[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 236 (Monday, December 13, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70755-70771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26807]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2021-BT-STD-0005]
RIN 1904-AF09
Energy Conservation Program: Backstop Requirement for General
Service Lamps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of proposed rule; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to codify in
the Code of Federal Regulations the 45 lumens per watt (``lm/W'')
backstop requirement for general service lamps (``GSLs'') that Congress
prescribed in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended. DOE
proposes this backstop requirement applies because DOE failed to
complete a rulemaking regarding general service lamps in accordance
with certain statutory criteria. This proposal represents a departure
from DOE's previous determination published in 2019 that the backstop
requirement was not triggered. DOE welcomes comments on this proposal.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before January 27, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2021-BT-STD-0005,
by any of the following methods:
[[Page 70756]]
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: To [email protected]. Include docket number EERE-
2021-BT-STD-0005 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. DOE is accepting only electronic
submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this change poses
an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at
(202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once
the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, 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, such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2021-BT-STD-0005. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1943. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. March 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and October 2016
Notice of Proposed Definition and Data Availability
C. January 2017 Final Rules
D. September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and December 2019 Final
Determination
E. Subsequent Review
II. Proposed Rule
A. Statutory Backstop Requirement
1. Prior to the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule
2. September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and the December 2019 Final
Determination
3. Comments to the May 2021 RFI Regarding Operation of the
Backstop
4. Proposed Determination Regarding the Backstop Requirement
B. Scope of Backstop Requirement
C. Implementation and Enforcement
D. Consumer and Environmental Impacts
III. Conclusion
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
V. Public Participation
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of the EPCA, established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include GSLs, the subject of this
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA directs DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate
energy conservation standards for GSLs.\3\ (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-
(B)) For the first rulemaking cycle, EPCA directs DOE to initiate a
rulemaking process prior to January 1, 2014, to determine whether: (1)
To amend energy conservation standards for GSLs and (2) the exemptions
for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) The rulemaking is not limited to
incandescent lamp technologies and must include a consideration of a
minimum standard of 45 lumens per watt for GSLs. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) EPCA provides that if the Secretary determines that
the standards in effect for GSILs should be amended, a final rule must
be published by January 1, 2017, with a compliance date at least 3
years after the date on which the final rule is published. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(iii)) The Secretary must also consider phased-in
effective dates after considering certain manufacturer and retailer
impacts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv)) If DOE fails to complete a
rulemaking in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), or if a
final rule from the first rulemaking cycle does not produce savings
greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard
of 45 lm/W, the statute provides a ``backstop'' under which DOE must
prohibit sales of GSLs that do not meet a minimum 45 lm/W standard. (42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GSLs are defined in EPCA to include GSILs, compact
fluorescent lamps (``CFLs''), general service light-emitting diode
(``LED'') lamps and organic light emitting diode (``OLED'') lamps,
and any other lamps that the Secretary of Energy (Secretary)
determines are used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally
served by general service incandescent lamps. (42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(BB)(i)) The term ``general service lamp'' does not include
any of the 22 lighting applications or bulb shapes explicitly not
included in the definition of ``general service incandescent lamp,''
or any general service fluorescent lamp or incandescent reflector
lamp. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA further directs DOE to initiate a second rulemaking cycle by
January 1, 2020, to determine whether standards in effect for GSILs
(which are a subset of GSLs)) should be amended with more stringent
maximum wattage requirements than EPCA specifies, and whether the
exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or
discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)) As in the first rulemaking
cycle, the scope of the second rulemaking is not limited to
incandescent lamp technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii))
[[Page 70757]]
B. March 2016 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and October 2016 Notice of
Proposed Definition and Data Availability
Pursuant to its statutory authority, DOE published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') on March 17, 2016, that addressed the
first question that Congress directed it to consider--whether to amend
energy conservation standards for GSLs (``March 2016 NOPR''). 81 FR
14528, 14629-30 (Mar. 17, 2016). In the March 2016 NOPR, DOE stated
that it would be unable to undertake any analysis regarding GSILs and
other incandescent lamps because of a then-applicable congressional
restriction (``the Appropriations Rider''). See 81 FR 14528, 14540-
14541. The Appropriations Rider prohibited expenditure of funds
appropriated by that law to implement or enforce: (1) 10 CFR 430.32(x),
which includes maximum wattage and minimum rated lifetime requirements
for GSILs; and (2) standards set forth in section 325(i)(1)(B) of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)), which sets minimum lamp efficiency ratings
for incandescent reflector lamps (``IRLs''). Under the Appropriations
Rider, DOE was restricted from undertaking the analysis required to
address the first question presented by Congress, but was not so
limited in addressing the second question--that is, DOE was not
prevented from determining whether the exemptions for certain
incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. To address
that second question, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Definition and
Data Availability (``NOPDDA''), which proposed to amend the definitions
of GSIL, GSL, and related terms (``October 2016 NOPDDA''). 81 FR 71794,
71815 (Oct. 18, 2016). Notably, the Appropriations Rider, which was
originally adopted in 2011 and readopted and extended continuously in
multiple subsequent legislative actions, expired on May 5, 2017, when
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 was enacted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31,
div. D, tit. III); see also Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018
(Pub. L. 115-141).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. January 2017 Final Rules
On January 19, 2017, DOE published two final rules concerning the
definitions of GSL, GSIL, and related terms (``January 2017 Definition
Final Rules''). 82 FR 7276; 82 FR 7322. The January 2017 Definition
Final Rules amended the definitions of GSIL and GSL by bringing certain
categories of lamps that had been excluded by statute from the
definition of GSIL within the definitions of GSIL and GSL. DOE used two
final rules in 2017 to amend the definitions of GSIL and GSLs by
addressing the majority of the definition changes in one final rule and
addressing the exemption for IRLs in the second final rule. These two
rules were issued simultaneously, with the first rule eschewing a
determination regarding the existing exemption for IRLs in the
definition of GSL and the second rulemaking discontinuing that
exemption from the GSL definition. 82 FR 7276, 7312; 82 FR 7322, 7323.
As in the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE stated that the January 2017
Definition Final Rules related only to the second question that
Congress directed DOE to consider, regarding whether to maintain or
discontinue ``exemptions'' for certain incandescent lamps. 82 FR 7276,
7277; 82 FR 7322, 7324 (See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)). That
is, neither of the two final rules issued on January 19, 2017,
established energy conservation standards applicable to GSLs. DOE
explained that the Appropriations Rider prevented it from establishing,
or even analyzing, standards for GSILs. 82 FR 7276, 7278. Instead, DOE
explained that it would either impose standards for GSLs in the future
pursuant to its authority to develop GSL standards, or apply the
backstop standard prohibiting the sale of lamps not meeting a 45 lm/W
efficacy standard. 82 FR 7276, 7277-7278. The two final rules were to
become effective as of January 1, 2020.
D. September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and December 2019 Final Determination
On March 17, 2017, the National Electrical Manufacturer's
Association (``NEMA'') filed a petition for review of the January 2017
Definition Final Rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. National Electrical Manufacturers Association v. United States
Department of Energy, No. 17-1341. NEMA claimed that DOE ``amend[ed]
the statutory definition of `general service lamp' to include lamps
that Congress expressly stated were `not include[d]' in the
definition'' and adopted an ``unreasonable and unlawful interpretation
of the statutory definition.'' Pet. 2. Prior to merits briefing, the
parties reached a settlement agreement under which DOE agreed, in part,
to issue a notice of data availability requesting data for GSILs and
other incandescent lamps to assist DOE in determining whether standards
for GSILs should be amended (the first question of the rulemaking
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)).
With the removal of the Appropriations Rider in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017, DOE was no longer restricted from undertaking
the analysis and decision-making required to address the first question
presented by Congress, i.e., whether to amend energy conservation
standards for general service lamps, including GSILs. Thus, on August
15, 2017, DOE published a notice of data availability and request for
information (``NODA'') seeking data for GSILs and other incandescent
lamps (``August 2017 NODA''). 82 FR 38613.
The purpose of the August 2017 NODA was to assist DOE in
determining whether standards for GSILs should be amended. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(I)) Comments submitted in response to the August 2017
NODA also led DOE to re-consider the decisions it had already made with
respect to the second question presented to DOE--whether the exemptions
for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. 84
FR 3120, 3122 (See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)) As a result of
the comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA, DOE also re-
assessed the legal interpretations underlying certain decisions made in
the January 2017 Definition Final Rules. Id.
On February 11, 2019, DOE published a NOPR proposing to withdraw
the revised definitions of GSL, GSIL, and the new and revised
definitions of related terms that were to go into effect on January 1,
2020 (``February 2019 Definition NOPR''). 84 FR 3120. In a final rule
published September 5, 2019, DOE finalized the withdrawal of the
definitions in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules and maintained
the existing regulatory definitions of GSL and GSIL, which are the same
as the statutory definitions of those terms (``September 2019
Withdrawal Rule''). 84 FR 46661. The September 2019 Withdrawal Rule
revisited the same primary question addressed in the January 2017
Definition Final Rules, namely, the statutory requirement for DOE to
determine whether ``the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps
should be maintained or discontinued.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)
(See also 84 FR 46667). In the rule, DOE also addressed its
interpretation of the statutory backstop at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)
and concluded the backstop had not been triggered. 84 FR 46663-46664.
