but added that DOE should apply the 150 lumen minimum 
to E17 bases as well. Utility Coalition provided examples of products 
less than 310 lumens that, it asserted, are marketed and sold for 
general service applications. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 4)
    Similar to establishing an upper lumen bound, establishing a lower 
lumen bound can provide an incentive for manufacturers to create 
products just below the lumen limit. Stakeholders are concerned about 
this result and have provided several suggestions regarding where this 
lower lumen bound should be to prevent this problem. Stakeholders have 
suggested lowering the lower lumen bound from 310 lumens to 120, 150, 
or 200 lumens to include 25 W equivalent lamps. DOE acknowledges that 
some lamps with lumen outputs less than 310 lumens can be marketed as 
25 W equivalents. However, there is inconsistency in how these lamps 
are marketed. There are no Federal guidelines that govern the 
``equivalency'' claims of lamps. As such, there is great variety in 
equivalency claims. Even when equivalency guidelines exist, there is 
variety in what a 25 W equivalent may be. For example, the ENERGY STAR 
Lamps V2.0 Specification defines the typical light output of a 25 W 
omnidirectional lamp to be at least 250 lumens and the typical lumen 
output of an 25 W omnidirectional decorative lamp (which is also 
omnidirectional) to be at least 150 lumens. DOE has reviewed available 
product offerings and instead of trying to include every lamp that is 
marketed as a 25 W equivalent, DOE has determined the minimum lumen 
output

[[Page 7306]]

of lamps that provide overall illumination. At this time, DOE has 
determined that lumen output to be 310 lumens, and DOE has therefore 
established the lower lumen bound at 310 lumens.
    GE stated that high lumen lamps, which it considered to be the 150 
W and 200 W incandescent lamps, also tend to have larger bulb sizes. GE 
stated that these lamps are made in A21 and A23 shapes because the 
filament must be placed farther from the glass due to the increased 
heat. Therefore, these lamps may not fit in existing fixtures where A19 
size lamps are used and also may not meet the UL wattage limit on many 
fixtures in the home (NEMA estimates that about 95 percent of GSL 
fixtures will not accommodate 200 W incandescent lamps because it is 
prohibited by UL 1598). (GE, No. 83 at pp. 72-73) In contrast, NRDC 
disagreed that the slightly larger size of the 150 W and 200 W 
incandescent lamps would be too large to be used as a replacement for a 
standard incandescent lamp in household fixtures. (NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 
73-74)
    DOE reviewed the lamp dimensions of the A19, A21, and A23 bulb 
shapes. Per the typical naming convention, the number after the ``A'' 
indicates the diameter of the bulb in eighths of an inch. DOE agrees 
that the bulb shapes of higher lumen lamps are generally larger than 
those with lumen outputs between 310 and 2,600 lumens. DOE notes that 
this difference is a quarter to a half of an inch increase in lamp 
diameter. While there are potentially fixtures that cannot accommodate 
this increase in size, there is no requirement that all lamps that meet 
the definition of general service lamp have the same size as GSILs (as 
currently defined). General service lamps included through the ``other 
lamps'' category are those that are used in lighting applications 
traditionally served by GSILs. Larger diameters would not preclude use 
of a higher-output lamp in a different fixture. DOE does not believe 
that, in light of the complete set of characteristics it is using to 
define ``other lamps,'' a larger diameter would mean that a lamp is not 
used in those applications.
e. Operating Voltage
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE did not propose a specific voltage 
range when defining GSL. 81 FR 71804. ASAP and Utility Coalition agreed 
with the operating voltage criterion. ASAP commented that they support 
not specifying a voltage range because adding a range creates the 
opportunity for manufacturers to specify that products operate outside 
of the range even though the products can also operate at common 
voltages, thus creating a loophole. (ASAP, No. 83 at p. 118; Utility 
Coalition, No. 95 at p. 4) However, several stakeholders commented that 
including lamps that operate at all voltages would have unintended 
consequences. Westinghouse and Maxlite noted that the voltage range is 
too broad and could have unintended consequences if products are 
inadvertently included. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 119-120; Maxlite, 
No. 83 at p. 123) GE asserted that by not limiting the operating 
voltage, DOE was including lamps intended for use in specialty 
commercial or industrial applications such as airplanes, trains, and 
automobiles. (GE, No. 83 at p. 130)
    Maxlite suggested limiting the operating voltage range to voltages 
that are common in consumer and residential products. (Maxlite, No. 83 
at p. 123) GE stated that 98 percent of GSILs are used in homes 
according to the 2010 LMC, and nearly all lighting systems in homes 
operate at 120 V, with a few at 12 V. (GE, No. 88 at p. 4) NEMA stated 
and Philips agreed that the GSL definition should specify a voltage 
range from 110 to 130 V or 11 to 13 V. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 27-28; 
Philips, No. 96 at p. 5) NEMA provided a list of specialty applications 
in which lamps of uncommon voltages are used. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 27-
28) In order to narrow the scope while preventing loopholes, 
Westinghouse suggested writing the regulatory language to prevent 
manufacturers from rating a lamp for an exempted voltage if the lamp is 
intended to operate at 12 V or 120 V by stating that if the lamp ``can 
operate at 120 V'' or ``can operate at 12 V,'' it would meet the 
definition of GSL. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 119-120)
    NRDC commented that an operating voltage cap at 120 V does not make 
sense because 130 V products are increasingly being sold and therefore 
should be covered too. (NRDC, No. 83 at p. 132) Maxlite added that they 
agreed with including 130 V products but requested that 277 V products 
and other voltages not be included. (Maxlite, No. 83 at pp. 132-133) 
CEC stated that while it agrees with DOE not proposing a specific 
voltage range in the definition for GSLs, voltage limitations may be 
useful when defining what is not covered within the GSL definition. 
(CEC, No. 91 at p. 4)
    Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and Philips requested 
clarification on whether certain lamps, such as non-integrated CFLs and 
HID lamps, are included in the definition of GSL because these lamps 
operate on a ballast rather than ``at any voltage'' as specified in the 
proposed GSL definition. Philips noted these lamps will not operate if 
placed directly on a DC or AC sinusoidal waveform and therefore 
requested that DOE clarify the language in the proposed GSL definition. 
NEEA noted that these are popular products and that they should be 
included in the scope. (NEEA, No. 83 at pp. 134-135; Philips, No. 83 at 
p. 124)
    As noted in section III.A.4.b, EPCA directs DOE to include as GSLs 
lamps which are used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally 
served by GSILs. DOE has determined that lamps that would satisfy the 
same applications as traditionally served by GSILs are ones that would 
provide overall illumination. DOE is not directed to limit its analysis 
to lamps that provide overall illumination in only the residential 
sector or, more specifically, only in homes. Therefore, DOE has not 
used this criterion in deciding whether certain lamps are general 
service lamps.
    DOE reviewed available product offerings to determine whether lamps 
of all operating voltages are used in general lighting applications. 
DOE found that certain operating voltages could be an indicator that 
the lamp is used in specialty applications. For example, lamps with an 
input voltage of 6.6 V are typically used in airport or aviation 
applications. DOE has therefore revised the operating voltage criteria 
for this final rule. Instead of including lamps that operate at all 
input voltages, DOE is including integrated lamps that are capable of 
operating at or between input voltages of 12 V, 24 V, 100 to 130 V, 220 
to 240 V, or 277 V. DOE determined that lamps capable of operating at 
these voltages generally provide overall illumination. For example, 
lamps operating at 12 V and 24 V are commonly MR16 lamps, and lamps 
operating at 277 V are commonly spiral CFLs. All non-integrated lamps 
of any voltage are included, assuming they meet the other specified 
criteria. DOE found that the operating voltage of non-integrated lamps 
did not correlate to use in specialty applications.
f. Exempted Lamps From GSL
i. GSIL Exemptions
    By definition, GSL does not apply to any lighting application or 
bulb shape that under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D) is not included in the 
``general service incandescent lamp'' definition. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB))(ii)(I)) DOE tentatively determined in the October 2016 
NOPDDA that the language of the

[[Page 7307]]

``exclusions provision'' under 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(ii)(I) is not 
limited to lamps that are medium screw base or lamps that use 
incandescent technology. The GSL definition excludes lamps that serve 
the lighting application or are of the same lamp shape described in the 
GSIL ``exclusions'' provision, and makes no express reference to 
lighting technology or base type. Nonetheless, although the language of 
42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(ii)(I) is not specific to incandescent 
technology, some of the lamp applications and bulb shapes described 
under the exemptions to the GSIL definition may be specific to 
incandescent lamps. 81 FR 71805.
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE assessed each of the 22 lamp 
categories within the GSIL exemptions to determine whether the 
Secretary should discontinue or maintain these exemptions for purposes 
of the GSL definition. DOE tentatively concluded that 14 of the 22 GSIL 
exemptions for medium screw base incandescent lamps should be 
maintained, while eight of the GSIL exemptions should be discontinued 
and considered as GSLs. Consistent with that tentative determination, 
DOE then assessed the remaining 14 lamp categories in the GSIL 
exemptions to determine whether the application or lamp shape described 
is specific to an incandescent technology in order to determine the 
applicability of each exemption to GSLs other than GSILs. DOE 
tentatively determined that appliance lamps; black light lamps; bug 
lamps; colored lamps; infrared lamps; left-hand thread lamps; marine 
lamps; marine signal service lamps; mine service lamps; plant light 
lamps; sign service lamps; silver bowl lamps; showcase lamps; and 
traffic signal lamps are not specific to incandescent technology. 
Therefore, DOE proposed to extend the exemptions for all 14 lamp 
categories to all GSLs. 81 FR 71805.
    Philips agreed with DOE's determination of exemption types that are 
not specific to incandescent technology and that the exemption should 
be technology neutral. However, Philips cautioned DOE that certain 
wattages and shapes may be specific only to incandescent technology due 
to size and heat management issues. (Philips, No. 96 at p. 3) NEEP also 
agreed that many exempt lamp categories are not specific to 
incandescent technology. In support of their point, NEEP cited the 
following as having high efficiency replacements: Appliance lamps; 
black light lamps; bug lamps; colored lamps; left-hand thread lamps; 
marine lamps; plant light lamps; sign service lamps; silver bowl lamps; 
showcase lamps; and traffic signal lamps. (NEEP, No. 92 at p. 3)
    NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that the exemptions for incandescent, CFL, 
and LED versions of these 14 lamp categories should be maintained, 
noting that some do not have a CFL or LED replacement. (LEDVANCE, No. 
90 at pp. 29-30; NEMA, No. 93 at p. 22) For any specialty lamp types 
with a CFL or LED replacement, NEMA explained that there is no evidence 
that lamp shifting is occurring to these lamps, and therefore saw no 
reason to discontinue exemptions for the CFL or LED versions. NEMA 
stated that an exemption from energy conservation standards should 
extend to all technologies for a particular lamp type if no energy 
conservation standards have been set for that lamp. However, NEMA did 
remind DOE of its comments in response to the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR 
to consider energy conservation standards for certain specialty LED 
lamps excluded from the definition of general service lamp. (NEMA, No. 
93 at p. 22) NEMA also referenced a table from its comments in response 
to the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR explaining what sort of technologies are 
available for the lamp types that may be impacted by the general 
service lamp rulemaking. (NEMA, No. 66 at pp. 38-40)
    As described section III.A.1, in this final rule, DOE concluded 
that 15 of the 22 GSIL exemptions for medium screw base incandescent 
lamps should be maintained. Consistent with that determination, DOE 
then assessed the 15 lamp categories to determine whether the 
application or lamp shape described is specific to an incandescent 
technology in order to determine the applicability of each exemption to 
GSLs other than GSILs. DOE determined that appliance lamps; black light 
lamps; bug lamps; colored lamps; G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 
inches or more; infrared lamps; left-hand thread lamps; marine lamps; 
marine signal service lamps; mine service lamps; plant light lamps; 
sign service lamps; silver bowl lamps; showcase lamps; and traffic 
signal lamps are not specific to incandescent technology. Therefore, 
DOE is extending the exemptions for all 15 lamp categories to all GSLs.
ii. Specialty MR Lamps
    In addition to the aforementioned exempted lamp types, DOE surveyed 
the market in the October 2016 NOPDDA for MR-shaped lamps with smaller 
diameters than the common MR16 lamps that are used in non-general 
lighting applications. DOE found and confirmed that these lamps are 
typically marketed for use in non-general lighting applications such as 
projectors, scientific illumination equipment, theater lighting, studio 
lighting, stage lighting, film lighting, medical equipment lighting, 
and emergency lighting. In addition, DOE found that these lamps are 
significantly more expensive and have shorter lifetimes than MR-shaped 
lamps designed for general lighting applications. Further, DOE noted it 
is unsure whether higher efficiency replacements are technologically 
feasible for these lamps due to their specific optical working 
distances and smaller form factors. Due to their use in specialty 
applications and lack of more efficacious equivalent replacements, DOE 
proposed in the October 2016 NOPDDA that MR-shaped lamps with diameters 
less than 2 inches that are designed and marketed for use in 
projectors, scientific illumination equipment, theater lighting, studio 
lighting, stage lighting, film lighting, medical equipment lighting, 
and emergency lighting not be included in the GSL definition. 81 FR 
71806.
    DOE received several comments regarding whether specialty MR lamps 
should be exempt from the definition of GSL. NRDC agreed with exempting 
specialty MR16 lamps but stated that regular MR16 lamps should not be 
exempted because there are LED versions available. (NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 
150-151) NRDC and ASAP suggested defining specialty MR16 lamps by 
specifying a maximum lifetime or voltage requirement. (NRDC, No. 83 at 
pp. 150-151; NRDC, No. 85 at pp. 2-3; ASAP, No. 94 at p. 2) NEEP also 
agreed that specialty MR lamps should be exempted. However, NEEP 
expressed support for covering all MR lamps and requiring petitions to 
consider individual lamps as specialty MR lamps. NEEP reasoned that 
this requirement would avoid any potential loopholes for MR-shaped 
lamps that have a diameter just less than 2 inches and also for higher 
efficiency replacements. NEEP stressed that there are LED MR14 and MR11 
lamps currently being used in general service applications and that 
unless technical restrictions prevent them from being used as 
replacements for small form factors, they should be included in the GSL 
definition. (NEEP, No. 92 at pp. 3-4)
    GE commented that MR lamps originated from specialty equipment and 
have since become commonly used for accent lighting. GE noted that the 
MR lamps used in general service lighting applications typically 
operate at 12 V and have a lifetime from 2,000 to 5,000 hours. However, 
GE stated that MR lamps designed for specialty

