Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-07831

Rule2024-07831

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

April 19, 2024

Effective

July 3, 2024

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including general service lamps ("GSLs"). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") to periodically determine whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting amended energy conservation standards for GSLs. DOE has determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these products would result in significant conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 77 (Friday, April 19, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28856-28965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-07831]

[[Page 28855]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 77

April 19, 2024

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 430

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

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 28856]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022]
RIN 1904-AF43

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
General Service Lamps

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including general
service lamps (``GSLs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more stringent
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified
and would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE
is adopting amended energy conservation standards for GSLs. DOE has
determined that the amended energy conservation standards for these
products would result in significant conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 3, 2024. Compliance with
the amended standards established for GSLs in this final rule is
required on and after July 25, 2028.
The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 3,
2024. The incorporation by reference of certain other material listed
in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
September 30, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed
in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f5e6f6f73767e717c7a4c6b7e717b7e6d7b6c4e6a7a6c6b7670716c5f7a7a317b707a31787069">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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) 586-0371. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#723302021e1b131c11172106131c161300160123071701061b1d1c013217175c161d175c151d04">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Laura Zuber, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (240) 306-7651. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f537e6a6d7e31456a7d7a6d5f776e317b707a31787069">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains a previously approved
incorporation by reference for: ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020) and
incorporates by reference the following industry standard into 10 CFR
part 430:
UL 1598C, Standard for Safety for Light-Emitting Diode (LED)
Retrofit Luminaire Conversion Kits, First edition, dated January 16,
2014 (including revisions through November 17, 2016) (``UL 1598C-
2016'').
A copy of UL 1598C may be obtained from the Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL), 2600 NW Lake Rd., Camas, WA 98607-8542
(<a href="http://www.UL.com">www.UL.com</a>).
For a further discussion of this standard, see section VI.M of this
document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for GSLs
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price
(Life-Cycle Cost (``LCC'') and Payback Period Analysis (``PBP''))
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Scope of Coverage
1. Supporting Definitions
2. Definition of Circadian-Friendly Integrated Light-Emitting
Diode (``LED'') Lamp
3. Scope of Standards
4. Scope of Metrics
a. Lifetime
b. Color Rendering Index (``CRI'')
c. Power Factor
d. Summary of Metrics
5. Test Procedure
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Concerns Regarding LED Lamp Technology
a. Health Impacts
b. Lamp Attributes
c. Application
d. Consumer Costs and Manufacturer Impacts
2. Product Classes
a. Lamp Cover
b. Lamp Dimensions
c. Non-Integrated Standby Operation
d. Tunability
e. Non-Illumination Features
f. Product Class Summary
3. Technology Options
C. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
2. Remaining Technologies
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Representative Product Classes
b. Baseline Efficiency
c. More Efficacious Substitutes
d. Higher Efficiency Levels
e. Scaling of Non-Representative Product Classes
f. Summary of All Efficacy Levels
2. Cost Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
1. Operating Hours
a. Residential Sector
b. Commercial Sector
2. Input Power
3. Lighting Controls
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Product Lifetime
6. Residual Value
7. Disposal Cost
8. Discount Rates
a. Residential
b. Commercial
9. Efficacy Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
10. LCC Savings Calculation
11. Payback Period Analysis

[[Page 28857]]