DOE reasoned that 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii) ``does not establish an
absolute obligation on the Secretary to publish a rule by a date
certain.'' 84 FR 46663. ``Rather, the obligation to issue a
[[Page 70758]]
final rule prescribing standards by a date certain applies if, and only
if, the Secretary makes a determination that standards in effect for
GSILS need to be amended.'' Id. DOE further stated that, since it had
not yet made the predicate determination on whether to amend standards
for GSILs, the obligation to issue a final rule by a date certain did
not yet exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to the
potential imposition of the backstop requirement did not yet exist and
no backstop requirement had yet been imposed. Id. at 46664.
Similar to the January 2017 Definition Final Rules, the September
2019 Withdrawal Rule clarified that DOE was not determining whether
standards for GSLs, including GSILs, should be amended. DOE stated it
would make that determination in a separate rulemaking. Id. at 46662.
DOE initiated that separate rulemaking by publishing a notice of
proposed determination (``NOPD'') on September 5, 2019, regarding
whether standards for GSILs should be amended (``September 2019
NOPD''). 84 FR 46830. In conducting its analysis for that notice, DOE
used the data and comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA
and relevant data and comments received in response to the February
2019 Definition NOPR, and DOE tentatively determined that the current
standards for GSILS do not need to be amended because more stringent
standards are not economically justified. Id. at 46831. DOE finalized
that tentative determination on December 27, 2019. 84 FR 71626
(``December 2019 Final Determination''). DOE also concluded in the
December 2019 Final Determination that, because it had made the
predicate determination not to amend standards for GSILs, there was no
obligation to issue a final rule by January 1, 2017, and, as a result,
the backstop requirement had not been imposed. Id. at 71636.
Two petitions for review were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule.
The first petition was filed by 15 States,\5\ New York City, and the
District of Columbia. See New York v. U.S. Department of Energy, No.
19-3652. The second petition was filed by six organizations \6\ that
included environmental, consumer, and public housing tenant groups. See
Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 19-
3658. The petitions were subsequently consolidated. Merits briefing has
been concluded, but the case has not been argued or submitted to the
Circuit panel for decision. The case has been in abeyance since March
2021, pending further rulemaking by DOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The petitioning States are the States of New York,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and
Washington and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
\6\ The petitioning organizations are the Natural Resource
Defense Council, Sierra Club, Consumer Federation of America,
Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants, Environment America,
and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in two separate petitions also filed in the Second
Circuit, groups of petitioners that were essentially identical to those
that filed the lawsuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule
challenged the December 2019 Final Determination. See Natural Resources
Defense Council v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-743; New York v.
U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-743. On April 2, 2020, those cases
were put into abeyance pending the outcome of the September 2019
Withdrawal Rule petitions.
E. Subsequent Review
On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order
(``E.O.'') 13990, ``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25,
2021). Section 1 of that Order lists a number of policies related to
the protection of public health and the environment, including reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering the Nation's resilience to
climate change. Id. at 7041. Section 2 of the Order instructs all
agencies to review ``existing regulations, orders, guidance documents,
policies, and any other similar agency actions promulgated, issued, or
adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or may
be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, [these policies].'' Id.
Agencies are then directed, as appropriate and consistent with
applicable law, to consider suspending, revising, or rescinding these
agency actions and to immediately commence work to confront the climate
crisis. Id.
In accordance with E.O. 13990, on May 25, 2021, DOE published a
request for information (``RFI'') initiating a re-evaluation of its
prior determination that the Secretary was not required to implement
the statutory backstop requirement for GSLs (``May 2021 RFI''). 86 FR
28001. DOE solicited information regarding the availability of lamps
that would satisfy a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W, as well
other information that may be relevant to a possible implementation of
the statutory backstop. Id.
DOE received comments in response to the May 2021 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--Written Comments Received in Response to the May 2021 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Abbreviation Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Energy Commission.......... CEC..................... State Official/Agency.
California Investor Owned Utilities... CA IOUs................. Utilities.
National Electrical Manufacturers NEMA.................... Trade Association.
Association.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Commenters........ Efficiency Organizations.
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Alliance to Save Energy, American
Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, National Consumer Law
Center, Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships, Northeast Energy
Efficiency Alliance.
American Lighting Association......... ALA..................... Trade Association.
China WTO/TBT National Notification & China................... Country Official.
Enquiry Center.
Sierra Club and Earthjustice.......... SC & EJ................. Efficiency Organization.
Connecticut Department of Energy and Connecticut DEEP........ State Official/Agency.
Environmental Protection.
Montana Environmental Information MEIC.................... Efficiency Organization.
Center.
National Association of State Energy NASEO................... Efficiency Organization.
Officials.
Utah Clean Energy..................... UCE..................... Efficiency Organization.
State of Washington Department of WDOC.................... State Official/Agency.
Commerce.
Climate Smart Missoula................ CSM..................... Efficiency Organization.
Southwest Energy Efficiency Project... SWEEP................... Efficiency Organization.
[[Page 70759]]
New Buildings Institute............... NBI..................... Efficiency Organization.
Urban Green Council................... UGC..................... Efficiency Organization.
Signify North America Corporation..... Signify................. Manufacturer.
State of Rhode Island Office of Energy OER..................... State Official/Agency.
Resources.
Consumer Federation of America, The CFA and NCLC............ Efficiency Organization.
National Consumer Law Center, and 24
consumer groups listed.
Oregon Department of Energy........... ODOE.................... State Official/Agency.
Environment America................... EA...................... Efficiency Organization.
VEIC.................................. VEIC.................... Energy Efficiency Utility.
NW Power and Conservation Council..... NW Power and Energy Efficiency Utility.
Conservation Council.
Colorado Energy Office................ CEO..................... State Official/Agency.
Individual Commentor.................. Johnson................. Individual.
Individual Commentor.................. Anonymous............... Individual.
Individual Commentor.................. Mary.................... Individual.
Interfaith Power & Light.............. IP&L.................... Efficiency Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments specific to the 45 lm/W backstop requirement and
implementation of the backstop requirement are summarized and addressed
in the following section. A parenthetical reference at the end of a
comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in
the public record.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's re-evaluation of the
statutory backstop for GSLs. (Docket No. EERE-2021-BT-STD-0005,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are
arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number at
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Proposed Rule
In this NOPR, DOE proposes a determination that the 45 lm/W
backstop requirement for GSLs at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) has been
triggered because of DOE's failure to complete the first phase of
rulemaking in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv). The
effect of this failure to complete certain rulemakings would be that
DOE must prohibit sales of GSLs that do not meet a minimum 45 lm/W
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v))
A. Statutory Backstop Requirement
As described in section I.A of this document, EPCA specifies
several criteria that DOE must adhere to in its first rulemaking cycle
for GSLs. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv)) If DOE fails to
complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv) of 42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) or if the final rule does not produce savings that
are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy
standard of 45 lm/W, clause (v) requires DOE to prohibit sales of lamps
with an efficacy below 45 lm/W ``effective beginning January 1, 2020.''
1. Prior to the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule
In the March 2016 NOPR proposing energy conservation standards for
GSLs, DOE explicitly addressed the backstop provision at 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(v). 81 FR 14528 (March 17, 2016). Specifically, DOE
stated that due to the Appropriations Rider, DOE was unable to perform
the analysis required in clause (i) of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) and as a
result, the backstop in 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) is automatically triggered. 81
FR 14528, 14540. DOE reiterated that it was not considering GSILs,
including exclusions or exemptions, in the rulemaking due to the
Appropriations Rider. 81 FR 14528, 14582. DOE further explained that
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v), if it failed to (1) complete a
rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv), which included
determining whether the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps
should be maintained or discontinued, or (2) publish a final rule that
would meet or exceed the energy savings associated with the statutory
45 lm/W requirement, then the backstop would be triggered beginning
January 1, 2020. Id. Thus, in the March 2016 NOPR, DOE assumed that the
backstop would be triggered beginning January 1, 2020. Id. Further, DOE
stated that lamps that meet the proposed GSL definition would be
subject to the 45 lm/W efficacy level and estimated an associated
energy savings of approximately 3 quadrillion Btu (``quads'') for lamps
sold in 2020-2049 and a carbon reduction of approximately 200 million
metric tons by 2030. 81 FR 14528, 14534.
In the January 2017 Definition Final Rules, DOE did not interpret
paragraph (6)(A) as requiring DOE to establish amended standards for
GSLs. 82 FR 7276, 7283. DOE stated that clause (v) expressly
contemplates the possibility that DOE would not finalize a rule that
develops alternative standards for GSLs. Id. In these rules, DOE did
not make any determination regarding standards for GSLs. 82 FR 7278,
7316. DOE acknowledged that the backstop would go into effect if DOE
failed to complete the rulemaking as prescribed by EPCA by January 1,
2017, or the final rule did not produce savings that are greater than
or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W.