[[Page 7308]]

equipment typically have very high light output, operate at odd 
voltages, and have short lifetimes because light output is more 
important than lifetime. Specifically, GE stated that specialty MR 
lamps may operate at strange voltages, such as 42, 52, or 82 V, because 
the lamps are designed for the voltage of the equipment. In addition, 
specialty MR lamps have lifetimes as low as 200 to 600 hours because 
they are designed for short operating periods. Additionally, GE noted 
that the light output is more focused. The ellipsoidal reflector shape 
has two focal points and the second focal point of specialty MR lamps 
is designed for the specific distances of the equipment in which it 
operates. GE further noted that specialty MR lamps are expensive and 
are not typically sold into the residential market since they are 
designed for specific applications such as projectors, and medical, 
scientific, optical equipment, air rail, and roadway. GE concluded that 
due to their odd voltages, shorter lifetimes and high prices, specialty 
MR lamps would not be an acceptable replacement for general service 
lighting. (GE, No. 83 at pp. 143-146; 148-150; GE, No. 88 at p. 2) NEMA 
noted that for the California regulations, a short lifetime was 
required for specialty MR16s, thus discouraging use in homes along with 
their higher price point. (NEMA, No. 83 at pp. 147-148)
    NEMA commented that while MR16 lamps are used in both specialty and 
general lighting applications, if MR16 lamps are eliminated, millions 
of dollars in equipment designed to use these lamps, such as medical 
and ophthalmology equipment, will be stranded. NEMA added that because 
of the small form factor, an LED alternative cannot be made that fits 
older equipment. (NEMA, No. 83 at pp. 147-148)
    NEMA again drew attention to its proposal submitted in response to 
the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR to establish wattage caps of 15 W for LED 
versions and 50 W for incandescent versions of MR lamps. NEMA explained 
that the 45 lm/W limit would be problematic for LED MR-shaped lamps and 
the wattage caps would be technologically feasible, economically 
justified, and reduce testing and certification burden. (NEMA, No. 93 
at pp. 25-26) LEDVANCE added that there are no lamps that can replace 
the functionality of MR lamps and therefore DOE cannot impose an 
efficacy standard and make them unavailable. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 
21-22)
    After reviewing available product offerings, DOE agrees that 
certain MR lamps are specialty lamps. These lamps are labeled for use 
in applications such as projector lighting, film lighting, and audio/
visual lighting. In addition, certain MR lamps are used in specialized 
equipment (such as scientific illumination and medical equipment) or 
emergency lighting installations which would be either inoperable or 
lose their UL safety rating if these lamps were to be removed from the 
market.
    DOE received several comments regarding how to revise the 
definition of specialty MR lamp. CEC recommended that DOE align its 
specialty MR lamp definition with CEC's definition for small diameter 
directional lamps (SDDLs) which it had worked with NEMA to develop. CEC 
stated the definition of specialty MR lamps should be based on physical 
and electrical characteristics instead of applications. CEC recommended 
the definition require the MR bulb shape to be as defined in ANSI C79.1 
with a diameter of 2.25 inches or less and meet one of the following 
criteria: Not be capable of operating at 12 V, 24 V, or 120 V, not have 
an ANSI compliant pin base or E26 base, have a lumen output of more 
than 850 lumens, have a wattage of more than 75 W, or have a lifetime 
of 300 hours or less. (CEC, No. 91 at pp. 7-8)
    Utility Coalition also recommended that DOE refer to CEC's 
definition of SDDL to inform its definition of specialty MR lamps. 
Utility Coalition stated their research found specialty MR lamps to 
have extremely high wattages, high lumens, and short lifetimes (50-100 
hours) and LED SDDLs are currently not available as adequate 
substitutes. Utility Coalition further noted that a 300-hour lifetime 
maximum would prevent them from being used in general service 
applications. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at pp. 11-12)
    GE, LEDVANCE, and NEMA disagreed with DOE's proposed requirement 
that specialty MR lamps have a diameter less than 2 inches noting that 
many MR16 lamps, with a diameter of exactly 2 inches, are specialty 
lamps. (GE, No. 88 at p. 2; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 21-22; NEMA, No. 93 
at pp. 24-25) GE suggested defining specialty MR lamps to have a 
maximum diameter of 2.25 inches, to operate at voltages other than 12 
or 120 volts, to have a lifetime less than 1,000 hours, or to have a 
wattage of more than 75 W. (GE, No. 88 at p. 3) NEMA and LEDVANCE 
recommended the same diameter requirements. NEMA also recommended the 
same lifetime and wattage criteria as GE but specified the lamps not 
operate at 11-13 V or 120-130 V. Further, NEMA specified that if any of 
these characteristics are not applicable, it could also be considered a 
specialty MR lamp if it is listed in Table 8 of ANSI Special Report 
24f. LEDVANCE stated that Table 8 shows various lamp voltages, 
wattages, bases, lengths, working distances (which are application 
critical), and beam characteristics. LEDVANCE asserted that none of the 
lamps in Table 8 have characteristics that are identical to a 20 W, 30 
W, or 50 W GU5.3 bipin base, less than 4 inch length MR16 lamp. Philips 
expressed support for NEMA's proposed definition. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 
24-25; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 31-32; Philips, No. 96 at pp. 4-5)
    Additionally, LEDVANCE and NEMA stated that the applications 
outlined in the proposed specialty MR lamp definition were limiting as 
they did not capture all of the specialty uses of these lamps, in 
particular aviation applications, and therefore should be removed. 
(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 24-25; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 31-32) Philips 
explained that some halogen MR lamps are used in exit sign applications 
and any LED replacements for the lamps would need to meet several 
different lighting and electrical safety requirements from NFPA, UL, 
and local safety codes. (Philips, No. 96 at pp. 4-5)
    After reviewing available MR lamps, DOE agrees that revisions to 
the definition of specialty MR lamp are appropriate. In addition to 
product offerings in catalogs, DOE reviewed the Lighting Facts database 
and ANSI Special Report 24f to determine which MR lamps were specialty 
products and should therefore be included in the definition of 
specialty MR lamp. DOE considered factors such as whether the lamp had 
a specific feature that prevented or made it unlikely for use in 
general lighting applications; whether the lamp was labeled for a 
specialty application; and whether the lamp must exist for reasons of 
safety. Regarding whether equivalent LED replacements exist (i.e., 
lamps with reasonably the same form factor and light output but that 
use LED technology), see section III.A.4.f.iv.
    DOE has decided to revise specifications for lamp diameter and a 
specialty application label in the definition of specialty MR lamp. To 
include specialty MR16 lamps, DOE has revised the diameter requirement 
to include MR lamps with diameters of 2.25 inches or less. DOE 
continues to include smaller MR-shaped lamps (such as MR11s and MR14s) 
in the definition of specialty MR lamp because DOE found numerous 
smaller MR-shaped lamps marketed for use in specialty

[[Page 7309]]