G. Shipments Analysis
1. Shipments Model
a. Lamp Demand Module
b. Price-Learning Module
c. Market-Share Module
H. National Impact Analysis
1. National Energy Savings
a. Smart Lamps
b. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for GSL Lumen
Distribution for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class
c. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for Type A
Integrated Omnidirectional Long Lamps
2. Net Present Value Analysis
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
c. Sensitivity Analysis Using EPA's New SC-GHG Estimates
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. Significance of Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for GSL Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Need for, and Objectives of, Rule
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'')
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected
4. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
5. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To
Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
N. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, 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 of EPCA \2\ 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
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact parts A and A-1 of
EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
part B was redesignated part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the second rulemaking cycle for GSLs. As a result of the
first rulemaking cycle initiated per 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A), on May 9,
2022, DOE codified a prohibition on the sale of any GSLs that do not
meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt. (87 FR 27439)
There are existing DOE energy conservation standards higher than 45
lumens per watt for medium base compact fluorescent lamps (``MBCFLs''),
which are types of GSLs. 70 FR 60407 (Oct. 18, 2005). DOE is issuing
this final rule pursuant to multiple provisions in EPCA. First, EPCA
requires that DOE initiate a second rulemaking cycle by January 1,
2020, to determine whether standards in effect for general service
incandescent lamps (``GSILs'') should be amended with more stringent
energy conservation standards and if the exemptions for certain
incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. Consistent
with the first review, this second review of energy conservation
standards, the scope of rulemaking is not limited to incandescent
technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii))
Second, EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) Third, pursuant to
EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) Lastly, when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard
for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use
that is technologically feasible for such a product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six trial
standard levels (``TSLs'') for GSLs. The TSLs and their associated
benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through
V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE
has determined that TSL 6 represents the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
The adopted standards, which are expressed in minimum lumens (``lm'')
output per watt (``W'') of a lamp or lamp efficacy (``lm/W''), are
shown in table I.1. These standards apply to all products listed in
table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States
starting on July 25, 2028.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28858]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.000

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

Table I.2 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
the adopted standards on consumers of GSLs, as measured by the average
life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\3\ The average LCC savings are positive for all product
classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of GSLs, which
varies by product class and efficiency level (see section IV.F.5 of
this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the first full compliance year in the absence of new or amended
standards (see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP,
which is designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured
relative to the baseline product (see section IV.D of this
document).

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

[[Page 28859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.001

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers
is described in section V.B.1 of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2024-2058). Using a real discount rate of
6.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of GSLs in
the case without new and amended standards is $2,108 million in 2022$.
Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range
from -15.3 percent to -7.3 percent, which is approximately -$322
million to -$155 million. In order to bring products into compliance
with new and amended standards, it is estimated that industry will
incur total conversion costs of $430 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on
manufacturers is described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2022
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation
standards for GSLs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative
to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for
GSLs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated
first full year of compliance with the amended standards (2029-2058)
amount to 4.0 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or quads.\5\
This represents a savings of 17 percent relative to the energy use of
these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as
the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section 0 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the standards for GSLs ranges from $8.5 billion (at a 7-
percent discount rate) to $22.2 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate).
This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost
savings minus the estimated increased product costs for GSLs purchased
during the period 2029-2058.
In addition, the adopted standards for GSLs are projected to yield
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards
will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as
for energy savings) of 70.3 million metric tons (``Mt'') \6\ of carbon
dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 22.1 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 133.3 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 608.1 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.70 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.15 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\ The
estimated cumulative reduction in CO<INF>2</INF> emissions through 2030
amounts to 0.61 Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions resulting from
the annual electricity use of more than one hundred thousand homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards-case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 reflects, to the extent
possible, laws and regulations adopted through mid-November 2022,
including the Inflation Reduction Act. See section IV.K of this
document for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect
air pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social
cost of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of
methane (``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide
(``SC-N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of
GHG (``SC-GHG''). DOE used interim SC-GHG values (in terms of benefit
per ton of GHG avoided) developed by an Interagency Working Group on
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'').\8\ The derivation of
these values is discussed in section IV.L of this document. For
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $3.8
billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and
it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits
calculated using all four sets of SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions this
analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical
Support Documents: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February
2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). Available at
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions, using benefit per ton estimates
from the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''),\9\ as discussed in
section IV.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the
health benefits would be $2.9 billion using a 7-percent discount rate,
and $7.5 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\10\ DOE is currently
only

[[Page 28860]]

monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate
matter (``PM<INF>2.5</INF>'') concentrations from two precursors
(SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>), and from changes in ambient ozone
from one precursor (for NO<INF>X</INF>), but will continue to assess
the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from
reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating the Benefit
per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF>,
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors.
Available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors">www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors</a>.
\10\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1.3 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the amended standards for GSLs. There are other important
unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate benefits,
unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of toxic air
pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security benefits,
and distributional effects among others.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.002

