Energy Conservation Program: Backstop Requirement for General Service Lamps, 70755-70771 [2021-26807]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[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