applications. DOE agrees that by listing all applications of specialty 
MR lamps in the definition, it may inadvertently fail to include one. 
As such, DOE has removed the long list of applications from the 
specialty MR lamp definition. However, DOE has maintained the 
requirement that the lamp be designed and marketed for a specialty 
application. DOE believes this requirement will further convey to 
consumers that the lamp is not intended for general service 
applications.
    DOE has also decided to add a specification for lifetime in the 
definition of specialty MR lamp. DOE has reviewed available product 
information and agrees that this qualifier should be added to ensure 
only specialty MR lamps are included in the definition. DOE agrees with 
stakeholders that specialty MR lamps tend to have short lifetimes 
because lumen output is valued over their longevity. CEC suggested a 
lifetime requirement of 300 hours or less whereas industry suggested a 
lifetime requirement of 1,000 hours or less. DOE notes that 1,000 hours 
is the same lifetime as many lamps used in general service 
applications, such as GSILs. Furthermore, DOE reviewed available 
specialty lamps and found that the majority had a lifetime of 300 hours 
or less. DOE is therefore including a requirement that specialty MR 
lamps have a lifetime of 300 hours or less in the definition adopted in 
this final rule.
    Although DOE also received comments regarding voltage and wattage 
(or lumen output), DOE is not including requirements for these 
quantities in the definition of specialty MR lamp. As described in 
section III.A.4.e, DOE has modified the input voltage requirements for 
all general service lamps. DOE has included in the definition of GSL 
non-integrated lamps that operate at any voltage and integrated lamps 
that are capable of operating at 12 V, 24 V, 100 to 130 V, 220 to 240 
V, and 277 V. Lamps that cannot operate at these voltages are not 
included in the definition of general service lamp. DOE has found that 
it is not necessary to limit input voltage requirements for specialty 
MR lamps beyond the requirements already established for general 
service lamps. Regarding light output, DOE believes that there are 
certain lamps that cannot be made with fluorescent or LED technology 
while reasonably maintaining the same form factor and light output. 
These lamps are discussed in section III.A.4.a.
iii. R20 Short Lamps
    As recounted in the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE determined in a final 
rule published on November 14, 2013 that standards for R20 short lamps 
would not result in significant energy savings because such lamps are 
designed for special applications or have special characteristics not 
available in reasonably substitutable lamp types. 78 FR 68331, 68340. 
Therefore, DOE proposed in the October 2016 NOPDDA to maintain the 
exemption for these lamps from GSIL and exempt R20 short lamps from the 
definition of GSL. 81 FR 71806. As described in section III.A.1.a, DOE 
is maintaining this exemption in this final rule.
iv. Other Specialty Lamps
    As described in section III.A.4.a, DOE believes there are three 
main categories of lamps: (1) Lamps with more efficient, equivalent 
replacements (i.e., the same form factor and light output); (2) lamps 
currently without equivalent replacements but for which replacements 
can likely be made in the future; and (3) lamps for which industry is 
unlikely to ever be able to create equivalent replacements using more 
efficient technology. Regarding the third category of lamps, DOE has 
concluded that some form factor and light output combinations are 
unlikely to ever be available using more efficient technology due to 
technical limitations. As discussed in section III.A.4.a, DOE is 
declining to determine that lamps with those particular characteristics 
are used for traditional GSIL applications, and DOE is accordingly not 
including those lamps as GSLs.
    Utility Coalition agreed with DOE's process to begin with a broad 
scope and exempt products that do not have general service applications 
or do not have an LED replacement. Utility Coalition stressed that DOE 
should only exempt products if commenters can specifically explain why 
a product cannot be manufactured with LED technology. (Utility 
Coalition, No. 95 at p. 4)
    Several stakeholders provided specific examples of lamps that do 
not have more efficient, equivalent replacements. Westinghouse noted 
that for certain incandescent/halogen specialty lamps there is no 
design path to develop LED products with equivalent lumen output and 
similar form factor. Hence Westinghouse noted that because they are 
specialty and not available in more efficient technology, they should 
not be included in the GSL definition. Specifically, Westinghouse noted 
the following lamps: JC and JCD shaped lamps with G4, G8, G9, GU4, 
GU7.9, GU8, GY6.35, GY7.9, GY8, and GY8.6 base types; T shape lamps 
with diameters of 1 inch or less (T8 or smaller) that do not have 
medium screw bases; lamps with wedge bases; T shape lamps with 
diameters of 0.75 inch or less (T6 or smaller) with double-ended double 
contact, metal fin bases; and miniature reflector lamps with diameter 
less than 2 inches. (Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 126-129; Westinghouse, 
No. 89 at pp. 1-2) Maxlite agreed, commenting that lamps operating at 
12 V with small bases such as G4, G9, wedge, and festoon, are typically 
halogen lamps with high lumens and when made in LED form, are 
significantly larger and no longer fit in the traditional luminaires 
for which they were designed. GE and NEMA added that halogen bipin 
lamps cannot be made using LED technology and should not be included as 
general service lamps. (Maxlite, No. 83 at pp. 133-134; NEMA, No. 83 at 
pp. 52-53; GE, No. 88 at p. 4)
    GE stated that if specialty MR lamps are exempt from the GSL 
definition, specialty PAR lamps should be exempted as well. GE 
explained that only PAR20, 30, and 38 lamps with medium screw bases 
that operate at 120 V are used in general service applications. All 
other PAR lamps should be considered specialty PAR lamps. (GE, No. 88 
at p. 3)
    NEMA and GE expressed concern that including lamps of all voltages 
and base types in the GSL definition would include specialty lamps. 
(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 27-28; GE, No. 88 at p. 5) NEMA stated that LED 
replacements do not exist for the following applications: Airport; 
airplane; airway; locomotive; automobiles; photographic; stage; studio; 
medical; and dental. GE added the following to NEMA's list of 
applications for which equivalent LED replacements do not exist: 
Projection; television service; headlight; street railway or other 
transportation service; microscope; map; and microfilm or other 
specialized equipment service. Hence the inclusion of these lamp types 
in the GSL definition may create an absence of products resulting in 
safety and security concerns. Philips also stated that it was important 
to maintain the incandescent/halogen versions because recent Caliper 
reports indicate issues with compatibility of LED reflector lamps with 
dimming/control systems. (Philips, No. 96 at p. 6) NEMA submitted ANSI 
Special Report 24f that provides details on some but not all specialty 
lamps. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 27-28; GE, No. 88 at p. 4)
    In contrast, Utility Coalition stated that LED replacements are 
widely available in an array of screw bases like medium screw bases 
(E26/E27);

[[Page 7310]]

candelabra bases (E12); mogul bases (E39); intermediate bases (E17); E5 
and E10 bases; pin bases such as G4 and G13; various sizes of GX, GU, 
GY, and GZ bases; wedge bases; and bayonet bases (BA). Additionally LED 
replacements of double-ended halogen lamps with recessed single contact 
bases are available. Utility Coalition also noted the availability of 
LED replacements in a wide array of lamp shapes including A, R, PAR, 
BR, ER, MR, C, CA, F, G, E, and T shapes. Utility Coalition asserted 
that high efficiency lamps are affordable, noting that CFLs are below 
$2-3, and LED lamp prices are declining dramatically, with some 
available below $3-5. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at pp. 1-2) Utility 
Coalition also provided price data and trends on LED lamps based on 
data it has been collecting since 2013, which show that lamps with the 
highest efficiencies have dropped in price by at least 30 percent since 
2013. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at p. 13) Several other commenters, 
including NRDC, Soraa, ASAP, and NEEP, noted the wide spread 
availability of various LED lamp replacements. (NRDC No. 85 at p. 6; 
NRDC, No. 83 at p. 11; Soraa, No. 87 at p. 2; NEEP, No. 83 at pp. 13-
14; ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 98-99, 170-171)
    ASAP suggested using a similar approach as DOE's motors rulemaking 
and defining the specific base types and voltages that are problematic 
and excluding them from the definition of GSL. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 
120-121)
    In section III.A.4.a, DOE discusses the three categories of lamp 
identified: (1) Lamps with more efficient, equivalent replacements 
(i.e., the same form factor and light output); (2) lamps currently 
without equivalent replacements but for which replacements can likely 
be made in the future; and (3) lamps for which industry is unlikely to 
ever be able to create an equivalent replacement using more efficient 
technology. DOE has reviewed available product offerings to identify 
lamps that do not have equivalent replacements (i.e., the same form 
factor and light output) using more efficient technology. For some of 
those lamps DOE concluded that, based on information available at this 
time, it was unlikely that industry would ever be able to create an 
equivalent replacement using more efficient technology. DOE has 
therefore excluded them from the definition of GSL in this final rule, 
for the reasons given in section III.A.4.a. DOE has concluded that the 
remaining lamps without more efficient equivalent replacements can 
likely be made, but manufacturers have chosen not to do so because 
market demand is not yet sufficient. DOE has included those lamps as 
general service lamps. See section V for information regarding DOE's 
enforcement policy.
    After identifying lamps without more efficient equivalent 
replacements, DOE considered the size of the ANSI base, the dimensions 
of the bulb shape, and the lumen output gap between existing 
incandescent products and existing LED replacements to evaluate whether 
equivalent replacements could be produced. DOE determined that the 
larger the ANSI base, the greater the bulb volume, and the smaller the 
lumen gap between existing incandescent and LED products, the more 
likely that an equivalent LED replacement could be produced. Larger 
ANSI bases and bulb shapes allow for more space to accommodate a heat 
sink and/or additional electronics needed to support LED technology. 
For example, a medium screw base LED filament lamp can accommodate the 
electronics of an LED driver in the ANSI base. However, lamps with very 
small bases, such as wedge bases, or lamps with very small shapes, such 
as T shape lamps with diameters of 1 inch or less, cannot accommodate 
the LED driver and/or the LEDs themselves in the same form factor and 
light output combinations as is possible with incandescent technology. 
Furthermore, certain lamp types have already shown progress in 
developing equivalent LED replacements. For example, incandescent/
halogen candelabra base lamps with B10 shapes are available with lumen 
outputs up to 760 lumens. Equivalent LED replacements are currently 
available with lumen outputs only up to 500 lumens. A small lumen 
output gap between existing incandescent and LED products indicates 
that only modest improvements in technology, electronics, or design are 
necessary to increase product performance.
    After reviewing these factors, DOE concludes that lamps were 
included in the definition of GSL proposed in the October 2016 NOPDDA 
that should not have been included because they do not and likely 
cannot have equivalent replacements using more efficient technology. 
DOE is excluding these lamps from the definition of general service 
lamp for the reasons given in section III.A.4.a. DOE has determined 
that it must use a combination of shape, base, length, and diameter to 
capture all of these specialty lamps. The excluded products include: 
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ DOE notes that for several of these exclusions, the October 
2016 NOPDDA included references to appropriate industry standards to 
define terms like ``wedge base'' or ``EX39 base.'' DOE is omitting 
those references from this final rule because on further 
deliberation, it believes those terms are terms of art whose meaning 
will be clear to participants in the lighting market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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;
     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;
     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 E26/24, E26d, E26/50x39, E26/53x39, E29/28, E29/53x39, E39, 
E39d, EP39, or EX39 bases;
     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;
     J, JC, JCD, JCS, JCV, JCX, JD, JS, and JT shape lamps that 
do not have Edison screw bases; and
     Lamps that have a wedge base or prefocus base.
g. Lamps Subject to Other Rulemakings
    In the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR, DOE proposed that a GSL cannot be a 
lamp that is the subject of other ongoing rulemakings. 81 FR 14528, 
14543. In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed to discontinue this 
criteria regarding other rulemakings. DOE continued to exempt GSFLs 
from the definition of GSL. 81 FR 71806. Because the definition of GSFL 
and the supporting definition of fluorescent lamp are structured in a 
certain way, DOE added some exemptions to the proposed rule to exclude 
lamps from the definition of GSL that are specifically and currently 
excluded from the GSFL and fluorescent lamp definitions. For example, 
DOE exempted circline lamps, which were considered to be GSFLs in the 
January 2015 rulemaking but for which DOE did not evaluate standards, 
and DOE exempted fluorescent lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater because 
they are statutorily exempt from standards. However, DOE did not 
propose to exempt other lamps that were the subject of other ongoing 
rulemakings. For example, DOE did not specifically propose to exempt 
HID lamps that otherwise meet the GSL criteria. 81 FR 71806.
    NEMA agreed with exempting GSFLs from the definition of general 
service lamp, noting that Congress intended to

[[Page 7311]]