[[Page 28862]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.003

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
The benefits and costs of the amended standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from
each year to 2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the
compliance year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of GSLs shipped
during the period 2029-2058. The benefits associated with reduced
emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also
calculated based on the lifetime of GSLs shipped during the period
2029-2058. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases
are presented using the average GHG social costs with a 3-percent
discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four
discount rates in section V.B.8 of this document.
Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the amended standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted
in this rule is $301.4 million per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are $1,193.6 million in reduced
equipment operating costs, $217.7 million in climate benefits, and
$303.2 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would
amount to $1,413.1 million per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the standards is $292.2 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,564.6
million in reduced operating costs, $217.7 million in climate benefits,
and $430.8 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit
would amount to $1,920.9 million per year.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28863]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.004

[[Page 28864]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.005

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule
represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regard to
technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are
already commercially available for all product classes covered by this
final rule. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that
the benefits of the standards exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of
the standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 3-percent
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the
standards for GSLs is $301.4 million per year in increased GSL costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are $1,193.6 million in reduced GSL
operating costs, $217.7 million in climate benefits, and $303.2 million
in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $1,413.1 million per
year. While DOE presents monetized climate benefits, DOE would reach
the same conclusion presented in this rulemaking in the absence of the
benefits of the social cost of greenhouse gases.
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\12\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings of 4.0 quad full-fuel-cycle
(``FFC''), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 261
million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO<INF>2</INF>
emissions by 70.3 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the
energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule are
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more
detailed discussion of the basis for these conclusions is contained in
the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

II. Introduction

The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment of standards for GSLs.

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, part
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include GSLs, the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295 (i) (6)) EPCA directs DOE to
conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these

[[Page 28865]]

standards. Id. EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after
the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') including new proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
EPCA directs DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate
energy conservation standards for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B))
For the first rulemaking cycle, EPCA directed 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)) That rulemaking was not to be limited to
incandescent lamp technologies and was required to include a
consideration of a minimum standard of 45 lm/W for GSLs. (42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) EPCA required that if the Secretary determined 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 was also required to consider phased-
in effective dates after considering certain manufacturer and retailer
impacts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv)) If DOE failed 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 did 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 was
required to prohibit sales of GSLs that do not meet a minimum 45 lm/W
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)). DOE did not complete a
rulemaking in accordance with the statutory criteria, and so
accordingly codified this backstop requirement in a rule issued on May
9, 2022 (``May 2022 Backstop Final Rule''). 87 FR 27439.
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)) As
previously stated in section I of this document, DOE is publishing this
final rule pursuant to this second cycle of rulemaking, as well as
section (m) of 42 U.S.C. 6295.
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d).)
Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use
these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test
procedures for GSLs appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendices R, W, BB, and DD.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including GSLs. Any new or
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that
would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain
products, including GSLs, if no test procedure has been established for
the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard,
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following
seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or, as applicable, water)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the

[[Page 28866]]

minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new
standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of products that has the same function or intended use if DOE
determines that products within such group (A) consume a different kind
of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type
(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature
which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such
feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In
determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different
standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the
utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA''), Public Law 110-140,
any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE determined that it is not feasible for GSLs
included in the scope of this rulemaking to meet the off mode criteria
because there is no condition in which a GSL connected to main power is
not already in a mode accounted for in either active or standby mode.
DOE notes the existence of commercially available GSLs that operate in
standby mode. DOE's current test procedures and standards for GSLs
address standby mode, as do the amended standards adopted in this final
rule.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
This is the second cycle of energy conservation standards
rulemakings for GSLs. As noted in section II.B.2 of this document, DOE
has codified the statutory backstop requirement prohibiting sales of
GSLs that do not meet a 45 lm/W requirement. Because incandescent and
halogen GSLs are not able to meet the 45 lm/W requirement, they are not
being considered in this analysis. The analysis does take into
consideration existing standards for MBCFLs by ensuring that the
adopted levels do not decrease the existing minimum required energy
efficiency of MBCFLs in violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision,
which precludes DOE from amending an existing energy conservation
standard to permit greater energy use or a lesser amount of energy
efficiency (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). The current standards for MBCFLs
are summarized in table II.1. 10 CFR 430.32(u).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.006

[[Page 28867]]