Id. While not explicitly stating its assumption that the backstop
requirement would be triggered, DOE set a January 1, 2020 effective
date for the definitions rule, which coincided with the effective date
of the backstop requirement. DOE also noted its commitment to working
with manufacturers to ensure a successful transition if the backstop
standard went into effect. To that end, on January 18, 2017, DOE issued
a ``Statement Regarding Enforcement of 45 LPW General Service Lamp
Standard'' (``January 2017 Enforcement Statement'') stating that EPCA
requires that, effective beginning January 1, 2020, DOE shall prohibit
the sale of any GSL that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of
45 lm/W.\8\ In the enforcement statement, DOE advised that it could
issue a policy that provides additional time allowing for the necessary
flexibility for manufacturers to comply with the 45 lm/W standard. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2017/01/f34/Statement%20on%20Enforcement%20of%20GSL%20Standard%20-%201.18.2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and the December 2019 Final
Determination
In the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule, DOE concluded that the
backstop
[[Page 70760]]
requirement had not been triggered. 84 FR 46661, 46664. DOE stated that
it initiated the first GSL standards rulemaking process by publishing a
notice of availability of a framework document in December 2013,
satisfying the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i) to initiate a
rulemaking by January 1, 2014. 84 46661, 46663. DOE further stated its
belief that Congress intended for the Secretary to make a predicate
determination about GSILs, and that the obligation to issue a final
rule prescribing standards by a date certain applies if, and only if,
the Secretary makes a determination that standards in effect for GSILs
need to be amended. 84 FR 46661, 46663-46664. Since DOE had not yet
made the predicate determination on whether to amend standards for
GSILs, DOE found the obligation to issue a final rule by a date certain
did not yet exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to the
potential imposition of the backstop requirement did not yet exist and
no backstop requirement had yet been imposed. Id.
In the December 2019 Final Determination, DOE reiterated its
interpretation that the statutory deadline for the Secretary to
complete a rulemaking for GSILs in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii) does
not establish an absolute obligation on the Secretary to publish a rule
by a date certain. 84 FR 71626, 71635. Instead, DOE stated that this
deadline applies only if the Secretary makes a determination that
standards for GSILs should be amended. Id. at 71636. Otherwise, DOE
again stated, it could result in a situation where a prohibition is
automatically imposed for a category of lamps for which no new
standards, much less prohibition, are necessary. Id. In the December
2019 Final Determination, since DOE made what it characterized as the
predicate determination that standards for GSILs do not need to be
amended, DOE found that the obligation to issue a final rule by a date
certain did not exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to the
potential imposition of the backstop requirement did not exist and no
backstop requirement had been imposed. Id.
3. Comments to the May 2021 RFI Regarding Operation of the Backstop
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE stated that if it were to determine that
it did not fulfill the criteria in paragraphs (i)-(iv) of 42 U.S.C.
6295, the sales prohibition under the backstop requirement would affect
any lamp type that is defined as a GSL. 86 FR 28001, 28003.
Accordingly, DOE requested information about the lamp types discussed
in the following sections, including whether a phased implementation
would be appropriate for certain lamp types. Id. In addition to
comments and data regarding the efficacy and availability of certain
lamps, the Joint Commenters, CA IOUs, and CEC commented on the
operation of the backstop, asserting that it has been triggered. (Joint
Commenters, No. 19 at p. 13; CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2; CEC, No. 23 at
pp. 2-4)
The Joint Commenters asserted that the backstop has been triggered
because DOE failed to issue a new standard by January 1, 2017. (Joint
Commenters, No. 19 at p. 13) The Joint Commenters cited the January
2017 Enforcement Statement in support of their assertion and stated
that no subsequent action taken by DOE could change the fact that the
45 lm/W standard has been triggered. (Id.) The CA IOUs asserted that
the backstop has been triggered as a result of DOE not issuing
rulemakings by deadlines specified in EPCA. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 2)
CEC asserted that DOE failed to meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv). (CEC, No. 23 at p. 2) CEC stated because DOE was
unable to consider incandescent lighting technologies when it initiated
a rulemaking evaluating GSL standards on December 9, 2013, due to the
Appropriations Rider, DOE did not evaluate whether the exemptions for
certain incandescent technologies should be maintained or discontinued,
as required by section 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II). (CEC, No. 23 at p. 3) CEC
stated that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California had found that DOE likely failed to meet the requirements of
6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv).\9\ Id. CEC further commented that because DOE
failed to complete a rulemaking in accordance with subclauses (i)
through (iv), DOE does not have discretion regarding implementation of
the backstop. (CEC, No. 23 at p. 4) CEC noted that EPCA states that if
the Secretary fails to complete a rulemaking in accordance with the
statutory criteria, the Secretary ``shall'' prohibit GSLs that do not
meet the minimum 45 lm/W standards and that the Supreme Court has found
the term ``shall'' is ``unmistakably'' mandatory language.\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The matter cited by CEC was an order denying NEMA's motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California. At issue was whether California
regulations were excepted from preemption under 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(vi). National Electrical Manufacturers Association v.
California Energy Commission, No. 2:17-CV-01625-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.
2017). In denying NEMA's motion, the Court stated that ``the court
cannot conclude as a matter of law that [the January 2017 Definition
Final Rules were] `in accordance with' clause (i), much less clauses
(i)-(iv) [of section 6295(i)(6)(A)].'' Id. at p. 13.
\10\ CEC cited Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 (1990),
as well as a subsequent opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit interpreting the use of ``shall'' in EPCA (see Natural
Resource Defense Council v. Perry, 940 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.
2019)). (CEC, No. 23 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Proposed Determination Regarding the Backstop Requirement
Congress identified two circumstances that would trigger
application of the backstop requirement: (1) If DOE ``fails to complete
a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv)'' of section
6295(i)(6)(A); or (2) ``if the final rule'' promulgated under this
rulemaking ``does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to
the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.''
42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v). DOE preliminarily determines that the
backstop requirement has been triggered because both of the foregoing
circumstances have occurred.
a. DOE failed to complete the first cycle of rulemaking in
accordance with clauses (i) through (iv) of 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) for
at least two reasons. The first reason is that DOE failed to complete
this first GSL rulemaking timely. The structure of section
6295(i)(6)(A) reflects an expectation by Congress that by January 1,
2017, the outcome of DOE's GSL rulemaking would have been known, and,
if either amended standards or the backstop were to be applicable,
those would be in place no later than January 1, 2020.
The position DOE advanced in the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule and
the December 2019 Determination--namely, that the backstop provision is
premised on the Secretary first making a determination that standards
for GSILs should be amended and that the statute does not impose a
deadline for the GSIL determination--fails to give meaning to all of
the surrounding statutory text, as DOE is obligated to do. See 84 FR
46661, 46663-46664; 84 FR 71626, 71635; see also 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(iii). In looking at the surrounding context of section
6295(i)(6)(A) and 6295(i)(6)(B), it is clear that Congress intended
DOE's first GSL rulemaking to be completed by January 1, 2017--
primarily due to Congress providing interested parties a gap of time
between the conclusion of this rulemaking and the deadline for
compliance, thus giving interested parties time to adjust to any
changes.
In section 6295(i)(6)(A), Congress explicitly contemplated two
possible outcomes: (1) A final rule amending standards for GSLs, or (2)
imposition of the backstop of 45 lm/W. Under the first scenario, DOE
would have been obligated to publish a final rule by January 1, 2017,
with an effective date no earlier than three years after
[[Page 70761]]
publication--thereby giving manufacturers a three-year lead time to
prepare for the changed standards. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii).
Under the second scenario, the backstop would come into effect, but not
until January 1, 2020--giving manufacturers the same three-year lead
time to adjust to the forthcoming efficacy standard of 45 lm/W. See id.
at 6295(i)(6)(A)(v).
Even if the statute contemplated a third possible scenario--a
determination by DOE that standards for GSLs need not be amended under
which the backstop was not triggered--it is clear from section
6295(i)(6)(A) that Congress expected this determination would be made
no later than January 1, 2017.
This allowance for lead time is reflected in the preemption
exception provision in section 6295(i)(6)(A)(vi), which gives
California and Nevada the authority to adopt, with an effective date
beginning January 1, 2018 or after, either:
(1) A final rule adopted by the Secretary in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv);
(2) If a final rule has not been adopted in accordance with 42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), the backstop requirement under 42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v); or
(3) In the case of California, if a final rule has not been
adopted in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), any
California regulations related to ``these covered products'' adopted
pursuant to state statute in effect as of the date of enactment of
EISA 2007.
This provision allows California and Nevada to implement either a
final DOE rule amending standards for GSLs or the 45 lm/w backstop
standard on January 1, 2018, two years earlier than the rest of the
country. This provision thus assumes that California and Nevada would
have to have known whether DOE had completed a final rule amending
standards for GSLs by January 1, 2017, so that manufacturers subject to
standards in those states would have a practicable one-year lead time
to comply.
Lastly, Congress' mandate in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B) that DOE
initiate the second cycle of rulemaking by January 1, 2020, coincides
with a schedule in which standards are adopted (or the backstop is
implicated) by January 1, 2017 with a minimum three-year lead time.
In addition to failing to complete the first cycle of rulemaking
timely, the second reason why DOE's rulemaking was not ``in accordance
with clauses (i) through (iv)'' of section 6295(i)(6)(A) is because
DOE's rulemaking did not ``consider[ ] a minimum standard of 45 lumens
per watt for general service lamps.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)(II).