keep GSFLs out of this rulemaking because there were already energy 
conservation standards for these products. (NEMA, No. 83 at pp. 48-49) 
However, ASAP voiced concern that the proposed definition in the 
October 2016 NOPDDA was unintentionally applying exemptions for linear 
fluorescent lamps, such as those for cold temperature, impact-
resistant, and reflectorized lamp types, to CFLs. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 
20-21,109-110)
    After reviewing the proposed exemptions for fluorescent lamps, DOE 
agrees that some revisions are necessary to ensure terms related to 
fluorescent lamps are used consistently. In this final rule, DOE is 
adopting a definition of ``other fluorescent lamps, which grouped these 
exemptions and made clear that the lamps included are circline lamps 
and certain double-ended lamps that use fluorescent technology. An 
``other fluorescent lamps'' is a low pressure mercury electric-
discharge sources in which a fluorescing coating transforms some of the 
ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury discharge into light and 
include circline lamps and include double-ended lamps with the 
following characteristics: Lengths from one to eight feet; designed for 
cold temperature applications; designed for use in reprographic 
equipment; designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet region of 
the spectrum; impact-resistant; reflectorized or aperture; or a CRI of 
87 or greater.
    GE, NEMA and LEDVANCE pointed to what they saw as a contradiction 
in DOE attempting to include HID lamps in the GSL definition to be 
regulated when in a recent rulemaking DOE had determined that 
regulations on HID lamps were either not technologically feasible, 
economically justified, or would not result in significant energy 
savings. (GE, No. 88 at p. 4, NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 23-24, LEDVANCE, No. 
90 at p. 22, Philips, No. 96 at p. 4) NEMA noted that in the HID 
determination DOE had stated that significant energy savings would not 
result from standards for directional HID lamps. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 
23-24)
    GE stated that HID fixtures are never found in the home and are 
rarely found outside it. (GE, No. 88 at p. 4) Philips stated that 
because HID lamps require a ballast, are extremely expensive, and have 
a warm-up time, they are not typically used by consumers and thus do 
not pose a risk for lamp switching. (Philips, No. 96 at p. 5) NEMA 
added that 2015 sales for HID lamps with 4,000 lumens or lower were 33 
percent below 2012 sales and expected to fall. (NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 23-
24) LEDVANCE pointed out that currently there are no viable 
replacements for HID lamps. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 22)
    NEMA asserted that, had Congress intended for HID lamps to be 
included as GSLs, it would have done so expressly, but instead 
authorized DOE to regulate HID lamps as commercial equipment. (NEMA, 
No. 93 at pp. 23-24) Finally, NEMA and Philips stated there is no DOE 
test procedure for HID lamps. (Philips, No. 96 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 93 at 
pp. 23-24)
    LEDVANCE stated that should DOE regulate HID lamps as GSLs, it 
needs to exclude the lamps exempted from analysis in DOE's final 
determination for HID lamps. 80 FR 76355, December 9, 2015. 
Specifically, these were for lamps less than 50 W, directional lamps, 
specialty lamps, and lamps that run exclusively on electronic ballasts, 
which LEDVANCE asserted would eliminate most HID lamps from the scope 
of this final rule. LEDVANCE added that while direct LED lamp 
replacements are available for high wattage HID lamps, there are no 
such lamp replacements for low wattage lamps. LEDVANCE explained that 
to replace low wattage HID lamps, consumers would have to replace the 
entire fixture and DOE has not done the necessary payback analysis for 
this scenario. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 30-31)
    DOE acknowledges the various comments that HID lamps are primarily 
used for specialty applications. Given the particular characteristics 
of HID lamps regarding startup, DOE believes that the criteria it has 
developed for the ``other lamps'' category may not be adequate to 
support an inference that an HID lamp, in particular, is actually used 
in traditional GSIL applications. Accordingly, DOE will not include HID 
lamps as GSLs in this rulemaking and will continue to study the issue. 
DOE notes that if it notices an influx of HID lamps for the general 
service lamp market, then DOE may revisit this decision.
    DOE further notes that although DOE determined in the recent HID 
lamps rulemaking that standards for HID lamps are either not 
technologically feasible or not economically justified, that analysis 
was based on a different set of lamps than would be analyzed as part of 
a rulemaking for GSLs. For example, the HID lamp determination 
considered only mercury vapor, high pressure sodium, and metal halide 
technology. In addition, the determination did not analyze self-
ballasted or directional HID lamps, among other types. Thus, the 
previous determination is not relevant and an analysis conducted in the 
context of a rulemaking for GSLs could well come to a different 
conclusion. However, per the preceding discussion, DOE has determined 
to exclude HID lamps from the definition of GSL.
5. Summary and Adopted Regulatory Text Definition
    DOE proposed a revised definition of GSL in the October 2016 
NOPDDA. Westinghouse recommended DOE revise the definition of GSL to 
capture only those products intended by Congress to be regulated and 
exclude lamps which are specialty products or covered by existing 
regulations. (Westinghouse, No. 89 at p. 2)
    NEMA recommended the following changes to the proposed GSL 
definition: Include lamps that operate only at voltages between 110 to 
130 V or 11 to 13 V and have maximum lumens of 3,300; and exclude 
incandescent reflector lamps, specialty lamps, and specialty base 
lamps. NEMA also provided definitions for specialty lamp and specialty 
base lamps. NEMA defined specialty lamp as a lamp designed for and used 
in special applications and listed the current 22 exempted lamp types 
specified in the GSIL definition. NEMA defined a specialty base lamp as 
a lamp with an intermediate base (E17), candelabra base (E12), mini-
candelabra base (E11), bayonet base, double ended base, screw terminal 
base, medium side prong base, mogul prong base, recessed single 
contact, mogul screw, mogul bi-post, G53, double contact prefocus, 2-
pin GY6.35, 2-pin G8, and 2-pin G9 when used with any lamp; or 2-pin G4 
when used with non-reflector lamp. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 27) LEDVANCE 
supported NEMA's recommended changes for the GSL definition. (LEDVANCE, 
No. 90 at pp. 32-33) Philips agreed with NEMA's proposed voltage range 
for the GSL definition. (Philips, No. 96 at p. 6)
    GE recommended DOE modify the GSL definition to include only lamps 
with medium screw bases and candelabra bases; that operate between 110 
and 130 V or at 12 V, have maximum lumens at 3,300, and ``satisfy 
lighting applications traditionally served by general service 
incandescent lamps;'' and exclude HID lamps. Additionally, GE suggested 
the definition exclude lamps with the following applications: Airway, 
airport, aircraft, photo, projection, stage, studio or television 
service, headlight, locomotive, street railway, or other transportation 
service; medical or dental service, microscope, map, microfilm, or 
other specialized equipment service. (GE, No. 88 at pp. 3-4)
    In the preceding sections, DOE has reviewed all aspects of the GSL

[[Page 7312]]

definition. DOE has identified the criteria pertinent to lamps that 
serve in general lighting applications and also identified specialty 
products that should be exempt from the definition of GSL. In this 
final rule, DOE is defining general service lamp as a lamp intended to 
serve in general lighting applications and that has the following basic 
characteristics: (1) An ANSI base (with the exclusion of light 
fixtures, LED downlight retrofit kits, and exemptions for specific base 
types); (2) a lumen output of greater than or equal to 310 lumens and 
less than or equal to 3,300 lumens; (3) an ability to operate at or 
between 12 V, 24 V, 100 to 130 V, 220 to 240 V, or 277 V; and (4) no 
designation or label for use in non-general applications. Regarding the 
fourth criteria, DOE notes that this requirement is not explicitly 
stated in the regulatory definition of GSL adopted in this rule. 
Rather, DOE has listed each of the non-general applications identified 
or lamps used in such applications in order to clearly define the scope 
of the definition. The definition excludes certain types of lamp, as 
discussed elsewhere in this notice.
    DOE notes that the definition adopted in this final rule excludes 
incandescent reflector lamps. That exclusion simply mirrors the 
exemption for IRLs from the statutory definition of GSL. DOE had 
proposed to discontinue the IRL exemption. But it is not reaching a 
decision on that issue in this final rule; DOE will address the status 
of IRLs in a separate final rule. Accordingly, as of this final rule 
the exemption for IRLs stands and DOE is replicating that exemption in 
its definition of GSL.
    Thus, DOE is adopting a definition of ``general service lamp'' in 
Sec.  430.2 to capture the criteria and the exemptions discussed in 
previous sections. A general service lamp is 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 of 277 
volts for integrated lamps (as defined in this section), or is able to 
operate at any voltage for non-integrated lamps (as defined in this 
section); 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 include, but are 
not limited to, general service incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent 
lamps, general service light-emitting diode lamps, and general service 
organic light-emitting diode lamps. General service lamps do not 
include: \20\ Appliance lamps, black light lamps, bug lamps, colored 
lamps, G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined in 
ANSI C79.1-2002, general service fluorescent lamps, high intensity 
discharge lamps, infrared lamps, J, JC, JCD, JCS, JCV, JCX, JD, JS, and 
JT shape lamps that do not have Edison screw bases, lamps that have a 
wedge base or prefocus base, left-hand thread lamps, marine lamps, 
marine signal service lamps, mine service lamps, 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, other fluorescent lamps, plant 
light lamps, R20 short lamps, 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, 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, sign service lamps, silver bowl lamps, showcase lamps, 
specialty MR lamps, 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, traffic signal lamps, 
incandescent reflector lamps. See the amendments to Sec.  430.2 for the 
definition of general service lamp in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ DOE notes that for several of these exclusions, the October 
2016 NOPDDA included references to appropriate industry standards to 
define terms like ``JT shape'' or ``EX39 base.'' DOE is omitting 
those references from this final rule because on further 
deliberation, it believes those terms are terms of art whose meaning 
will be clear to participants in the lighting market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Supporting Definitions

    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed several definitions to 
support its proposed definition of ``general service lamp.'' 
Specifically, DOE proposed definitions for ``integrated lamp,'' ``non-
integrated lamp,'' ``light fixture,'' ``pin base lamp,'' ``GU24 base,'' 
``LED downlight retrofit kit,'' and several terms to better define the 
lamp types described in section III.A.4 that are exempt from the 
definition of general service lamp.
    LEDVANCE and Philips agreed with the proposed supporting 
definitions and emphasized that further specifications were not 
necessary since manufacturers have produced no products that would take 
advantage of any potential loopholes. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 34; 
Philips, No. 96 at p. 5) CEC stated DOE should base definitions of 
exempted lamp types on physical and electrical characteristics rather 
than application, whenever possible. (CEC, No. 91 at p. 5) DOE 
discusses specific comments regarding the proposed definitions in the 
following sections.
1. Black Light Lamp, Colored Lamp, Plant Light Lamp, and Bug Lamp
    DOE proposed definitions for ``black light lamp,'' ``colored 
lamp,'' ``plant light lamp,'' and ``bug lamp'' in the October 2016 
NOPDDA. 81 FR 71807. DOE received several comments regarding these 
definitions.
    ASAP commented that while they supported DOE's approach of using 
the electromagnetic spectrum to define bug lamps, colored lamps, 
infrared lamps, and black light lamps, they would suggest defining 
exempted lamps by specifying a percentage of radiated power within a 
band of the spectrum rather than just a peak as stated in the proposed 
definitions. ASAP noted that fluorescent lamps, which can have multiple 
peaks in the spectrum, could become a loophole and therefore the 
definitions should be more specific. (ASAP, No. 83 at pp. 44, 99, 105)
    The proposed definition of black light lamp would require radiant 
power peaks in UV-A portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Typical 
incandescent lamps and fluorescent lamps do not have their highest 
radiant power peak in the UV-A portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. 
Hence, DOE finds that specifying this limited region of the lower end 
of the electromagnetic spectrum is sufficiently distinctive for 
identifying black light lamps. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is 
adopting the definition of ``black light lamp'' as proposed in the 
October 2016 NOPDDA. A black light lamp is a lamp that is designed and 
marketed as a black light lamp and is an ultraviolet lamp with the 
highest radiant power peaks in the UV-A band (315 to 400 nm) of the 
electromagnetic spectrum.
    The proposed definition for colored lamp would apply to lamps that 
satisfy one of two conditions--either a CRI less than 40 or a CCT lower 
than or greater than a designated value. NRDC, NEEP, and ASAP requested 
that DOE modify the definition of colored lamp to require that lamps 
meet both the CRI and the CCT requirement in order to be considered 
colored lamps. In addition, several stakeholders suggested modifying 
the lower CCT value. NRDC suggested changing the lower bound

[[Page 7313]]