MBCFLs fall within the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product
class (see section IV.B.2 of this document for further details on
product classes). Because DOE determined that a lamp cover (i.e., bare
or covered) is not a feature that justifies separate standards in this
analysis, the baseline efficacy requirements are determined by lamp
wattage. Therefore, for products with wattages less than 15 W that fall
into the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE set the
baseline efficacy at 45 lm/W (the highest of the existing standards for
that wattage range) to prevent increased energy usage in violation of
EPCA's anti-backsliding provision. For products with wattages greater
than or equal to 15 W that fall into the Integrated Omnidirectional
Short product class, DOE set the baseline efficacy at 60 lm/W to
prevent increased energy usage in violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding
provision. Table II.2 shows the baseline efficacy requirements for the
Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.007

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for GSLs
Pursuant to its statutory authority to complete the first cycle of
rulemaking for GSLs, DOE published a NOPR on March 17, 2016 (``March
2016 NOPR''), that addressed the first question that Congress directed
it to consider--whether to amend energy conservation standards for
GSLs. 81 FR 14528, 14629-14630 (Mar. 17, 2016). In the March 2016 NOPR,
DOE stated that it would be unable to undertake any analysis regarding
GSILs and other incandescent lamps because of a then-applicable
congressional restriction (``the Appropriations Rider''). See 81 FR
14528, 14540-14541. The Appropriations Rider prohibited expenditure of
funds appropriated by that law to implement or enforce: (1) 10 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, on October 18, 2016, DOE published a Notice of
Proposed Definition and Data Availability (``October 2016 NOPDDA''),
which proposed to amend the definitions of GSIL, GSL, and related
terms. 81 FR 71794, 71815 (Oct. 18, 2016). 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-
31, div. D, tit. III); see also Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2018 (Pub. L. 115-141).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 19, 2017, DOE published two final rules concerning the
definitions of GSL, GSIL, and related terms (``January 2017 Definition
Final Rules''). 82 FR 7276; 82 FR 7322. The January 2017 Definition
Final Rules amended the definitions of GSIL and GSL by bringing certain
categories of lamps that had been excluded by statute from the
definition of GSIL within the definitions of GSIL and GSL. DOE
determined to use two final rules in 2017 to amend the definitions of
GSIL and GSLs in order to address the majority of the definition
changes in one final rule and the exemption for IRLs in the second
final rule. These two rules were issued simultaneously, with the first
rule eschewing a determination regarding the existing exemption for
IRLs in the definition of GSL and the second rulemaking discontinuing
that exemption from the GSL definition. 82 FR 7276, 7312; 82 FR 7322,
7323. As in the October 2016 NOPDDA, DOE stated that the January 2017
Definition Final Rules related only to the second question that
Congress directed DOE to consider, i.e., whether to maintain or
discontinue ``exemptions'' for certain incandescent lamps. 82 FR 7276,
7277; 82 FR 7322, 7324 (see 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.
On March 17, 2017, the National Electrical Manufacturers
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-

[[Page 28868]]