DOE considered GSILs only in the scope of the December 2019 final
determination analysis, with lamps having a maximum efficacy less than
45 lumens per watt. 84 FR 71626. While DOE did not analyze lamps other
than GSILs in the scope of the December 2019 final determination
analysis, DOE did look at the impact on GSIL shipments as a result of
consumers choosing to purchase other lamps, such as CFLs and LED lamps,
if standards for GSILs were amended as discussed in section VI.A of the
December 2019 final determination. Therefore, DOE could not have
considered a 45 lumens per watt standard level as part of that
rulemaking determination because of the GSIL limited scope.
b. Although DOE's failure to ``complete a rulemaking in accordance
with clauses (i) through (iv)'' is itself sufficient to trigger
application of the backstop, DOE also did not determine whether its
final rule (or rules) in this first cycle of rulemaking produced
savings that are ``greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum
efficacy standard of 45 lm/W[.]'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v). That is
an independent basis for application of the backstop under section
6295(i)(6)(v). Congress provided that the backstop would be imposed
``if the final rule does not produce energy savings that are greater
than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/
W.'' Id. In neither the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule nor the December
2019 Determination did DOE compare whether any energy savings resulting
from either rule would produce energy savings that are greater than or
equal to a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Although DOE did perform various energy savings analyses in
the December 2019 Final Determination, it was not the comparison to
a 45 lumens per watt efficacy standard required by 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(v). See, e.g., 84 FR 71632 (``The no-new-standards
case represents a projection of energy consumption that reflects how
the market for a product would likely evolve in the absence of
amended energy conservation standards. In this case, the standards
case represents energy savings not from the technology outlined in a
[trial standard level], but from product substitution as consumers
are priced out of the market for GSILs.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the foregoing reasons, DOE preliminarily determines the
backstop requirement in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) was triggered and
should have been effective as of January 1, 2020.
B. Scope of Backstop Requirement
Once triggered, the backstop requirement as specified in 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(v) directs DOE to prohibit the sale of GSLs that do not
meet a minimum requirement of 45 lm/W. DOE's current regulatory
definition for GSL is consistent with the statutory definition for GSL,
which includes GSILs, CFLs, general service LED lamps and OLED lamps,
and any other lamps that the Secretary determines are used to satisfy
lighting applications traditionally served by GSILs as defined in EPCA.
10 CFR 430.2. (See also, 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(i)) DOE's current
regulatory definition of GSL does not include any of the 22 lighting
applications or bulb shapes explicitly not included in the definition
of GSIL,\12\ or any general service fluorescent lamp or IRL. 10 CFR
430.2. (See also, 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As defined in EPCA ``general service incandescent lamp''
does not include the following incandescent lamps: (I) An appliance
lamp; (II) A black light lamp; (III) A bug lamp; (IV) A colored
lamp; (V) An infrared lamp; (VI) A left-hand thread lamp; (VII) A
marine lamp; (VIII) A marine signal service lamp; (IX) A mine
service lamp; (X) A plant light lamp; (XI) A reflector lamp; (XII) A
rough service lamp; (XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp); (XIV) A sign
service lamp; (XV) A silver bowl lamp; (XVI) A showcase lamp; (XVII)
A 3-way incandescent lamp; (XVIII) A traffic signal lamp; (XIX) A
vibration service lamp; (XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI
C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002 1 with a diameter of 5 inches or more;
(XXI) A T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002)
and that uses not more than 40 watts or has a length of more than 10
inches; (XXII) A B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp
(as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or
less. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By comparison, the definitions of GSL and GSIL as amended by the
January 2017 Definition Final Rules were broader than their statutory
definitions. On August 19, 2021, DOE published a NOPR to amend the
definitions of GSL and GSIL as previously set forth in the January 2017
Definition Final Rules (``August 2021 Definition NOPR''). 86 FR 46611.
Specifically, DOE proposed to adopt the definitions of GSL and GSIL as
previously adopted in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules by
amending the definition of GSL to be a lamp that has an ANSI base; is
able to operate at a voltage of 12 volts or 24 volts, at or between 100
to 130 volts, at or between 220 to 240 volts, or at 277 volts for
integrated lamps, or is able to operate at any voltage for non-
integrated lamps; has an initial lumen output of greater than or equal
to 310 lumens (or 232 lumens for modified spectrum general service
incandescent lamps) and less than or equal to 3,300 lumens; is not a
light fixture; is not an LED downlight retrofit kit; and is used in
general lighting applications. 86 FR 46624-46625. Hence, DOE proposed
that GSLs include, but not be limited to, GSILs, CFLs, general service
LED lamps, and general service OLED lamps. Id. Further, DOE proposed to
re-adopt the conclusion DOE made in the January
[[Page 70762]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Definition Final Rules that GSLs do not include:
(1) Appliance lamps;
(2) Black light lamps;
(3) Bug lamps;
(4) Colored lamps;
(5) G shape lamps with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined
in ANSI C79.1-2002;
(6) General service fluorescent lamps;
(7) High intensity discharge lamps;
(8) Infrared lamps;
(9) J, JC, JCD, JCS, JCV, JCX, JD, JS, and JT shape lamps that
do not have Edison screw bases;
(10) Lamps that have a wedge base or prefocus base;
(11) Left-hand thread lamps;
(12) Marine lamps;
(13) Marine signal service lamps;
(14) Mine service lamps;
(15) MR shape lamps that have a first number symbol equal to 16
(diameter equal to 2 inches) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002, operate
at 12 volts, and have a lumen output greater than or equal to 800;
(16) Other fluorescent lamps;
(17) Plant light lamps;
(18) R20 short lamps;
(19) Reflector lamps that have a first number symbol less than
16 (diameter less than 2 inches) as defined in ANSI C79.1- 2002 and
that do not have E26/E24, E26d, E26/50x39, E26/53x39, E29/28, E29/
53x39, E39, E39d, EP39, or EX39 bases;
(20) S shape or G shape lamps that have a first number symbol
less than or equal to 12.5 (diameter less than or equal to 1.5625
inches) as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002;
(21) Sign service lamps;
(22) Silver bowl lamps;
(23) Showcase lamps;
(24) Specialty MR lamps;
(25) T shape lamps that have a first number symbol less than or
equal to 8 (diameter less than or equal to 1 inch) as defined in
ANSI C79.1-2002, nominal overall length less than 12 inches, and
that are not compact fluorescent lamps;
(26) Traffic signal lamps.
See 86 FR 46625.
In the August 2021 Definition NOPR, in re-adopting definitions DOE
previously adopted in the January 2017 Final Definition Rules, DOE
proposed to amend the definition of GSIL to be 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. 86 FR 46624. 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;
(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.
Id.
In this document, DOE proposes an interpretation of EPCA by which
DOE determines that the backstop provision in 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(v) has been triggered and thus the sale of GSLs that do
not meet the 45 lm/W requirement prescribed by statute is prohibited.
DOE recognizes that, if the backstop were implemented, the sales
prohibition on GSLs that do not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45
lm/W would present different implementation challenges than most DOE
standards, which are based on the date of manufacture. Specifying a
date beyond which certain GSLs could no longer be sold could lead to
stranded inventory. DOE recognizes that manufacturers, distributors,
and retailers would need time to take steps to account for the supply
chain to avoid stranded inventory. As explained above, Congress
structured 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(v) so as to provide
manufacturers with a lead time (with a possible shorter lead time for
California and Nevada) to adjust to different efficacy standards--
either standards adopted by DOE through rulemaking or the imposition of
the statutory backstop. In addition, Congress expressly required DOE to
consider phased-in effective dates by considering ``the impact . . . on
manufacturers, retiring and repurposing existing equipment, stranded
investments, labor contracts, workers, [ ] raw materials,'' and ``the
time needed to work with retailers and lighting designers to revise
sales and marketing strategies.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv).
Therefore, Congress did not intend for there to be an instantaneous
imposition of a new 45 lm/W efficacy standard for GSLs. Such a possible
outcome exists now only because of DOE's delay in correctly addressing
the applicability of the backstop. DOE must balance Congress's intent
to facilitate a smooth transition to different efficacy standards
through the provision of lead time with the clear intent of Congress
that these different efficacy standards were to be in place as of
January 1, 2020. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(jjj), (v).
To best balance Congress's intent, DOE is proposing a 60-day
effective date if the backstop is implemented under DOE's proposed
determination as set forth in this notice. However, DOE understands the
practicalities associated with the implementation of Congress' backstop
that prohibits the sale of GSLs that do not meet a 45 lm/W efficacy
standard, and DOE's understanding is informed, in part, by the comments
received to the May 2021 RFI. In order to provide for a smooth
transition, DOE intends to account for the practicalities of this
transition to Congress's backstop efficacy standard through use of its
enforcement discretion as further described below. DOE invites comments
on these and further considerations relevant to informing DOE's
enforcement discretion.
C. Implementation and Enforcement
Were DOE to determine that it did not complete the first cycle of
rulemaking in accordance with paragraphs (i) through (iv) of Section
6295, the sales prohibition under the backstop requirement would affect
any lamp type that is defined as a GSL. In the May 2021 RFI, DOE
requested comment on a number of issues related to potential
implementation of the backstop requirement. 86 FR 28001, 28004.