CCT value to 2,100 K instead of 2,500 K because incandescent lamps have 
a CCT around 2,700 K, which is very close to 2,500 K. NEEP, ASAP, and 
Utility Coalition suggested changing the lower bound CCT value to 2,000 
K. NEEP noted that with advancements in color tunable lamps, there is 
little risk of eliminating lamps with lower CCT values from the market. 
In addition, NRDC and NEEP stated that the ENERGY STAR Lamps 
Specification V2.0 includes CCT values of 2,200 K and 2,500 K for 
filament lamps. Further, NRDC and Utility Coalition pointed out that 
filament LED lamps have CCT values below 2,500 K. NEEP added that while 
the lamps with a CCT of 2,000 K are quite visually orange, they are 
gaining popularity, and coupled with a high CRI, could serve as general 
illumination bulbs. (NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 12-13, 96; NRDC, No. 85 at p. 
10; ASAP, No. 83 at p. 20; ASAP, No. 94 at p. 6; NEEP, No. 83 at p. 97; 
NEEP, No. 92 at pp. 1-3; Utility Coalition, No. 95 at pp. 10-11)
    Maxlite noted that it had supported the inclusion of 2,200 K and 
2,500 K for filament lamps in ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification V2.0 as 
these are becoming popular colors for ultra-warm products. However, 
Maxlite cautioned DOE not to make categorizations of these CCTs part of 
the colored lamp definition. Maxlite explained that filament LED lamps 
with a CCT of 2,200 K or 2,400 K that are designed to mimic 
incandescent lamps were very popular when introduced. However, Maxlite 
stated that recent market feedback has shown a preference for a 
slightly higher CCT of 2,700 K. Westinghouse agreed that consumers may 
prefer a different color temperature because they have experienced 
consumers returning lamps with CCTs of 2,200 K and 2,400 K. (Maxlite, 
No. 83 at pp. 105-106; Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 101-102)
    NEMA, LEDVANCE, and GE stated the proposed definition of colored 
lamp was one that has been used by industry for many years and has 
proven to be both clear and effective. NEMA, LEDVANCE, and GE noted 
that changing the definition could have the unintended consequence of 
preventing colored lamps from being produced. In particular, NEMA and 
LEDVANCE explained that if the definition included CCT and CRI 
requirements instead of one or the other, then a number of colored 
lamps would no longer be included in the definition. NEMA and LEDVANCE 
stated that meeting just one criteria was sufficient to be considered a 
colored lamp. (GE, No. 83 at p. 104; NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 28-29; 
LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 34)
    CCT and CRI are both metrics that characterize the color of light 
emitted by a light source. CCT is measured by examining how close the 
light source's chromaticity is to the reference blackbody locus. CRI is 
calculated from the differences in the chromaticities of eight standard 
color samples when illuminated by a light source compared to a 
reference illuminant of the same CCT. Hence, each measurement provides 
an independent method of determining if the light emitted by a light 
source is colored. Regarding the proposed requirement of CCT less than 
2,500 K, DOE notes that ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification V2.0 includes 
CCTs of 2,200 K for only filament lamps. As noted by stakeholders, 
lamps with a CCT of 2,200 K are relatively new products and it is still 
uncertain how they will be used. Therefore, DOE is maintaining the 
lower bound threshold of 2,500 K for colored lamps. DOE will continue 
monitor the market to understand the impact of new products at low CCTs 
and may revise the definition of colored lamp in the future.
    ASAP also noted that in the ``colored lamp'' definition, as well as 
specifying that the lamp be designed and marketed as a colored lamp, 
DOE stated the lamp not be designed and marketed for general service 
applications. ASAP commented DOE had not added the latter prohibitive 
phrase in any other definition of an exempted lamp type and suggested 
DOE either remove it or specify it in all definitions. (ASAP, No. 94 at 
p. 7)

    DOE agrees that the term ``designed and marketed'' should be 
consistently used in definitions of exempted lamp types. Therefore, 
in this final rule, DOE removes the phrase ``not designed and 
marketed for general lighting applications'' because the definition 
of colored lamp already includes the phrase ``designed and marketed 
as a colored lamp.'' DOE is adopting a slightly modified definition 
of colored lamp in the final rule. A colored lamp is a colored 
fluorescent lamp, a colored incandescent lamp, or a lamp designed 
and marketed as a colored lamp with either of the following 
characteristics (if multiple modes of operation are possible [such 
as variable CCT], either of the below characteristics must be 
maintained throughout all modes of operation): a CRI less than 40, 
as determined according to the method set forth in CIE Publication 
13.3; or a CCT less than 2,500 K or greater than 7,000 K.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ DOE notes that the October 2016 NOPDDA included references 
to appropriate industry standards to define ``CCT.'' DOE is omitting 
those references from this final rule because on further 
deliberation, it believes CCT is a term of art well understood in 
the lighting industry.

    The proposed definition of plant light lamp would require radiant 
power peaks in the red and blue region of the electromagnetic spectrum. 
NRDC commented that plant light lamps could have radiant power peaks in 
the green portion of the spectrum in addition to the blue or red 
portions thus making them suitable for general lighting applications. 
NRDC recommended adding a maximum allowable CRI to ensure general 
service lamps are not characterized as plant light lamps. (NRDC, No. 83 
at pp. 96-97; NRDC, No. 85 at p. 10) ASAP agreed that the radiant power 
peak requirements specified for plant light lamps could easily be met 
by fluorescent lamps and possibly by incandescent lamps. ASAP also 
noted the availability and growing market of efficient LED lamps that 
emit light beneficial for plants and recommended that plant light lamps 
be included in the definition of GSILs. (ASAP, No. 94 at pp. 3-7)
    A high CRI is not required for the lamp to effectively function and 
emit the highest radiant power peaks in blue and red wavelengths. 
Hence, a CRI requirement is not appropriate for defining a plant light 
lamp. While DOE finds that requirements for radiant power peak may not 
be exclusively applicable to plant light lamps, the additional 
requirement that the lamp be designed and marketed for plant growing 
applications is sufficient to discourage consumers from using plant 
light lamps in general light applications. For discussion regarding the 
inclusion of this lamp type in the GSIL definition, see section 
III.A.1.b. In this final rule DOE is adopting the definition of ``plant 
light lamp'' as proposed in the October 2016 NOPDDA. A plant light lamp 
is a lamp that is designed to promote plant growth by emitting its 
highest radiant power peaks in the regions of the electromagnetic 
spectrum that promote photosynthesis: Blue (440 nm to 490 nm) and/or 
red (620 to 740 nm), and is designed and marketed for plant growing 
applications.
    NRDC commented that the definition of bug lamp, which requires the 
lamp to have a visible yellow coating, should also specify the amount 
of coating to prevent possible loopholes. However, GE commented that 
the requirement that bug lamps produce the majority of radiant power 
above 550 nm paired with the requirement of a visible yellow coating 
would prevent general service lamps from meeting the definition of bug 
lamp. They stated that the definition as proposed is sufficient and 
well understood by industry. (NRDC, No. 83 at p. 153; GE, No. 83 at p. 
154) ASAP stated that fluorescent lamps exhibit peak radiant power 
above 550 nm and therefore could easily meet the

[[Page 7314]]

definition of a bug lamp. ASAP added that some fluorescent lamps 
naturally appear yellowish due their phosphor mix. Noting a study that 
found that warm light LED lamps attracted fewer insects than 
conventional and bug incandescent lamps, CFLs, halogens, and cool light 
LED lamps, ASAP stated DOE should discontinue the exemption of bug 
lamps from the definition of GSILs. (ASAP, No. 94 at pp. 3-7)
    DOE concludes that requiring the yellow coating to be visible on 
the lamp is sufficient and quantifying it is unnecessary. DOE 
understands that the requirements for radiant power peak may not be 
exclusively applicable to bug lamps. However, DOE finds that the 
combination of requirements for radiant power peak and visible yellow 
coating should discourage this lamp type from being used in general 
service applications. For discussion regarding the inclusion of this 
lamp type in the GSIL definition, see section III.A.1.b. In this final 
rule, DOE is adopting the definition of ``bug lamp'' proposed in the 
October 2016 NOPDDA . A bug lamp is a lamp that is designed and 
marketed as a bug lamp, has radiant power peaks above 550 nm on the 
electromagnetic spectrum, and has a visible yellow coating.
2. Infrared Lamp
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed a definition for 
``infrared lamp'' to support the definition of ``general service 
lamp.'' 81 FR 71809. NRDC, Utility Coalition, ASAP, and NEEP stated 
that the proposed definition of infrared lamp, which states that the 
highest radiant power peaks are in the infrared region of the 
electromagnetic spectrum, describes any incandescent lamp. They noted 
that the definition's requirement that the primary purpose is to 
provide heat is the only difference from a standard incandescent lamp. 
NRDC, Utility Coalition, ASAP, and NEEP suggested several possible 
modifications to the definition. First, they recommended specifying a 
limit on the percentage of radiant power in the visible spectrum. 
Specifically, NEEP suggested stating that the lamp must generate more 
than 95 percent of energy towards heat rather than lighting and ASAP 
suggested that the share of radiant power in visible range be limited 
to a maximum of 1 percent. NEEP and ASAP suggested applying a wattage 
minimum to ensure that only infrared lamps were included, while NRDC 
recommended a wattage minimum of 125 W coupled with a minimum lamp 
diameter of 5 inches. Utility Coalition recommended an approach of 
using maximum lumen output whereas NEEP suggested using a lumens per 
watt limit. (NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 12-13, 94-95; NRDC, No. 85 at pp. 6-7; 
NRDC, No. 85 at p. 7; NEEP, No. 92 at pp. 1-3; Utility Coalition, No. 
95 at p. 10; ASAP, No. 94 at p. 6)
    Westinghouse commented that the proposed definition of infrared 
lamp is sufficient and that these lamps are not at risk for use in 
general service applications because of their low lumen output. 
Westinghouse added that a lumen range could be added if necessary. 
(Westinghouse, No. 83 at pp. 41-42) LEDVANCE and NEMA supported the 
definition. They explained that using ``and'' in the definition, to 
require an infrared lamp to have radiant power peaks in the infrared 
region and have a primary purpose of providing heat, means that these 
lamps would be distinct from any GSIL and prevent any lamp switching. 
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 29; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 34-35)
    DOE understands that the requirement of a radiant power peak is not 
exclusively applicable to infrared lamps. In this final rule, DOE 
reviewed the definition of ``infrared lamp'' and determined that most 
infrared lamps are at least 125 W. This high wattage aligns with the 
use of this lamp type to provide heat. Hence, DOE is including a 
wattage minimum in the definition of ``infrared lamp.'' In this final 
rule, DOE is adopting a slightly modified definition for ``infrared 
lamp.'' An infrared lamp is a lamp that is designed and marketed as an 
infrared lamp; has its highest radiant power peaks in the infrared 
region of the electromagnetic spectrum (770 nm to 1 mm); has a rated 
wattage of 125 watts or greater; and which has a primary purpose of 
providing heat.
3. Appliance Lamp
    DOE received comments on its use of the statutory definition of 
``appliance lamp,'' which is defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(T).
    NRDC and NEEP stated that appliance lamps resemble a conventional 
incandescent light bulb to a consumer, except they have smaller bulb 
dimensions, and therefore can serve as a replacement for 40 W 
incandescent lamps. NEEP explained that these lamps would particularly 
be attractive as a replacement due to their low price. NRDC recommended 
that appliance lamps should be able to operate in high temperature 
environments throughout the product's rated lifetime. This requirement 
would make the lamp more robust and expensive and therefore, an 
unsuitable replacement for general light applications. NEEP suggested 
adding the criteria of high temperature operation or a lumen maximum. 
(NRDC, No. 85 at p. 8; NEEP, No. 92 at pp. 1-3)
    Most appliance lamps are intended for use in a variety of 
appliances and therefore are designed to operate in low and high 
temperature environments. Therefore, a criterion for high temperature 
operation would not be appropriate for defining these lamp types. DOE 
finds that the specifications in the definition for designating and 
marketing the lamp for use in appliances is sufficiently clear, thus 
discouraging consumers from using appliance lamps in general lighting 
applications. DOE will continue to monitor the market and may revise 
this definition if needed in the future.
4. Marine Lamp
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed a definition of ``marine 
lamp.'' 81 FR 71808. NRDC and NEEP commented that additional detail was 
needed for the definition of marine lamps to avoid potential loopholes. 
NRDC noted that these lamps likely operate on 12 or 24 V and 
recommended that marine lamps be defined as not able to operate at more 
than 25 V. NEEP suggested adding at least one qualifier to this 
definition relating to either operating voltage, outdoor temperature 
operation, or waterproof capability. (NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 95-96; NRDC, 
No. 85 at p. 9; NEEP, No. 92 at pp. 1-3)
    DOE reviewed the performance characteristics of marine lamps and 
determined that most operate at voltages 12 V to 13.5 V. DOE finds that 
these operating voltages likely align with the use of these lamps in 
marine applications. Hence in this final rule DOE is adopting the 
definition of ``marine lamps'' with a voltage specification. A marine 
lamp means a lamp that is designed and marketed for use on boats and 
can operate at or between 12 volts and 13.5 volts.
5. Showcase Lamp
    ASAP commented that the proposed definition for showcase lamp is 
insufficient to prevent loopholes and that widely available 
incandescent showcase lamps could fit into many light fixtures. 
Additionally, ASAP noted that DOE is proposing to include many T shape 
lamps in the definition of GSILs and recommended that showcase lamps 
also be included. (ASAP, No. 94 at pp. 3-7)
    DOE finds that the shape and wattage specifications as well as the 
requirement that these lamps be designed and marketed as a showcase 
lamp is sufficient to discourage consumers from