making required to address the first question presented by Congress,
i.e., whether to amend energy conservation standards for GSLs,
including GSILs. Thus, on August 15, 2017, DOE published a notice of
data availability (``NODA'') and request for information 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 reconsider 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 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
reassessed the legal interpretations underlying certain decisions made
in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules. Id.
On February 11, 2019, DOE published a NOPR that proposed 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 84 FR 46661, 46667). In the rule, DOE also addressed its
interpretation of the statutory backstop at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)
and concluded the backstop had not been triggered. 84 FR 46661, 46663-
46664. DOE reasoned that 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii) ``does not
establish an absolute obligation on the Secretary to publish a rule by
a date certain.'' 84 FR 46661, 46663. ``Rather, the obligation to issue
a final rule prescribing standards by a date certain applies if, and
only if, the Secretary makes a determination that standards in effect
for GSILs need to be amended.'' Id. DOE further stated that, since it
had not yet made the predicate determination on whether to amend
standards for GSILs, the obligation to issue a final rule by a date
certain did not yet exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to
the potential imposition of the backstop requirement did not yet exist
and no backstop requirement had yet been triggered. 84 FR 46661, 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. 84 FR 46661,
46662. DOE initiated that separate rulemaking by publishing a notice of
proposed definition (``NOPD'') on September 5, 2019 (``September 2019
NOPD''), regarding whether standards for GSILs should be amended. 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. 84 FR 46830, 46831. DOE finalized that
tentative determination on December 27, 2019 (``December 2019 Final
Determination''). 84 FR 71626. DOE also concluded in the December 2019
Final Determination that because it had made the predicate
determination not to amend standards for GSILs, there was no obligation
to issue a final rule by January 1, 2017, and, as a result, the
backstop requirement had not been triggered. 84 FR 71626, 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,\14\ New York City, and the
District of Columbia. See New York v. U.S. Department of Energy, No.
19-3652 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019). The second petition was filed by
six organizations \15\ that included environmental, consumer, and
public housing tenant groups. See Natural Resources Defense Council v.
U.S. Department of Energy, No. 19-3658 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019).
The petitions were subsequently consolidated. On May 9, 2022, DOE
published a final rule that revised the determination at issue in these
consolidated cases and adopted new regulations in accordance with that
revision. 87 FR 27439. In August 2022, the petitioners moved the court
to dismiss the petitions for review, which the court granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ 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.
\15\ The petitioning organizations are the Natural Resources
Defense Council, Sierra Club, Consumer Federation of America,
Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants, Environment America,
and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, in two separate petitions also filed in the Second
Circuit, groups of petitioners that were essentially identical to those
that filed the lawsuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule
challenged the December 2019 Final Determination. See Natural Resources
Defense Council v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-699 (2d Cir.,
filed Feb. 25, 2020); New York v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 20-743
(2d Cir., filed Feb. 28, 2020). These petitions were also dismissed in
August 2022.
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. Section 1
of E.O. 13990 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. 86
FR 7037, 7041. Section 2 of E.O. 13990 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, DOE published a request for
information (``RFI'') on May 25, 2021, initiating a reevaluation of its
prior determination that the Secretary was not required to implement
the statutory backstop requirement for GSLs (``May 2021 Backstop
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 as other information that may be relevant to a
possible implementation of the statutory backstop. Id. On December 13,
2021, DOE published a NOPR proposing to codify in the CFR the 45 lm/W
backstop requirement for GSLs (``December 2021 Backstop

[[Page 28869]]

NOPR''). 86 FR 70755. On May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule
codifying the 45 lm/W backstop requirement (``May 2022 Backstop Final
Rule''). 87 FR 27439. In the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule, DOE
determined the backstop requirement applies because DOE failed to
complete a rulemaking for GSLs in accordance with certain statutory
criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). When DOE published the May 2022
Backstop Final Rule, it also released an enforcement policy statement
for GSLs.\16\ In response to lead-in time concerns raised by members of
the industry and comments supporting immediate enforcement, DOE
outlined a progressive enforcement model where it would exercise its
discretion when taking enforcement action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Enforcement Policy Statement--General Service Lamps, April
26, 2022, available at: <a href="http://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/GSL_EnforcementPolicy_4_25_22.pdf">www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/GSL_EnforcementPolicy_4_25_22.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On August 19, 2021, DOE published a NOPR to amend the current
definitions of GSL and GSIL and adopt associated supplemental
definitions to be defined as previously set forth in the January 2017
Definition Final Rules (``August 2021 Definition NOPR''). 86 FR 46611.
On May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule adopting definitions of GSL
and GSIL and associated supplemental definitions as set forth in the
August 2021 Definition NOPR (``May 2022 Definition Final Rule''). 87 FR
27461.
Upon issuance of the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule and the May 2022
Definition Final Rule, DOE concluded the first cycle of GSL rulemaking
required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). EPCA directs DOE to initiate this
second cycle of rulemaking procedure no later than January 1, 2020. 42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B) However, DOE is delayed in initiating this second
cycle because of the Appropriations Rider, DOE's evolving position
under the first rulemaking cycle, and the associated delays that
resulted in DOE certifying the backstop requirement for GSLs two years
after the January 1, 2020, date specified in the statute.
On January 11, 2023, DOE published a NOPR (``January 2023 NOPR''),
pursuant to this second cycle of rulemaking as well as 42 U.S.C.
6295(m). 88 FR 1638 (Jan. 11, 2023).
DOE received 17 comments in response to the January 2023 NOPR from
the interested parties listed in table II.3. DOE also received 158
comments from private citizens.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28870]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.008