Specifically, DOE requested information on the availability of and
market for lamps defined as GSLs and lamps excluded from the definition
of GSL; and if a lamp type within the definition of GSL or a lamp type
excluded from the definition of GSL does not currently have units with
an efficacy of at least 45 lm/W, information on whether it is possible
to create lamps in that category that perform at such a level and how
long it would take for those products to be sold at retail locations.
Id. DOE also requested comment and information regarding inventory
cycles, steps manufacturers/retailers would need to take to avoid
stranded inventory for lamps that do not have an efficacy of at least
45 lm/W, and how stranded inventory would be addressed, as well as the
associated costs. Id.
The Joint Commenters stated that there are a full range of LED
products that fall within both the statutory definition and the January
2017 Definition Final Rules. The Joint Commenters stated that these
products have a wide range of light outputs (including multiple light
levels such as 3-way bulbs), color temperatures (e.g., warm, cool
white, daylight), shapes (e.g., all sizes of candle, flame-tip, globe,
reflector), and base types (e.g., different-sized screw bases, pin-
bases), all from a wide variety of manufacturers; and that
[[Page 70763]]
there are also dimming and non-dimming versions and dim-to-warm
features which mimic incandescent dimming. (Joint Commenters, No. 19 at
pp. 8-9) The Joint Commenters stated that the majority of lighting
products sold by home improvement stores are LED products; discount
stores and hardware stores also carry a wide variety of LED lamps, with
online retailers providing an even wider range; and that stores with
less lighting shelf space (e.g., drug, grocery stores) have narrower
offerings for both LED and incandescent products. (Joint Commenters,
No. 19 at pp. 8-9) The Joint Commenters also stated that the world-wide
supply chain of LED GSLs is successfully meeting the growing demand,
including 60 percent of lamps sold in the U.S. today and that 27
countries in Europe, California, and Nevada implemented the 45 lm/W
standard and were able to meet consumer demand with LED lamps without a
problem, demonstrating that demand can also be met in the U.S. (Joint
Commenters, No. 19 at p. 12) CEC stated that new LED lamp models with
improved quality, energy efficiency, and wide ranges of lumens are
constantly being introduced in the market and that retail prices of the
lamps have also been declining. (CEC, No. 23 at p. 6)
The CA IOUs stated that they conducted a survey of 14 lighting
online retailers and collected information on 75,000 LED lamps, which
included a continuous range of power levels, light output both below
310 lumens and above 3,300 lumens, and many different base types. The
CA IOUs stated they also identified small, high output lamps which they
asserted are the most difficult to convert to LED technology due to
miniaturization of electronics and heat management issues. The CA IOUs
stated that this indicated that LED technology has matured, and
lighting manufacturers can provide LED versions of all GSLs covered
under DOE's January 2017 Definition Final Rules. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p.
4) CEC stated that except for some truly specialty lamps, CEC has not
seen major supply issues for lamps compliant with the 45 lm/W standard
in California. (CEC, No. 23 at p. 6)
NBI commented that states have been requiring GSLs with an efficacy
exceeding 45 lm/W in new residential and multifamily buildings for more
than a decade. NBI stated that a high percentage of the country's
construction activity is already covered by these lamp efficacy
requirements, and that the residential chapter of the 2021
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requires all lamps in
permanent fixtures to have an efficacy of no less than 65 lm/W and past
IECC codes required at least a 45 lm/W requirement. (NBI, No. 15 at pp.
1-2) VEIC stated that California, Nevada, Vermont, Washington,
Colorado, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have passed
lighting standards in the absence of a Federal standard and have not
had issues with product availability. VEIC also stated that the absence
of a Federal standard supporting the 45 lm/W requirement--requiring
states to enact their own legislation and enforcement--is creating
confusion in the lighting market. (VEIC No. 29 at p. 2)
NEMA stated that, regarding what it characterized as compliant
lamps that are not defined as GSLs, incandescent/halogen lamps have
been declining since 2007 except for rough service and vibration
service lamps. Regarding GSLs as defined under the existing GSL
definition, NEMA stated that, apart from a brief, forecasted spike,
incandescent/halogen lamps sales have been declining since 2007 and
CFLs have been declining since 2015 with only LED lamps increasing in
sales. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 2) NEMA stated that the decorative CFLs and
reflector CFL sales have been declining since 2015 and these lamps are
nearly gone from the market and only LED lamps in this category are
increasing in sales. (NEMA, No. 13 at pp. 2-3) NEMA further stated that
any incandescent/halogen lamps still being used in the commercial
sector do not have acceptable LED substitutes. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 5)
Citing the NEMA Lamp Indices, CEC stated that for the second
quarter of 2020, incandescent/halogen lamps accounted for 23.8 percent
of A shape lamp shipments. (CEC, No. 23 at p. 7) NEMA stated that, per
NEMA Lamp Indices of A shape lamps, almost 75 percent are LED lamps,
and NEMA estimated the proportion to grow and last due to the longer
LED lamp lifetimes. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 3) Citing a 2020 Northwest
study, VEIC stated that more than half of the general purpose lamp and
reflector lamp market was LED lamps. (VEIC, No. 29 at p. 1) Citing the
CREED Lighttracker (based on sales data) for 2019, the Joint Commenters
stated that LED lamps constitute 60 percent of lighting sales. (Joint
Commenters, No. 19 at p. 3; MEIC, No. 7 at p. 1; CFA, NCLC, No. 24 at
p. 1) Per this data, the Joint Commenters stated that incandescent/
halogen lamps constitute 38 percent of sales (CSM stated 40 percent).
(Joint Commenters, No. 19 at p. 3; CSM, No. 12 at p. 1) The Joint
Commenters estimated about a billion light sockets in the U.S. still
employ incandescent/halogen lamps. The Joint Commenters further stated
that, per the CREED Lighttracker, of A shape lamps, candelabra base
lamps, globe shape lamps, and reflector shape lamps, respectively, 58,
56, 50 and 84 percent were LED lamps in 2019. Citing the 2015 Lighting
Market Characterization report, the Joint Commenters stated that about
3.4 billion light sockets in the U.S. have A shapes and another 2
billion have a lamp type included in the proposed expanded definition.
(Joint Commenters, No. 19 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs stated they relied on the CREED Lighttracker data for
four popular lamp types (i.e., A shape, candelabra base, globe shape,
and reflector) to extrapolate 2020 U.S. lighting sales (excluding
California). Based on this assessment, the CA IOUs estimated 334
million U.S. incandescent/halogen lamp sales in 2020 (a decrease of 46
percent in two years). The CA IOUs also estimated that in 2020 one-
third of A shape lamps were incandescent/halogen; and of incandescent/
halogen sales, 78 percent were A shape lamps and 19 percent were
candelabra base lamps and globe shape lamps. The CA IOUs determined
that few reflector lamps were incandescent/halogen and that less than 1
percent of new lamp sales were CFLs in 2020. The CA IOUs stated that
this analysis showed that inefficient lamps still claim a significant
market share for A shape, candelabra base, and globe shape GSLs and,
given that LED lamps save about 80 percent or more electricity, there
are significant energy saving to be gained from a DOE GSL standard. (CA
IOUs, No. 22 at p. 4)
The Joint Commenters cited a 2020 study by the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority that used retailer inventory
as a proxy for market share. The Joint Commenters stated that this
study estimated that in New York the overall market share of LEDs was
73 percent, with LED lamps comprising 77, 72, 61, and 78 percent
respectively of A shape lamps, candelabra base lamps, globe shape
lamps, and reflector lamps. The Joint Commenters stated that the report
found an increase in LEDs from the previous year and also that one in
four lamps were still incandescent lamps. (Joint Commenters, No. 19 at
pp. 4-5)
The Joint Commenters stated that big and small manufacturers and
retailers continue to promote incandescent lamps because their short
lifespan triggers sales sooner than for an LED lamp. (Joint Commenters,
No. 19 at p. 5) The CA IOUs stated that the GSL transformation follows
an S-shaped curve which means the rate of change
[[Page 70764]]
will slow and then stop without the DOE standard. The CA IOUs stated
that market forces alone will probably allow for inefficient GSLs to
continue to have some share of the lighting market. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at
p. 5) Connecticut DEEP stated that although LEDs have approximately 60
percent of the market share, savings will continue to be lost without
national standards. (Connecticut DEEP, No. 6 at p. 2)
NEMA stated that GSLs that meet a 45 lm/W standard are essentially
all LED lamps or CFLs. NEMA stated that incandescent/halogen lamps with
medium screw base, lumens between 310 to 2600 lumens, and that operate
between 110-130 volts (V) cannot meet 45 lm/W. NEMA stated that due to
the successful development and sales of LED technology, there is no
research and development being done on improving the efficacy of
incandescent/halogen lamps. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 2)
NEMA stated that lamps excluded from the GSL definition (i.e.,
reflector lamps, rough service lamps, shatter-resistant lamps, 3-way
lamps, vibration service lamps, larger T lamps greater than 1'' in
diameter, and most decorative lamp shapes with medium screw bases) that
meet 45 lm/W are also essentially all LED lamps. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 2)
NEMA stated while there has been significant conversion to LED for many
excluded lamps including reflector, decorative, and 3-way lamps, the
excluded lamp category is small (less than half the size of GSLs).