[[Page 7315]]

using these lamps in general lighting applications. For discussion 
regarding the exemption of this lamp type in the definition of GSIL, 
see section III.A.1.b. In this final rule DOE is adopting the 
definition of ``showcase lamp'' as proposed in the October 2016 NOPPDA. 
A showcase lamp is a lamp that has a T shape as specified in ANSI 
C78.20-2003 and ANSI C79.1-2002, is designed and marketed as a showcase 
lamp, and has a maximum rated wattage of 75 watts. See the amendments 
to Sec.  430.2 for the definition in its entirety.
6. Traffic Signal Lamp
    NRDC stated that given their medium screw base and residential 
voltage as well as likeness to incandescent lamps, traffic signal lamps 
would appeal to consumers. Further, the unique characteristics of a 
strengthened filament and longer life liken these lamps to vibration 
and rough service lamps. NRDC recommended that DOE remove the exemption 
for traffic signal lamps to avoid potential lamp switching scenarios. 
NRDC also commented that LED lamps already meet the needs of traffic 
signal lamps. (NRDC, No. 85 at p. 8)
    NEMA and LEDVANCE agreed with the proposed definition of traffic 
signal lamp. LEDVANCE explained that these replacement traffic signal 
lamps have a low lumen output, longer life, A21 shapes; and are more 
robustly constructed and expensive compared to a GSIL. LEDVANCE stated 
that due to these factors consumers would not use these lamps as 
replacements. LEDVANCE added that these lamps cannot be found in 
typical distribution channels such as retail stores. NEMA and LEDVANCE 
also stated that this type of lamp has seen dramatic decreases in sales 
because of the EPCA mandate to use LED technology in new traffic signal 
modules. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 30; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 35)
    In its review of the definition for traffic signal lamps, DOE found 
that most traffic signal lamps have a lifetime of 8,000 hours, which is 
longer than typical incandescent lamps. This distinctive characteristic 
aligns with the use of these lamp types in traffic signals, in which 
long lifetimes are likely a desirable feature. Hence, DOE is amending 
its proposed definition of ``traffic signal lamps'' to include a 
lifetime specification. Atraffic signal lamp means a lamp that is 
designed and marketed for traffic signal applications and has a 
lifetime of 8,000 hours or greater.
7. Silver Bowl Lamp
    NEMA and LEDVANCE agreed with DOE's proposed definition of silver 
bowl lamp. Both stated that this is a specialty lamp used for pendant 
and hanging light fixtures and that the lamp has an opaque silver 
coating causing the light to reflect towards the ceiling to create a 
specific lighting atmosphere. NEMA and LEDVANCE asserted that these 
lamps are not suitable for general service lighting applications. 
(NEMA, No. 93 at pp. 29-30; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 35)
    ASAP disagreed and recommended that the definition for ``silver 
bowl lamp'' be revised to include a minimum requirement for the 
percentage of total bulb surface that has a reflective coating. ASAP 
also suggested that the coating be required to be opaque. Finally, ASAP 
noted that more efficient alternatives to the incandescent silver bowl 
lamps are available and that silver bowl lamps should also be included 
in the definition of GSILs. (ASAP, No. 94 at p. 4)
    Manufacturer catalogs and product specifications do not provide the 
amount of coating used in silver bowl lamps and therefore, it is 
difficult to determine a consistent value applicable across all 
products. DOE agrees that an opaque coating is necessary for the 
primary purpose of the lamp to reflect light towards the lamp base. DOE 
has therefore included the term ``opaque'' in the definition. For 
discussion regarding the exclusion of this lamp type in the GSIL 
definition, see section III.A.1.b. In this final rule, DOE amends the 
proposed definition to specify an opaque coating and is adopting a 
definition of ``silver bowl lamp.'' A silver bowl lamp is a lamp that 
has an opaque reflective coating applied directly to part of the bulb 
surface that reflects light toward the lamp base and that is designed 
and marketed as a silver bowl lamp.
8. Specialty MR Lamp
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed to exempt certain MR-
shaped lamps that have smaller diameters than MR16 lamps and are 
marketed for use in specialty applications. In doing so, DOE found it 
necessary to establish a definition for ``specialty MR lamp'' to 
describe the lamps used in these specialty applications. As described 
in section III.A.4.f, DOE has revised the definition of specialty MR 
lamp for this final rule. A specialty MR lamp is a lamp that has an MR 
shape as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002, a diameter of less than or equal 
to 2.25 inches, a lifetime of less than or equal to 300 hours, and that 
is designed and marketed for a specialty application.
    NEMA recommended and LEDVANCE supported a definition for ``MR 
lamp,'' describing it as ``a curved focusing reflectorized bulb which 
may have a multifaceted inner surface that is generally dichroic coated 
and referred to as a multifaceted reflector lamp with a GU10, GU11, 
GU5.3, GUX5.3, GU8, GU4, or E26 base'' and providing information 
regarding common light sources and diameters used in the lamp type. 
(NEMA, No. 93 at p. 27; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 32-33) DOE does not 
find that a general definition for MR-shaped lamps is necessary to 
clarify the scope of this rulemaking. Additionally, the details 
regarding the bulb shape provided in NEMA's proposed definition are 
very similar to those in the ANSI standard that DOE references in its 
definition of ``specialty MR lamp.''
9. Designed and Marketed
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed a definition for 
``designed and marketed'' to provide additional detail regarding the 
use of the term in several of the supporting definitions. 81 FR 71809. 
NEEP, Utility Coalition, and ASAP recommended the addition of the words 
``prominently displayed'' in the definition to provide clarity in 
product labels regarding the application of the product. NEEP commented 
that this requirement would not overly impact the manufacturer's 
packaging process. Further, Utility Coalition and ASAP explained that 
this requirement would reduce confusion among consumers about how the 
lamp should be used. (NEEP, No. 92 at pp. 1-3; Utility Coalition, No. 
95 at p. 11; ASAP, No. 94 at p. 7)
    DOE agrees that the specification of ``prominently displayed'' 
would help ensure that the application for which the product is 
intended is clearly communicated to consumers. Hence in this final 
rule, DOE amends the proposed definition of ``designed and marketed'' 
to specify that the application designation be prominently displayed. 
Designed and marketed is exclusively designed to fulfill the indicated 
application and, when distributed in commerce, designated and marketed 
solely for that application, with the designation prominently displayed 
on the packaging and all publicly available documents (e.g., product 
literature, catalogs, and packaging labels). This definition is 
applicable to terms related to the following covered lighting products: 
Fluorescent lamp ballasts; fluorescent lamps; general service 
fluorescent

[[Page 7316]]

lamps; general service incandescent lamps; general service lamps; 
incandescent lamps; incandescent reflector lamps; medium base compact 
fluorescent lamps; and specialty application mercury vapor lamp 
ballasts.
10. Other Definitions
    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE also proposed definitions for 
``GU24 base,'' ``integrated lamp,'' ``LED downlight retrofit kit,'' 
``left-hand thread lamp,'' ``light fixture,'' ``marine signal service 
lamp,'' ``mine service lamp,'' ``non-integrated lamp,'' ``non-reflector 
lamp,'' ``pin base lamp,'' ``reflector lamp,'' and ``sign service 
lamp.'' 81 FR 71807, 71809. DOE believes the definitions for ``GU24 
base'' and ``non-reflector lamp'' are no longer necessary. DOE did not 
receive any comments on the other definitions and is adopting a 
definition for integrated lamp, LED downlight retrofit kit, left hand 
thread lamp, light fixture, marine signal service lamp, mine service 
lamp, non-integrated lamp, pin-base lamp, sign-service lamp in Sec.  
430.2in this final rule.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ DOE notes that for several of these definitions, the 
October 2016 NOPDDA included references to appropriate industry 
standards to define terms like ``retrofit kit'' or ``single pin base 
system.'' DOE is omitting those references from this final rule 
because on further deliberation, it believes those terms are terms 
of art whose meaning will be clear to participants in the lighting 
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although DOE received no comments on the definition of reflector 
lamp, DOE believes the phrase ``is used to provide directional light'' 
describes the function of a reflector lamp better than ``is used to 
direct light.'' DOE has therefore revised the definition of reflector 
lamp in the final rule. A reflector lamp is a lamp that has an R, PAR, 
BPAR, BR, ER, MR, or similar bulb shape (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 
and ANSI C79.1-2002) and is used to provide directional light.

IV. Energy Conservation Standards

A. Energy Conservation Standards Proposed in the March 2016 GSL ECS 
NOPR

    In the March 2016 GSL ECS NOPR, DOE proposed standards for GSLs. 
Although the October 2016 NOPDDA did not specifically address the 
proposed standards, DOE received a number of general comments regarding 
the proposed standards. CEC and RELS urged DOE to consider a minimum 
efficiency standard that achieves feasible and prospective energy 
savings for products in the GSL scope once the definition of GSL is 
finalized. (CEC, No. 81 at p. 1; CEC, No. 83 at pp. 32-33; RELS, No. 86 
at p. 1) CEC stated that significant energy savings would result in 
shifting from an incandescent lamp to an LED lamp or shifting from an 
LED lamp to a more efficient LED lamp for SDDLs and medium screw base 
LED reflector lamps. CEC also provided an estimate of current 
availability of LED replacements at 80 lm/W or higher for SDDLs and 
medium screw base directional lamps. (CEC, No. 91 at pp. 7-8)
    NEEP commented that given the range of LED products available on 
the market that are high quality and high efficiency, NEEP believes 
that the federal minimum standard for 2020 and corresponding scope are 
very achievable. (NEEP, No. 83 at pp. 13-14)
    This final rule adopts a definition for GSL, as well as related 
definitions. DOE is not addressing proposed standards in this final 
rule. DOE acknowledges the comments regarding the proposed standards 
for GSLs, and will address them at such time as standards may be 
finalized.

B. Backstop

    If DOE fails to complete a rulemaking in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv) or 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 beginning on January 1, 2020. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)) DOE received a number of comments regarding 
the backstop standard.
    CEC commented on the potential for DOE to exercise enforcement 
discretion if the backstop standard was applicable. (CEC, No. 91 at p. 
10) CEC stated that if DOE were to exercise enforcement discretion, 
that the backstop standard would still be applicable in the context of 
California building codes (which incorporate Federal appliance 
standards), and in the context of California's appliance efficiency 
standards (which require product certification for federally covered 
products). (CEC, No. 91 at p. 10)
    As of the issuance date of this document the backstop standard 
would not be applicable. The backstop standard is not applicable unless 
DOE fails to complete the rulemaking as prescribed by EPCA by January 
1, 2017, or 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv))

C. Preemption

    Federal energy conservation requirements generally supersede state 
laws or regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, 
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) Generally, preemption applies 
both before an energy conservation standard becomes effective, and 
after an energy conservation standard becomes effective. (42 U.S.C. 
6297(b) and (c)) For energy conservation standards applicable to GSLs, 
EISA 2007 established additional preemption provisions specific to 
California and Nevada. Namely, beginning January 1, 2018, no provision 
of law can preclude these states from adopting: (1) Standards 
established in a final DOE rule adopted in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv); (2) the minimum efficacy standard of the 
backstop standard (45 lm/W) if no final rule was adopted in accordance 
with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv); or (3) for the State of 
California, any California regulations related to the covered products 
adopted pursuant to state statute in effect as of the date of enactment 
of EISA 2007 (i.e., December 19, 2007). (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(vi)) 
Other than these narrow exceptions, EPCA's statutory preemption 
provision prohibits any state from adopting energy conservation 
standards for any type of GSL regardless of whether DOE sets standards 
for that type of GSL.
    CEC stated that California has already established a 45 lm/W 
standard with an effective date of January 1, 2018. (CEC, No. 91 at p. 
10) CEC stated that the technology neutral approach to the scope of 
GSLs would minimize lamp switching that would otherwise limit the 
energy savings and consumer benefits achieved by the 45 lm/W 
requirement effective January 1, 2018 in California and in January 1, 
2020 in the rest of the nation. (CEC, No. 91 at p. 1) Philips asked if 
CFL and LED reflector lamps would be GSLs under the definitions 
proposed in the October 2016 NOPDDA, whether they would be subject to 
the backstop standard, and if so, whether the backstop standard would 
preempt the California Title 20 regulation. (Philips, No. 96 at p. 6)
    Except for the narrow exception to the preemption provision 
provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(vi), the general EPCA preemption 
provisions apply to GSLs. Federal test procedures for GSLs supersede 
state test procedures that require testing in any manner other than the 
Federal test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)(1)(A)) Prior to the 
effective date of standards for GSLs, no state regulation regarding 
energy efficiency or