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\17\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the February 1, 2023, public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this final rule. Any oral comments provided during
the webinar that are not substantively addressed by written comments
are summarized and cited separately throughout this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for GSLs. (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-
STD-0022, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.) The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this final rule after considering oral and written
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues
raised by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes and discusses general comments received
from interested parties. As specified in section I, the adopted
standards in this final rule are expressed as lumens per watt (``lm/
W'') of a lamp or lamp efficacy. In this document the terms efficacy
and efficiency both refer to lm/W of the lamp.
NEMA supported DOE's statements in the January 2023 NOPR regarding
EPCA's preemption provisions to state regulation. NEMA stated that in
the final rule, DOE clearly specified the preemptive effect on all
covered products that meet the Federal definition of a GSL in
accordance with E.O. 13132 as well as the timing of the effect in
accordance with E.O. 12988. NEMA stated that this clarification will
prevent confusion that may otherwise arise due to a patchwork of
differing State regulations that had previously been implemented prior
to May 9, 2022, when DOE published the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule.
(NEMA, No. 183 at p. 21)
Regarding comments received on Federal preemption, in the January
2023 NOPR (88 FR 1638, 1644) and in this final rule (see section II.A
of this

[[Page 28871]]

document), DOE specifies that Federal energy efficiency requirements
for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State
laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling,
and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under
EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. 6297(d)). For the first cycle of the GSL
rulemaking, EPCA provided California and Nevada with certain preemption
allowances (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(vi)). However, these allowances
do not apply to this second cycle of GSL rulemaking (see 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(B)).
CLASP recommended that DOE, in partnership with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (``CPSC''), implement a national policy banning
fluorescent lighting on the basis of toxicity due to the mercury
content contained in all fluorescent lamps, which is already adopted in
California and Vermont and is under consideration in several other
States. CLASP commented that such a national regulation would help to
accelerate market shift to LED lamps and promote even more cost-
effective energy savings in the United States. CLASP recommended that
DOE prioritize an advanced schedule for the phase-out of fluorescent
lighting at increased rates of efficacy, as it would yield several
benefits across various DOE objectives. CLASP stated that replacing
fluorescent bulbs with retrofittable LED bulbs (i.e., plug-and-play,
drop-in replacements that require no rewiring) will eliminate mercury
and cut lighting-related power consumption in half and will reduce
CO<INF>2</INF> and Hg emissions from power stations. CLASP also noted
that LED bulbs last 2-3 times longer than fluorescent bulbs, reducing
the volume of municipal waste generated. CLASP further stated that LCC
studies had shown LED bulbs to have the lowest associated energy
utilization and lowest environmental impact compared to other lighting
technologies. (CLASP, No. 177 at pp. 4-5)
CLASP also recommended that DOE work with EPA to update ENERGY STAR
requirements for lamp efficacy levels to at least double the current
level of 80 lm/W in an effort to further support this GSL regulation by
creating a market `pull' for higher efficacy lamps. CLASP stated that
an update to ENERGY STAR is necessary to discontinue the inclusion of
CFLs in the program, as seven fluorescent lamps are currently
recognized by ENERGY STAR while Africa, Europe, and India are phasing
out fluorescent lighting. (CLASP, No. 177 at p. 5) NEMA noted EPA's
intention to sunset all ENERGY STAR lighting programs except for a new
program for recessed lighting, recognizing its significant energy
savings. NEMA supported the more focused continuation of this ENERGY
STAR program to maintain minimum levels of quality and performance.
(NEMA, No. 183 at p. 19)