(NEMA, No. 13 at p. 3)
NEMA stated that black light lamps and other ultraviolet (``UV'')
lamps, bug lamps, and colored lamps are not tested for efficacy and are
not GSLs. NEMA stated that infrared lamps, plant light lamps, and
showcase lamps (T8 and smaller) are niche products not appropriate for
general lighting applications. NEMA stated that G40 lamps and silver
bowl lamps are used in few applications and are exempted because their
size or light distributions make them difficult to be used anywhere
else. With regards to marine lamps, marine signal service lamps, mine
service lamps, R20 short lamps, sign service lamps, and traffic signal
service lamps NEMA stated that LED versions of these lamps may not meet
required military, transportation, or other specifications. (NEMA, No.
13 at p. 4)
NEMA and Signify stated the biggest limitation of LED technology is
its use in high temperature environments (i.e., within fixtures and
devices) due to thermal management issues. NEMA commented that while
some appliance lamps can have LED replacements, those operated in high
temperatures--such as ovens--cannot. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 3; Signify,
No. 18 at p. 3) NEMA stated that appliances with LED light sources are
already built in and designed to be protected from the heat. (NEMA, No.
13 at p. 3) NEMA stated that specialty lamps have no acceptable LED
replacement because: (1) The LED version is not economically justified
due to low sales volumes; (2) the LED version cannot be made in the
small form factor; or (3) the LED version is unable to match the lumen
output. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 3) NEMA stated that an LED replacement for
a typical pin base halogen (small form factor) that has 600 to 1200
lumens is unable to provide that lumen level in the same small form
factor. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 4) NEMA stated that LED lamps with a small
diameter or with shapes such as MR16 and MR11 will continue to have
thermal and light output limitations while small quartz halogen lamps
can produce significant amount of light within a small form factor and
operate at high temperatures. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 5)
Signify stated that LED replacements for some T4/GY6.35 halogen
capsule lamps can only be made with 600 lumens, and LED replacements
for T3/R7s linear halogen lamps can match the required lumen outputs
but only in larger form factors, which may lead to problems fitting in
fixtures or poor optical performance. (Signify, No. 18 at p. 3) Signify
stated that the following lamp types cannot meet 45 lm/W and/or are
difficult to make with LED technology: Heat (infrared) lamps,
blacklight lamps (and any UV lamps), appliance lamps, bug lamps,
colored lamps, specialty MR lamps for entertainment, 12 V landscape
lighting applications, plant light lamps, marine lamps, marine signal
service lamps, mine service lamps, R20 short lamps, sign service lamps,
traffic signal replacement lamps, T4 120V halogen capsule lamps with
light output higher than 600 lumens, and T3/R7s 120V linear halogen
lamps. (Signify, No. 18 at p. 2)
With regard to potential implementation of the backstop, NEMA
commented that consideration of timing should not be limited to retail
shelf-to-consumer-sale range events as purchasing and business
decisions, supply chain, and manufacturing impacts also need to be
considered. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 5) NEMA stated the total time between
the retailer's initial factory order and when a consumer can purchase
product can be up to 6 months or longer and is dependent, in part, on
order sizes and retailer distribution schedules. (NEMA, No. 13 at pp.
5-6) NEMA commented that upstream timing includes an average of three
months from the start of the process of procuring raw materials until
the release of component shipment to the factory, although the time
will vary depending on the source of the materials. (NEMA, No. 13 at p.
6) NEMA stated that lower to medium volume products and larger full
container orders can have one to two week lead time and 60-70 day lead
times, respectively. NEMA further stated that goods will remain in a
retailer's distribution center for two to four weeks until they are
shipped to individual store locations. (NEMA, No. 13 at pp. 5-6)
Signify stated that LED lamp design typically takes six months,
followed by an additional six months to fill the supply chain pipeline.
For any new LED lamp that needs to be developed, Signify stated that
there may be a shortage of products available to consumers if DOE fails
to provide adequate time for manufacturers to prepare for the
transition. (Signify, No. 18 at p. 4)
NEMA stated that other factors, such as retailer-specific contracts
and ``safety stock,'' may also affect how retailers stock lamps. (NEMA,
No. 13 at p. 6) NEMA further commented that review of product
assortments by regional and national retail chains varies by retailer
and that due to the complicated logistics and labor involved in
resetting a physical product assortment across regional and national
chains, this process can take 18 to 24 months to finalize and
implement, to include normal sell through of product on the shelf.
(NEMA, No. 13 at p. 6) NEMA suggested that DOE interview medium and
small lighting retailers, many of whom are small businesses, and
consider the negative financial impact mid-sized and smaller retailers
may face and ensure the final rule provides sufficient time to avoid
stranded assets in retail stores of all sizes. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 6)
ALA stated lighting retail stores and distributors are facing
challenges stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic including fluctuating
prices as a result of uncertain freight costs as well as supply chain
disruptions, as well as from tariffs, emerging government regulations,
and growing competition from multiple channels of distribution. (ALA,
No. 20, pp. 1-2) ALA further commented that showrooms do not typically
have large stockpiles of any one type of lamp on hand, instead having a
voluminous variety of lamps in inventory. (ALA, No. 20, pp. 1-2) ALA
stated manufacturers have a certain lead time when it comes to the
sourcing and
[[Page 70765]]
production of products and that DOE must make every effort to put in
place safeguards that will protect against any disruptions to the
supply chain while production of compliant products increases. (ALA,
No. 20, p. 2) ALA also commented that sales of newer, more efficient
products are up and sales of affected products are down, and that as
this trend continues, a manufacturers' sales ban would give showrooms
the flexibility to sell off existing inventory. Id.
NEMA stated that in its experience, most retailers have on average
three months of inventory between their store and distribution centers
to prevent having empty shelf space. NEMA stated that lower to medium
demand products and specialty seasonal demand products (e.g., colored
lights) may sit on a store shelf between 30 and 90 days, while
retailers prefer to maintain at least two weeks of inventory for high
demand products. (NEMA, No. 13 at pp. 6-7) NEMA also commented that
identifying and sourcing new products for retail can take 6-12 months,
including identifying and qualifying the source, setting up the new
vendor, product testing time, price negotiation, purchase orders,
transit from the source, and initiating new data setup in store
registers. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 7) NEMA further commented that lamp
sales are seasonal and affected by scheduled events, which requires
manufacturers to prepare several months earlier to have adequate
inventory to meet demand. Id.
NEMA stated that each manufacturer or retailer would individually
decide what to do with stranded inventory, adding that national laws
make it difficult to find alternative markets to sell newly restricted
products and that the costs associated with disposal will be the cost
of each individual lamp, associated labor, and land fill costs. (NEMA,
No. 13 at pp. 7, 8) NEMA further stated that any lamp sold in another
market will most likely be a high sales volume lamp type and would be
sold at break-even or at a loss to exporters. (NEMA, No. 13 at pp. 7-8)
Signify stated, as a manufacturer, that any stranded inventory would
most likely need to be scrapped. (Signify, No. 18, p. 5) ALA stated
that lamp products can often remain in inventory for a considerable
amount of time and that nationally the impact of a retail sales ban
would create a glut of stranded inventory, piling up at individual
showrooms and eventually landfills. (ALA, No. 20, p. 2) ALA further
commented that there are no viable options available to retailers under
a retail sales ban to unload non-compliant GSLs, which means that
lighting retailers will have millions of dollars of stranded product.
(ALA, No. 20, p. 2) ALA further stated that retailers will be forced to
increase costs on all other products in order to recoup the losses
suffered as a result of the retail sales ban. (ALA, No. 20, p. 2)
NEMA commented that it is imperative that DOE provide enough time
for manufacturers and retailers to plan an orderly exit from regulated
product lines and that failure to provide adequate transition time
would cause each manufacturer and each retailer to incur significant
unexpected costs to dispose of stranded inventory, and waste material,
manufacturing, and transportation resources while providing very little
additional energy savings or CO2 emissions reductions.