[[Page 7317]]

energy use shall be effective with respect to such covered 
products.\23\ (42 U.S.C. 6297(b)) Preemption continues to apply after a 
Federal energy conservation standard for GSLs becomes effective. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(c))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 42 U.S.C. 6297(b)(1)(B) provided California and Nevada a 
limited exception to the preemption of the standards for general 
service incandescent lamps, intermediate base incandescent lamps, or 
candelabra base lamps established in EISA prior to their effective 
date. The Federal standards have since gone into effect and that 
preemption provision is no longer relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Manufacturer Impacts

    NEMA noted that in response to the March 2016 ECS NOPR, it had 
commented that in 2020 manufacturers would have to supply the entire 
nation with general service LED lamps as incandescent lamps would not 
be available. NEMA had explained in its comment that this would mean a 
300 percent increase in the steady state demand and require tripling 
capacity for only that year. NEMA stated that the proposed definitions 
in the October 2016 NOPDDA increased the scope of GSLs to a wider range 
of specialty products than what was proposed in the March 2016 GSL ECS 
NOPR. Hence the projected spike in demand in 2020 would now be even 
higher. Therefore, NEMA encouraged DOE to either not impose regulations 
or postpone them for a few years on niche products. (NEMA, No. 83 at 
pp. 157-158)
    NRDC noted that stakeholders have known that standards set by DOE 
and/or the 45 lm/W backstop standard would be implemented in 2020. NRDC 
stated that sales from a recent quarter showing LED market share was at 
25 percent indicated that industry has done an amazing job preparing 
for this standard. Further NRDC noted that supply chains worldwide 
would be impacted as Europe and China are also phasing out incandescent 
lamps. Hence, NRDC asserted that industry would be adequately prepared 
for to meet demand in 2020. (NRDC, No. 83 at pp. 164-165)
    GE, NEMA and LEDVANCE urged DOE to reconsider its interpretation of 
the Appropriations Rider and EISA 2007 and pointed out that expanding 
the scope of GSLs will further increase the amount of stranded 
inventory and consequently the time it will take to sell the lamps, 
adding that a minimum of 2-3 years will be required to sell stranded 
inventory and exit the businesses. GE, NEMA and LEDVANCE stated that 
typically DOE allows existing inventory of noncompliant products to be 
sold after a standard goes into effect while the backstop standard 
prohibits sale of noncompliant products at a certain date. (GE, No. 88 
at pp. 5-6; NEMA, No. 93 at p. 31; LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 36) Philips 
and LEDVANCE added that enforcement of a prohibition of sale date would 
also impact the electrical distribution market. Philips recommended DOE 
consider a prohibition on manufacturing and not sales. LEDVANCE stated 
DOE should allow manufacturers and retailers to sell inventory they 
have on-hand before the date of prohibition. (Philips, No. 96 at p. 6; 
LEDVANCE, No. 90 at pp. 16-17) To avoid imposing severe financial 
burdens on industry, NEMA stated that DOE should withdraw its proposed 
expansion of GSL scope and evaluate discontinuing exemptions in the 
second GSL rulemaking Congress authorized to begin in 2020. (NEMA, No. 
93 at p. 31)
    CEC agreed that a prohibition on sale would pose difficulties for 
the industry. CEC noted that use of date-of-manufacture for the 
compliance date would be more easily enforced and would ensure that 
retailers are not unfairly penalized for incorrectly determining the 
exact amount of stock that can be sold prior to the compliance date, 
but CEC also commented that it understood the backstop standard to 
establish a date-of-sale compliance date. (CEC, No. 91 at pp. 9-10)
    NEMA also encouraged DOE to consider establishing an energy 
conservation standard that caps energy use (wattage) as it is 
significantly less burdensome compared to a lumens per watt 
requirement. NEMA explained a wattage limit is particularly applicable 
to rough service, vibration service, and shatter-resistant lamps, 
appliance lamps, intermediate base lamps, candelabra base lamps, T 
shape lamps and other lamps that have 40 W restrictions as well as high 
lumen lamps. NEMA stated because there is no hard evidence that lamp 
switching from general service LED lamps to specialty versions is even 
possible and will result in loss of significant energy savings, there 
is no reason for DOE to impose testing burden on manufacturers by 
regulating specialty LED lamps. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 11) In addition to 
test burden, Philips and NEMA noted the significantly increased burden 
on manufacturers if DOE required certification reports to be submitted 
for all products to certify to the 45 lm/W standard. (Philips, No. 83 
at p. 163; Philips, No. 96 at p. 6; NEMA, No. 93 at p. 11)
    NEMA noted that they, as well as domestic lighting manufacturers, 
are advocates for domestic manufacturing and employment. Thus, in 
addition to energy savings and energy efficiency, NEMA argued that DOE 
must consider the fact that the proposed rule will destroy domestic 
jobs. (NEMA, No. 83 at p. 16)
    However, NRDC and ASAP commented that many LED lamps are designed 
and produced by domestic companies, and therefore recommended comparing 
the number of jobs in the U.S. associated with making LED lamps 
compared to less efficient products. (NRDC, No. 83 at p. 46; ASAP, No. 
94 at p. 7) NRDC and Utility Coalition added that, to their knowledge, 
incandescent/halogen lamps by leading manufacturers such as GE and 
Philips Lighting are not made in the U.S. They cited domestic producers 
of SSLs and their employee numbers and asserted that domestic jobs 
related to designing, testing, and marketing LED lamps and their 
components would outnumber domestic jobs related to production of 
incandescent lamps. (Utility Coalition, No. 95 at pp. 5-6; NRDC, No. 85 
at pp. 10-11)
    DOE acknowledges that manufacturers may face a difficult transition 
if required to comply with a 45 lm/W standard. Manufacturers have 
voiced concern regarding the loss of domestic manufacturing jobs, the 
stranding of inventory, the ability to meet the demand for all general 
service lamps with lamps using LED technology, and the burden 
associated with testing and certifying compliance for all general 
service lamps in DOE's Compliance Certification Management System 
(CCMS). Manufacturers have requested an end to or delay in imposing any 
new standards for general service lamps and a two to three year delay 
in enforcing the backstop standard.
    DOE is committed to working with manufacturers to ensure a 
successful transition if the backstop standard goes into effect.\24\ 
DOE will continue to have an active dialogue with industry, including 
meetings and other stakeholder outreach, throughout the period between 
publication of this rule and the compliance date of any backstop 
standard for general service

[[Page 7318]]

lamps. During this period, DOE will keep stakeholders and the public 
apprised of its plans for any broad exercise of enforcement discretion 
with respect to the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In that vein, DOE also notes NEMA's comment that because 
the backstop requires DOE to ``prohibit sales,'' it could present a 
substantial practical difficulty regarding compliance. For most 
products, NEMA states, after a standard comes into effect 
distributors can continue to sell inventory still on hand that 
complied with the previous standard. If, by contrast, distributors 
cannot sell old lamp inventory after January 1, 2020, that inventory 
will be stranded. Although it is premature for DOE to explain in 
detail how the backstop would work if it comes into force, DOE notes 
that under subsection (i)(2), ``it shall not be unlawful for a 
manufacturer to sell a lamp which is in compliance with the law at 
the time such lamp was manufactured.'' DOE expects it would 
interpret and apply the backstop with subsection (i)(2) in mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Clarifications to Regulatory Text

    In the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE proposed editorial modifications to 
regulatory text to align with the recently adopted test procedure for 
integrated LED lamps. Specifically, DOE proposed changes to 10 CFR 
429.56 regarding the certification and reporting requirements of 
integrated LED lamps. In the July 2016 LED test procedure (TP) final 
rule, DOE adopted the requirement that testing of integrated LED lamps 
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). 
81 FR 43404, 43419 (July 1, 2016). To align with this requirement, DOE 
proposed in the October 2016 NOPDDA to modify the certification report 
language in 429.56(b)(2) to specify that the testing laboratory's ILAC 
accreditation body's identification number or other approved 
identification assigned by the ILAC accreditation body must be included 
in the certification report. In addition, DOE proposed that 
manufacturers must also report CRI in the certification report for 
integrated LED lamps. 81 FR 71809.
    LEDVANCE requested clarification on DOE's citation of an ILAC 
accreditor identification number while NEMA pointed out that there are 
no identification numbers for ILAC accreditors. NEMA, LEDVANCE, and 
Philips also asked DOE to reconsider including CRI in the certification 
reporting requirements to minimize the regulatory and testing burden 
especially because CRI is not a part of the energy conservation 
standard for general service incandescent lamps or general service LED 
lamps. (LEDVANCE, No. 90 at p. 35; NEMA, No. 93 at p. 30; Philips, No. 
96 at p. 5)
    This final rule document finalizes the definition for GSL and 
related definitions. DOE is not making changes to the certification and 
reporting requirements in this final rule. DOE recognizes the comments 
received regarding the reporting of a testing laboratory's ILAC 
accreditation number and the reporting of the CRI for integrated lamps, 
and will address these comments to the extent the proposed revisions 
are considered at a later date.

VII. Effective Date

    For the changes described in the various definitions in this final 
rule, DOE is adopting a January 1, 2020 effective date.

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    This final rule neither implements nor seeks to enforce any 
standard. Rather, this final rule merely defines what constitutes a 
GSIL and what constitutes a GSL. Lamps that are GSLs will become 
subject to either a standard developed by DOE or to a 45 lm/W backstop 
standard, but this rule does not determine what standard will be 
applicable to lamps that are being newly included as GSLs. Accordingly, 
this action does not constitute a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
    NEMA commented that DOE failed to meet the requirements of 
Executive Order 12866 in that DOE did not consider regulatory 
alternatives to the regulation adopted in this document including the 
alternative of not regulating and that DOE must choose the regulatory 
approach that maximizes net benefits unless a statute requires another 
regulatory approach. (NEMA, No. 93 at p. 10)
    As explained throughout the preamble, DOE has undertaken revisions 
to the GSIL and GSL definitions as authorized by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)) In amending the definitions, DOE considered the 
potential that lamps exempted from the definition of GSL would create 
loopholes should a GSL standard or standards be adopted. However, this 
rule does not establish standards.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires that 
when an agency promulgates a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553, after being 
required by that section or any other law to publish a general NOPR, 
the agency shall prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
(FRFA), unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed the definitions for GSL and related terms adopted in 
this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE 
certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for 
this certification is set forth in the following paragraphs.
    For manufacturers of GSLs, the SBA has set a size threshold, which 
defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the 
purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size 
standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to 
the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards 
are listed by NAICS code and industry description and are available at 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 
Manufacturing of GSLs is classified under NAICS 335110, ``Electric Lamp 
Bulb and Part Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 
employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business 
for this category.
    To estimate the number of companies that could be small businesses 
that manufacture GSLs covered by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a 
market survey using publicly available information. DOE's research 
involved information provided by trade associations (e.g., NEMA \25\) 
and information from DOE's CCMS Database,\26\ EPA's ENERGY STAR 
Certified Light Bulbs Database,\27\ DOE's LED Lighting Facts 
Database,\28\ previous rulemakings, individual company Web sites, SBA's 
database, and market research tools (e.g., Hoover's reports \29\). DOE 
used information from these sources to create a list of companies that 
potentially manufacture or sell GSLs and would be impacted by this