The scope of this rule is to evaluate energy conservation standards
for GSLs (see section II.A of this document) which does not include
general service fluorescent lamps or other fluorescent lamps (see
definition of GSLs at 10 CFR 430.2). DOE considers out-of-scope lamps
such as fluorescent lamps in the shipment and NIA analyses (see
respectively, sections IV.G and IV.H of this document). Additionally,
the scope of this rule does not include updating requirements set by
EPA's ENERGY STAR program. Note that on March 13, 2023, EPA announced
it will be sunsetting ENERGY STAR specifications for lamps and
luminaires effective December 31, 2024, with the exception of recessed
downlights, which would be covered by a new specification.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ ENERGY STAR Lighting Sunset--March 13, 2023. Available at:
<a href="http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Lighting%20Sunset%20Memo.pdf">www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Lighting%20Sunset%20Memo.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted in section II.A of this document and in the January 2023
NOPR per 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(iv)(I)-(II), the Secretary shall
consider phased-in effective dates after considering certain
manufacturer and retailer impacts. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE
requested comments on whether phased-in effective dates were necessary
for the proposed GSL standards. 88 FR 1638, 1656. Westinghouse stated
its preference for a single effective date for the standard, as phased-
in effective dates would make things more complicated. (Westinghouse,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 13). NEMA stated its support
for the implementation of one effective date versus phased-in effective
dates. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 5) DOE did not receive any requests for a
phased-in effective date approach. Regarding the standards being
adopted in this final rule, DOE does not find any particular reason(s)
that phased-in effective dates would be of value for manufacturers or
retailers and thus has determined the adopted standards will become
effective on one date. Specifically, DOE reviewed the market and did
not find impacts on manufacturers and retailers would differ by product
class.
Several comments from private citizens stated that free-market
forces should direct the lighting market instead of government
regulation and that there should be less government interference with
consumer choices. Additionally, EEI commented that if the proposed
standard is not revised, many consumers will realize direct economic
losses, and that by setting the standard at near maximum TSLs, DOE will
make it very difficult for electric companies to justify investments in
future lighting efficiency rebate programs. EEI stated that according
to a recent EEI report, electric companies spent nearly $7 billion on
efficiency programs in 2021, saving 237 billion kWh of electricity--
enough to power 33 million U.S. homes for one year. Citing a meta-
analysis by the Lawerence Berkeley National Laboratory, from 2010
through 2018, EEI stated that residential lighting programs were
responsible for 48 percent of all residential program savings (i.e.,
14.8 percent of all market sectors). EEI added that the levelized cost
to save a kWh of electricity through residential lighting programs is
extremely cost-effective at just over 1 cent per kWh. (EEI, No. 181 at
pp. 2-3)
When evaluating energy conservation standards for products, DOE
determines whether a standard is economically justified based on
several factors, including consumer impacts and lessening of the
utility or the performance likely to result from the imposition of the
standard, as it did in this rulemaking. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i).
Therefore, DOE's analysis accounts for the impacts on consumers.
Additionally, E.O. 12866 directs DOE to assess potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the
identified potential alternatives (see chapter 16 of the final rule
TSD).
In response to the January 2023 NOPR, DOE received several comments
in support of the proposed rule including the proposed TSL. 88 FR 1638,
1706-1708. CLASP stated that it agreed with DOE's finding that setting
new energy conservation standards for GSLs would benefit the United
States by delivering significant, cost-effective energy savings that
are both technologically feasible and economically justified. (CLASP,
No. 177 at p. 1) Earthjustice commented that the January 2023 NOPR
demonstrates that even with DOE's recent implementation of the EPCA
statutory backstop