(NEMA, No. 13 at p. 7) NEMA asserted that the life of incandescent and
halogen lamps is very short, and that the lost energy-savings risk of
providing adequate time to manufacturers and retailers is very small,
while the potential economic damage risk to both large companies and
small family-owned retailers alike is large. (NEMA, No. 13 at pp. 7-8)
NEMA recommended that to minimize disruption and provide certainty
throughout the supply chain, DOE rely on a two-step approach for
manufacturers and retailers to implement the 45 lm/W minimum
requirement. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 7) Specifically, NEMA suggested an
approach under which the requirement would apply to GSLs as
manufactured beginning one-year after a final rule and to the retail
sale of GSLs beginning one year following as-manufactured compliance
date. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 7) NEMA stated that the 2-step approach would
be significantly less disruptive to manufacturers and retailers and
would be far easier to manage than a blanket 45 lm/W sales ban. (NEMA,
No. 13 at p. 7) ALA agreed with NEMA's comments in general and its two-
step implementation approach, stating that a phase-in period of at
least two years from the publication of a final rule would go a long
way to address concerns. (ALA, No. 20, pp. 2-3) Signify stated it can
support a minimum efficacy requirement of 45 lm/W for GSLs provided
that it has a minimum of 12 months to implement it from the date of
publication of any final rule and that it is implemented initially via
a manufacturing date/importation ban, followed if necessary with a
subsequent retail sales ban. (Signify, No. 18, pp. 2, 4) Signify
further commented that a sales ban is difficult to implement and
requires end-to-end management of stock and components and can result
in high financial liabilities for manufacturers and retailers due to
stranded inventory that cannot be sold and must be scrapped and sent to
landfills. (Signify, No. 18, p. 4) NEMA and Signify asserted that EISA
allows a phase-in approach of additional regulations and that the
suggested two-phase approach is sufficient to provide certainty in the
marketplace, allow for advanced planning to avoid stranded inventory
and empty shelf space, and result in reduced disruption throughout the
supply chain. (NEMA, No. 13 at p. 7; Signify, No. 18 at pp. 4-5) China
stated that a transition period of at least three years should be given
for GSIL provisions and any new categories of products for the minimum
efficacy of 45 lm/W. (China, No. 14, p. 3) UGC stated that prohibiting
sales of inefficient bulbs now will disproportionately impact small
businesses and could lead to a supply shortage of affordable bulbs in
low-income communities. (UGC, No. 17 at p. 1)
The CA IOUs, CEC, and Joint Commenters stated that a wide range of
compliant GSLs, as defined under the January 2017 Definition Final
Rules, are readily available. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 4; CEC, No. 23 at
p. 7; Joint Commenters, No. 19 at pp. 8-9) The Joint Commenters stated
that the world-wide supply chain for LED GSLs is more than capable of
meeting additional LED demand. (Joint Commenters, No. 19 at p. 12) The
Joint Commenters asserted that the lighting industry and retailers have
known since enactment of the relevant lamp provisions in 2007 that a
standard of at least 45 lumens per watt was due to take effect on
January 1, 2020. (Joint Commenters, No. 19 at p. 12) The Joint
Commenters further stated that equivalent standards have already been
implemented in two states (California and Nevada) and across Europe,
without disruption, demonstrating that the international supply chain
can meet increased U.S. demand for LEDs. (Joint Commenters, No. 19 at
p. 2) The CA IOUs stated that CEC staff have reported no major problems
regarding the availability of GSLs in California 18 months following
implementation by California of a 45 lm/W requirement. (CA IOUs, No.
22, p. 4)
The Joint Commenters stated that the backstop has already been
triggered and the standard is non-discretionary and must be implemented
as soon as practical. (Joint Commenters, No. 19, p. 7) To accommodate
retailers with remaining non-compliant inventory while also avoiding
further undue delay, the Joint Commenters recommended that DOE
immediately announce that the backstop has been
[[Page 70766]]
triggered and that sellers must comply with respect to the highest
sales volume lamps within 60 days and that DOE allow 120 days for
retailers to sell out slow-selling lamp types. (Joint Commenters, No.
19 at p. 2) The Joint Commenters stated that the sales prohibition
deters manufacturers and retailers from importing and stockpiling
excess inefficient products, an issue of greater concern in the light
bulb context given their much lower unit price than the other products
DOE regulates. (Joint Commenters, No. 19, p. 13) The Joint Commenters
stated that a date of sale prohibition simplifies any effort to monitor
compliance, as all that is needed is to check in a store or website to
see if non-compliant lamps are still being offered for sale after the
compliance date. (Joint Commenters, No. 19, p. 13) The CA IOUs urged
DOE to maintain the ``Date of Sale'' prohibition with as short a period
as possible before enforcement to allow retailers to clear inventories
of non-compliant GSLs, and that DOE use its enforcement discretion
based on information provided in response to the May 2021 RFI and other
information to avoid needing to initiate enforcement actions against
large numbers of retailers. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 3) CEC stated that
because the backstop has been triggered and DOE has a mandatory duty to
begin enforcing it, DOE must begin enforcing it immediately. (CEC, No.
23, p. 4) CSM, UGC, and CEO encouraged DOE to implement new standards
as soon as practical to allow the minimum amount of time needed for
retailers to sell existing inventory. (CSM, No. 12 at p. 1; UGC, No. 16
at p. 1) CEO further stated that prompt implementation of standards
will ensure that all customers benefit from up-to-date energy saving
technology. (CEO, No. 30 at p. 1)
As discussed, if DOE fails to complete a rulemaking in accordance
with clauses (i) through (iv) of Section 6295(i)(6)(A) or if the final
rule does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the
savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W, clause (v)
provides that DOE ``shall prohibit'' sales of any GSL below the 45 lm/W
backstop standard ``effective beginning January 1, 2020.'' As DOE
explained in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules, if it is
determined that the backstop is triggered, DOE would not have
discretion regarding the effective date of the backstop standard. 84 FR
7276, 7283. The language of the statute is clear that Congress intended
that the backstop, if triggered, would be effective as of January 1,
2020. DOE notes that clause (v) does not limit the sales prohibition to
retail sales.
DOE recognizes the unique circumstances created by the delay in
correctly addressing the applicability of the backstop. Were DOE to
issue a final determination that the backstop has been triggered, as
DOE proposes, DOE proposes to use its enforcement discretion to provide
the necessary flexibility to avoid undue market disruption. For
example, as part of this discretionary enforcement approach, and as
suggested by many of the commenters, DOE would consider a staggered
implementation that weighs factors such as the point of
manufacture,\13\ the point of sale,\14\ and the anticipated inventory
of different lamp categories. This flexible enforcement approach takes
into account the disruptive supply chain effects of stranded inventory
and the significant consumer and environmental benefits of full
compliance, DOE believes that such an approach would--given the current
circumstances--best balance Congress's intent to facilitate a smooth
transition with Congress's intent that the different efficacy standards
were to be in place as of January 1, 2020. DOE welcomes input on these
and additional considerations for enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The point of manufacturer refers to the point where the
product is manufactured, produced, assembled, or imported.
\14\ The point of sale refers to the point where the consumer
purchases the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Consumer and Environmental Impacts
In response to the May 2021 RFI, DOE received several comments
regarding the potential impacts of the 45 lm/W backstop. CFA and NCLC
commented that consumers are already benefiting from changing to LED
technology, but greater savings are achievable with the backstop
requirement. CFA and NCLC stated there are broader impacts beyond
consumer electricity bills, such as reduced costs for goods and
services that result from commercial and industrial sectors having
reduced lighting cost. (CFA and NCLC, No. 24 at pp. 1-2) CEC stated
that further delay in implementing standards will cost consumers
millions and cause unnecessary emission of pollutants. (CEC, No. 23 at
p. 7) NASEO commented that states rely on cost-effective federal
appliance and equipment energy efficiency standards for products to
help them achieve energy affordability, energy system reliability and
resilience, and environmental protection. (NASEO, No. 10 at p. 1) UGC
stated that practically designed and implemented efficiency standards
can benefit consumers and retailers while reducing emissions. (UGC, No.
18 at p. 1)
Commenters presented a range of potential consumer savings
resulting from implementation of the backstop: UCE, CEO, MEIC, and SC &
EJ stated that each month of delay in implementing standards that
should have been implemented in 2020 costs consumers roughly $80
million (UCE, No. 9 at p. 1; CEO, No. 30 at p. 1; MEIC, No. 7 at p. 1;
SC & EJ, No. 26 at p. 1); Joint Commenters, WDOC, and Connecticut DEEP,
citing a November 2020 ASAP study, stated that each additional month of
delay in implementing the standards will cost consumers $300 million
over the lifetimes of the incandescent bulbs sold in that month (Joint
Commenters, No. 19 at p. 6; WDOC, No. 17 at pp. 1-2; Connecticut DEEP,
No. 6 at p. 1); and OER stated that each month of delay costs consumers
$3 billion in lost utility bill savings. (OER, No. 25 at p. 1) CFA and
NCLC stated that since the beginning of the new administration,
consumers will have spent $2.8 billion on inefficient lighting and
generated 4.8 million tons of carbon. (CFA, NCLC, No. 24 at p. 1).