[[Page 7319]]

rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that do not offer products 
covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a ``small 
business,'' or are completely foreign owned and operated. DOE 
determined that nine companies are small businesses that maintain 
domestic production facilities for general service lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ National Electric Manufacturers Association [verbarlm] 
Member Products [verbarlm] Lighting Systems [verbarlm] Related 
Manufacturers, http://www.nema.org/Products/Pages/Lighting-Systems.aspx (last accessed November 21, 2016).
    \26\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database [verbarlm] Lamps--
Bare or Covered (No Reflector) Medium Base Compact Fluorescent, 
http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (last accessed 
November 21, 2016).
    \27\ ENERGY STAR Qualified Lamps Product List, http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/Lamps_Qualified_Product_List.xls?dee3-e997 (last accessed November 
21, 2016).
    \28\ LED Lighting Facts Database, http://www.lightingfacts.com/products (last accessed November 21, 2016).
    \29\ Hoovers [verbarlm] Company Information [verbarlm] Industry 
Information [verbarlm] Lists, http://www.hoovers.com (last accessed 
November 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that this final rule merely defines what constitutes a 
GSIL and what constitutes a GSL. Manufacturers of general service lamps 
are required to use DOE's test procedures to make representations and 
certify compliance with standards, if required. The test procedure 
rulemakings for CFLs, integrated LED lamps, and other general service 
lamps \30\ addressed impacts on small businesses due to test procedure 
requirements. 81 FR 59386 (August 29, 2016); 81 FR 43404 (July 1, 
2016). The effective date allows reasonable time for manufacturers to 
transition, while reducing the number of redesigns needed, should 
manufacturers need to comply with a 45 lm/W statutory standard 
beginning on January 1, 2020. For these reasons, DOE concludes and 
certifies that the new adopted definitions do not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and the 
preparation of an FRFA is not warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The pre-publication of the general service lamps test 
procedure final rule was issued on September 30, 2016 and is 
available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/General%20Service%20Lamps%20TP%20Final%20Rule.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of GSLs must certify to DOE that their products 
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 
compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to DOE 
test procedures for GSLs, including any amendments adopted for those 
test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification 
and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-
information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is 
subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control 
number 1910-1400. DOE requested OMB approval of an extension of this 
information collection for three years, specifically including the 
collection of information adopted in the present rulemaking, and 
estimated that the annual number of burden hours under this extension 
is 30 hours per company. In response to DOE's request, OMB approved 
DOE's information collection requirements covered under OMB control 
number 1910-1400 through November 30, 2017. 80 FR 5099 (January 30, 
2015).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 
DOE has determined that the rule fits within the category of actions 
included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise meets the 
requirements for application of a CX. (See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, 
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and App. B, B(1)-(5).) The rule fits within this 
category of actions because it is a rulemaking that changes the 
definition of a covered class of products for which there are existing 
energy conservation standards, and for which none of the exceptions 
identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX 
determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an 
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this 
rule. DOE's CX determination for this rule is available at http://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt state law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the states and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this 
rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes federal preemption of state regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. 
States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on federal agencies the general duty 
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors 
and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a 
general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 
3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that 
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the 
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) 
clearly specifies any effect on existing federal law or regulation; (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the 
relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each federal agency to assess the effects of federal 
regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a

[[Page 7320]]

regulatory action likely to result in a rule that includes a Federal 
mandate that may result in 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 
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an 
agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to 
potentially affected small governments before establishing any 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 
18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy 
statement is also available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of 
policy and determined that the rule contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the 
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements 
do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this rule would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE 
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable 
policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This regulatory action to adopt definitions for GSL and related 
terms is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a 
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it 
is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a rule 
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the NOPR must 
inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In 
addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney 
General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 
concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The modifications to the definition of general service lamp and the 
associated supporting definitions adopted in this final rule references 
the following commercial standards that are already incorporated by 
reference in 10 CFR part 430:

(1) ANSI C78.20-2003, Revision of ANSI C78.20-1995 (``ANSI 
C78.20''), American National Standard for electric lamps--A, G, PS, 
and Similar Shapes with E26 Medium Screw Bases, approved October 30, 
2003.
(2) ANSI C79.1-2002, American National Standard for Electric Lamps--
Nomenclature for Glass Bulbs Intended for Use with Electric Lamps, 
approved September 16, 2002.
(3) CIE 13.3-1995 (``CIE 13.3''), Technical Report: Method of 
Measuring and Specifying Colour Rendering Properties of Light 
Sources, 1995, ISBN 3 900 734 57 7.

DOE previously consulted with both the Attorney General and the 
Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of referencing 
these standards and at that time received no comments objecting to 
their use.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

IX. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.


[[Page 7321]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 29, 2016.
David Nemtzow,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.


0
2. Section 430.2 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Black light 
lamp,'' ``Bug lamp,'' ``Colored lamp,'' ``General service light-
emitting diode (LED) lamp,'' ``General service organic lighting-
emitting diode (OLED) lamp,'' ``Infrared lamp,'' ``Integrated lamp,'' 
``LED Downlight Retrofit Kit,'' ``Left-hand thread lamp,'' ``Light 
fixture,'' ``Marine lamp,'' ``Marine signal service lamp,'' ``Mine 
service lamp,'' ``Non-integrated lamp,'' ``Other fluorescent lamp,'' 
``Pin base lamp,'' ``Plant light lamp,'' ``Reflector lamp,'' ``Showcase 
Lamp,'' ``Sign service lamp,'' ``Silver bowl lamp,'' ``Specialty MR 
lamp,'' and ``Traffic signal lamp;'' and
0
b. Revising the definitions of ``designed and marketed,'' ``general 
service incandescent lamp,'' and ``general service lamp.''
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Black light lamp means a lamp that is designed and marketed as a 
black light lamp and is an ultraviolet lamp with the highest radiant 
power peaks in the UV-A band (315 to 400 nm) of the electromagnetic 
spectrum.
* * * * *
    Bug lamp means a lamp that is designed and marketed as a bug lamp, 
has radiant power peaks above 550 nm on the electromagnetic spectrum, 
and has a visible yellow coating.
* * * * *
    Colored lamp means a colored fluorescent lamp, a colored 
incandescent lamp, or a lamp designed and marketed as a colored lamp 
with either of the following characteristics (if multiple modes of 
operation are possible [such as variable CCT], either of the below 
characteristics must be maintained throughout all modes of operation):
    (1) A CRI less than 40, as determined according to the method set 
forth in CIE Publication 13.3 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3); or
    (2) A CCT less than 2,500 K or greater than 7,000 K.
* * * * *
    Designed and marketed means exclusively designed to fulfill the 
indicated application and, when distributed in commerce, designated and 
marketed solely for that application, with the designation prominently 
displayed on the packaging and all publicly available documents (e.g., 
product literature, catalogs, and packaging labels). This definition is 
applicable to terms related to the following covered lighting products: 
Fluorescent lamp ballasts; fluorescent lamps; general service 
fluorescent lamps; general service incandescent lamps; general service 
lamps; incandescent lamps; incandescent reflector lamps; medium base 
compact fluorescent lamps; and specialty application mercury vapor lamp 
ballasts.
* * * * *
    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;
    (4) A colored lamp;
    (5) A G shape lamp with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined 
in ANSI C79.1-2002 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3);
    (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.
    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 of 277 volts for integrated 
lamps (as defined in this section), or is able to operate at any 
voltage for non-integrated lamps (as defined in this section); 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 include, but are not limited to, 
general service incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, general 
service light-emitting diode lamps, and general service organic light-
emitting diode lamps. 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 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3);
    (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 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), 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 (as defined in this section) that have a first 
number symbol less than 16 (diameter less than 2 inches) as defined in 
ANSI C79.1-2002 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) 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 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
430.3);
    (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

[[Page 7322]]

(diameter less than or equal to 1 inch) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), nominal overall length 
less than 12 inches, and that are not compact fluorescent lamps (as 
defined in this section);
    (26) Traffic signal lamps;
    (27) Incandescent reflector lamps.
    General service light-emitting diode (LED) lamp means an integrated 
or non-integrated LED lamp designed for use in general lighting 
applications (as defined in this section) and that uses light-emitting 
diodes as the primary source of light.
    General service organic light-emitting diode (OLED) lamp means an 
integrated or non-integrated OLED lamp designed for use in general 
lighting applications (as defined in this section) and that uses 
organic light-emitting diodes as the primary source of light.
* * * * *
    Infrared lamp means a lamp that is designed and marketed as an 
infrared lamp; has its highest radiant power peaks in the infrared 
region of the electromagnetic spectrum (770 nm to 1 mm); has a rated 
wattage of 125 watts or greater; and which has a primary purpose of 
providing heat.
* * * * *
    Integrated lamp means a lamp that contains all components necessary 
for the starting and stable operation of the lamp, does not include any 
replaceable or interchangeable parts, and is connected directly to a 
branch circuit through an ANSI base and corresponding ANSI standard 
lamp-holder (socket).
* * * * *
    LED Downlight Retrofit Kit means a product designed and marketed to 
install into an existing downlight, replacing the existing light source 
and related electrical components, typically employing an ANSI standard 
lamp base, either integrated or connected to the downlight retrofit by 
wire leads, and is a retrofit kit. LED downlight retrofit kit does not 
include integrated lamps or non-integrated lamps.
    Left-hand thread lamp means a lamp with direction of threads on the 
lamp base oriented in the left-hand direction.
* * * * *
    Light fixture means a complete lighting unit consisting of light 
source(s) and ballast(s) or driver(s) (when applicable) together with 
the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the 
light source, and to connect the light source(s) to the power supply.
* * * * *
    Marine lamp means a lamp that is designed and marketed for use on 
boats and can operate at or between 12 volts and 13.5 volts.
    Marine signal service lamp means a lamp that is designed and 
marketed for marine signal service applications.
* * * * *
    Mine service lamp means a lamp that is designed and marketed for 
mine service applications.
* * * * *
    Non-integrated lamp means a lamp that is not an integrated lamp.
* * * * *
    Other fluorescent lamp means low pressure mercury electric-
discharge sources in which a fluorescing coating transforms some of the 
ultraviolet energy generated by the mercury discharge into light and 
include circline lamps and include double-ended lamps with the 
following characteristics: Lengths from one to eight feet; designed for 
cold temperature applications; designed for use in reprographic 
equipment; designed to produce radiation in the ultra-violet region of 
the spectrum; impact-resistant; reflectorized or aperture; or a CRI of 
87 or greater.
* * * * *
    Pin base lamp means a lamp that uses a base type designated as a 
single pin base or multiple pin base system.
* * * * *
    Plant light lamp means a lamp that is designed to promote plant 
growth by emitting its highest radiant power peaks in the regions of 
the electromagnetic spectrum that promote photosynthesis: Blue (440 nm 
to 490 nm) and/or red (620 to 740 nm), and is designed and marketed for 
plant growing applications.
* * * * *
    Reflector lamp means a lamp that has an R, PAR, BPAR, BR, ER, MR, 
or similar bulb shape as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3) and ANSI C79.1-2002 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3) and is used to provide directional light.
* * * * *
    Showcase lamp means a lamp that has a T shape as specified in ANSI 
C78.20-2003 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and ANSI 
C79.1-2002 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), is designed 
and marketed as a showcase lamp, and has a maximum rated wattage of 75 
watts.
* * * * *
    Sign service lamp means a vacuum type or gas-filled lamp that has 
sufficiently low bulb temperature to permit exposed outdoor use on 
high-speed flashing circuits, is designed and marketed as a sign 
service lamp, and has a maximum rated wattage of 15 watts.
    Silver bowl lamp means a lamp that has an opaque reflective coating 
applied directly to part of the bulb surface that reflects light toward 
the lamp base and that is designed and marketed as a silver bowl lamp.
* * * * *
    Specialty MR lamp means a lamp that has an MR shape as defined in 
ANSI C79.1-2002 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), a 
diameter of less than or equal to 2.25 inches, a lifetime of less than 
or equal to 300 hours, and that is designed and marketed for a 
specialty application.
* * * * *
    Traffic signal lamp means a lamp that is designed and marketed for 
traffic signal applications and has a lifetime of 8,000 hours or 
greater.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2016-32013 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P