OER, CFA, NCLC, VEIC, UCE, NASEO, MEIC, the Joint Commenters, and
Connecticut DEEP stated that changing one bulb from incandescent to an
LED saves a consumer $40 to $90 over ten years. OER, CFA, NCLC, VEIC,
UGC, MEIC, Joint Commenters, and Connecticut DEEP further stated that
the savings from this change can result in approximately $3,000 in net
savings over ten years for a typical household. (OER, No. 25 at p. 1;
CFA, NCLC, No. 24 at p. 1; VEIC, No. 29 at p. 2; UGC, No. 16 at p. 1;
UCE, No. 9 at p. 1; NASEO, No. 10 at p. 1; MEIC, No. 7 at p. 1; Joint
Commenters, No. 19 at pp. 7-8; Connecticut DEEP, No. 6 at pp. 1-2) CEC
stated that any increased incremental cost from implemented standards
would be fully offset by energy savings. (CEC, No. 23 at pp. 7-8)
NASEO stated that forgone consumer savings particularly harm low-
and moderate-income households, and updated GSL standard implementation
will ensure that all consumers benefit from cost- and energy-saving
lighting. (NASEO, No. 10 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters, UGC,
Connecticut DEEP, CFA, NCLC, and SWEEP stated that the cost of delayed
implementation of standards disproportionately affects low-income
consumers. Citing a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories report on
EISA 2007, the
[[Page 70767]]
CA IOUs stated that an estimated 27 quadrillion British thermal units
(Btus) and a consumer net present value of $120 billion (at a seven
percent discount rate) would be saved nationally over the next 30 years
as a result of the 45 lm/W standard, if applied to the January 2017
Definition Final Rules. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 3) CEC estimated that
enforcement of the backstop as of January 1, 2020 would have resulted
in 9.5 billion kWh of energy to be saved by 2025, and that an effective
date of July 1, 2021, would still result in substantial savings. (CEC,
No. 23 at pp. 3,4, 6-7)
NW Power and Conservation Council estimated that if all residential
and commercial replacement GSLs in the Northwest (excluding eastern
Montana) complied with the backstop, the Pacific Northwest would save
approximately 160 average megawatts or 1400 gigawatt hours. (NW Power
and Conservation Council, No. 27 at p. 2) CA IOUs estimated national
savings from a 45 lm/W standard for the January 2017 Definition Final
Rules. Using this model and an effective date of July 1, 2022, CA IOUs
estimate 0.83 quads of energy with a net present value of about $28
billion and 81 million tons of CO2 over 30 years. CA IOUs
further stated that a one-year delay will decrease the cumulative
savings by 12 percent. (CA IOUs, No. 22 at p. 5) Citing a November 2020
ASAP study, NASEO stated that updated GSL standards could avoid an
annual 2.7 to 6.2 million metric tons of CO2 in 2030, with concomitant
utility bill savings of $2.6 billion in 2035. (NASEO, No. 10 at p. 1)
NEMA stated that the CO2 emissions reduction from 2007
to 2020 for GSL A-line and non-regulated lamps (e.g., lamps currently
excluded from the GSL definitions) is 89 percent and 82 percent,
respectively. NEMA stated that the reduction is due to conversion to
LED technology, and given the current rate of this conversion, the
maximum CO2 emissions reductions by 2025 without regulation
for GSL A-line and non-regulated lamps will be 92 percent and 88
percent, respectively. NEMA stated that the industry estimates that if
the entire category of A-line lamps switches to LED or CFL there would
be an approximate 96 percent reduction in CO2 emissions
since 2007. NEMA stated that most of the energy savings and
CO2 emission reduction has already been achieved by
consumers voluntarily replacing lamps with LED lamps. (NEMA, No. 13 at
p. 3)
Citing a November 2020 ASAP study, the Joint Commenters and OER
stated that each additional month of delay in implementing the
standards will result in 800,000 tons of CO2 emissions over
the lifetimes of the incandescent bulbs sold in that month. UGC, CFA,
NCLC, VEIC, EA and Connecticut DEEP, and SWEEP reiterated the same
estimate of CO2 emissions in their comments. (Joint
Commenters, No. 19 at p. 6; OER, No. 25 at p. 1; UGC, No. 16 at p. 1;
CFA, NCLC, No. 24 at p. 1; VEIC, No. 29 at p. 2; EA, No. 28 at p. 1;
Connecticut DEEP, No. 6 at p. 1, SWEEP, No. 11 at p. 1) CEO, MEIC, and
SC & EJ estimated that continuing to delay the standard will result in
250,000 tons of CO2 emissions per month. (CEO, No. 30 at p.
1; MEIC, No. 7 at p. 1; SC & EJ, No. 26 at p. 1) OER stated that each
month of delay implementing standards will result in 300,000 tons of
CO2 emissions. (OER, No. 25 at p. 1) The Joint Commenters
stated that an additional year of delay will result in 9.5 million
metric tons of CO2 but if standards are implemented soon
they can reduce CO2 emissions by 50 million metric tons by
2030. (Joint Commenters, No. 19 at pp. 6-7)
DOE recognizes the potential for consumer and environmental
benefits from a prohibition on the sale of GSLs with an efficacy of
less than 45 lm/W. DOE reiterates that 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v), if
triggered, requires DOE to prohibit sales of GSLs that do not meet the
minimum efficacy of 45 lm/W. This backstop requirement is statutorily
prescribed by Congress and no further analysis is required for its
implementation.
III. Conclusion
DOE preliminarily determines that the statutory 45 lm/W backstop
requirement has been triggered and therefore is proposing to place the
backstop requirement for GSLs in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Were DOE to finalize the proposed rule and affirmatively determine
that the backstop has been triggered, DOE would codify the statutory
requirement in the Code of Federal Regulations.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule is an economically significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review
by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of the
Order, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying
analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the regulatory action,
together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs.
This assessment can be found in the technical report that accompanies
this rulemaking.\15\ The assessment estimates that all lamp demand for
new construction and replacements is assumed to be fulfilled by lamps
with an efficacy of at least 45 lm/W, yielding a substantial reduction
in energy consumption and an associated savings in energy costs
relative to the base case. It is estimated that national full fuel
cycle energy savings of 5.7 quads from the implementation of a 45 lm/W
backstop over the 30-year analysis period. These energy savings
translate to annualized net benefits of $3.7 billion, which includes
the social value of emissions reductions (net benefits discounted at 3
percent). DOE plans to update our methodology to reflect the
Environmental Protection Agency's recent updates to benefit-per-ton
values in a future impact analysis if DOE issues a final rule and
generally for forthcoming rulemakings, but we do not have time to fully
vet the new methods for this impact analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/publications/impact-eisa-2007-backstop-requirement.
Table IV.1--Summary of Annualized Costs and Benefits, 2022-2051
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized (million 2020$/year)
-------------------------------------------------------
Primary Low-net-benefits High-net-benefits
estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Benefits:
7% discount rate.................................... 3,718 3,551 3,884
[[Page 70768]]
3% discount rate.................................... 3,828 3,632 4,023
Total Costs:
7% discount rate.................................... 178 180 173
3% discount rate.................................... 149 151 145
Net Benefits:
7% discount rate.................................... 3,540 3,371 3,711
3% discount rate.................................... 3,679 3,481 3,879
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average GHG social costs
with 3-percent discount rate. GHG reduction benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), methane (SC-CH4), and nitrous oxide (SC-N2O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3
percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) as shown in Table ES-2 of
the accompanying technical report. For the presentational purposes of this table, we show the total and net
benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Department in a previous
rulemaking did not use a single central SC-GHG point estimate. Considering the four SC-GHG estimates, the
equivalent annual net benefit would be between $3.1 billion to $4.9 billion for the primary estimate, $3
billion to 4.6 billion for the Low-Net-Benefits Estimate and $3.3 to $5.1 billion for the High-Net-Benefits
Estimate. All net benefits are calculated using GHG benefits discounted at 3 percent.
While this assessment represents DOE's best effort to analyze the
effects of this rule, there are areas where more information would be
helpful to DOE as it considers potentially refining the analysis. They
are: (1) Whether DOE should consider a rebound effect (such as 10%)
associated with the purchase of more efficient products; (2) whether
there are consumer welfare losses associated with those consumers who
prefer incandescent or halogen bulbs to LED bulbs even after taking
into account steep price decline in LED bulbs and the energy savings
that would accrue to them; and (3) how to disaggregate the effects of
the backstop provision and the definitional provision separately within
the framework presented in the proposed rules.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. DOE is proposing to revise the Code of Federal
Regulations to incorporate and implement the backstop requirement for
general service lamps that Congress prescribed in EPCA. Because DOE is
not imposing additional costs beyond those required by statute, DOE
certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, would have no significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this proposed rule. DOE will transmit
this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
If made final, this proposed rule would impose no new information
or record keeping requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and
Budget clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') of
1969, DOE has determined that the proposed 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); 10 CFR 1021.410(b) and app. B, B(1)-(5).)
The proposed rule fits within this category of actions because it is a
rulemaking that establishes a standard for consumer products or
industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified
in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for
this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this proposed rule.
DOE's CX determination for this proposed rule is available at
energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusioncx-determinations-cx.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
tentatively 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
[[Page 70769]]
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. 42
U.S.C. 6297. Therefore, no further action is required by Executive
Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to
adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the
relevant standards of E.O. 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 (other than to the extent that such regulations
incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law). Public Law
104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed
regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a 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
energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
If made final, this proposed rule would codify the sales
prohibition of GSLs with an efficacy of less than 45 lm/W prescribed in
42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v). As the proposed rule would incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law, an assessment under UMRA is
not required and has not been conducted.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this action under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed 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 proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that this proposed rule is not a
significant energy action because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
V. Public Participation
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
[[Page 70770]]
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (``faxes'')
will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 3,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on December 7, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
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. Amend Sec. 430.32 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text to paragraphs (u)(1) and (x)(1);
and
0
b. Adding paragraph (dd).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and their
compliance dates.
* * * * *
(u) Compact fluorescent lamps.
(1) Medium Base Compact Fluorescent Lamps. Subject to the sales
prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this section, a bare or covered (no
reflector) medium base compact fluorescent lamp manufactured on or
after January 1, 2006, must meet the following requirements:
* * * * *
(x) General service incandescent lamps, intermediate base
incandescent lamps and candelabra base incandescent lamps.
(1) Subject to the sales prohibition in paragraph (dd) of this
section, the energy conservation standards in this paragraph apply to
general service incandescent lamps:
* * * * *
(dd) General service lamp. Beginning [date of final rule] the sale
of any general service lamp that does not meet
[[Page 70771]]
a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt is prohibited.
[FR Doc. 2021-26807 Filed 12-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P