[[Page 28872]]

standard, GSLs continue to hold significant potential for additional
cost-effective energy savings and air pollutant emissions reductions.
(Earthjustice, No. 179 at p. 1) The CA IOUs stated that after DOE ends
its enforcement discretion of the 45 lm/W backstop standard, all GSLs
on the market will be light-emitting diode (``LED'') lamps or compact
fluorescent lamps (``CFLs''), with LED GSLs offering many efficacies.
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to finalize this rule before June 2024 to
ensure the legal durability of this and future GSL standards. (CA IOUs,
No. 167 at p. 2) The CEC also stated its general support for DOE's
efforts to improve the minimum efficacy for GSLs, which they stated
will move the market to high-efficacy LED lighting. The CEC commented
that California has been able to provide a test market as the world's
fourth-largest economy for high-quality and high-efficacy LEDs since
January 1, 2018. The CEC commented that the success of California's
standards demonstrates the technological feasibility and economic
justification of pursuing minimum efficacy standards for GSLs. (CEC,
No. 176 at pp. 1-2)
NYSERDA stated its support for TSL 6 as proposed in the NOPR, as
this TSL represents all product categories at their maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') standard efficiencies.
(NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 1-2) NEMA stated that with the exception of
the new product classes it had suggested, for all other product classes
DOE should adopt TSL 5, because TSL 5 represents the maximum NPV and
maintains design flexibility for lamps of varying lengths to produce
sufficient light while meeting various application requirements.
Specifically, NEMA stated that TSL 6 would require max-tech performance
for linear LED lamps designed to replace fluorescent tubes. NEMA stated
that linear LED lamps provide lower lumens, which may hinder
manufacturers from producing lamps able to provide the appropriate
amount of light to meet the max-tech performance standard of efficiency
or efficacy level (``EL'') 7 (see section IV.D.1.d of this document for
full comment and response). Finally, NEMA stated that because TSL 5 and
TSL 6 save energy, have similar payback periods, and represent the
maximum NPV, NEMA members believe DOE should adopt TSL 5 to best
balance consumer cost and benefit. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 20) ASAP et al.
commented that DOE should not adopt TSL 5 as an alternative to TSL 6,
as DOE should adopt the standard that represents the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technically feasible and
economically justified, which is TSL 6. ASAP et al. commented that
adopting a lower level would not fulfill DOE's statutory obligations
and would needlessly result in additional energy waste and greenhouse
gas and other emissions. (ASAP et al., No. 174 at p. 5)
In this final rule DOE is adopting TSL 6 as proposed in the January
2023 NOPR. 88 FR 1638, 1708. DOE discusses the benefits and burdens of
each TSL considered and DOE's conclusion in section V.C of this
document. As discussed in that section, TSL 6 represents the maximum
energy savings that are technically feasible and economically
justified, as required by EPCA. Regarding requiring the max-tech level
for linear LED lamps at TSL 6, all max-tech efficiency levels in this
analysis are based on existing products available on the market.

B. Scope of Coverage

This rulemaking covers all consumer products that meet the
definition of ``general service lamp'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
While all GSLs are subject to the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR
430.32(dd), not all GSLs are subject to the amended standards adopted
in this final rule, though DOE may consider amended standards for them
in a future rulemaking (see section IV.A.3 of this document).

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293)
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE's
current energy conservation standards for GSLs are expressed in terms
of lumens per watt (``lm/W''). GSILs and certain IRLs, CFLs, and LED
lamps are GSLs. DOE's test procedures for GSILs and IRLs are set forth
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R. DOE's test procedure for
CFLs is set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix W. DOE's test
procedure for integrated LED lamps is set forth at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix BB. DOE's test procedure for GSLs that are not
GSILs, IRLs, CFLs, or integrated LED lamps is set forth at 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix DD.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list
of technology options for consideration in consultation with
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in
commercially available products or in working prototypes to be
technologically feasible. See sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of
appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart C (``Process Rule'').
After DOE has determined that particular technology options are
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1)
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on
health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. See
section 7(b)(2)-(5) of the Process Rule. Section IV.C of this document
discusses the results of the screening analysis for GSLs, particularly
the designs DOE considered, those it screened out, and those that are
the basis for the standards considered in this rulemaking. For further
details on the screening analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of
the final rule technical support document (``TSD'').
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
When DOE proposes to adopt a new or amended standard for a type or
class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is
technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1))
Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy
efficiency for GSLs, using the design parameters for the most efficient
products available on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech
levels that DOE determined for this rulemaking are described in section
IV.D.1.c of this final rule and in chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.

[[Page 28873]]

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy
savings from application of the TSL to GSLs purchased in the 30-year
period that begins in the first full year of compliance with the
amended standards (2029-2058).\19\ The savings are measured over the
entire lifetime of GSLs purchased in the 30-year analysis period, i.e.,
including savings until the longest-lifetime GSL purchased in 2058 is
retired from service in 2091. DOE quantified the energy savings
attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended
standards for GSLs. The NIA model (described in section IV.H of this
document) calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is
the energy directly consumed by products at the locations where they
are used. For electricity, DOE reports national energy savings in terms
of primary energy savings, which is the savings in the energy that is
used to generate and transmit the site electricity. For natural gas,
the primary energy savings are considered to be equal to the site
energy savings. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings.
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing,
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.\20\ DOE's approach is based on the
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy
savings, see section IV.H.1 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\21\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates
the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account the significance of cumulative FFC national energy savings, the
cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need to confront the
global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on Dec. 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this final rule are
projected to result in national energy savings of 4.0 quad, the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 261 million homes. Based
on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions,
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined
the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule
are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The
following sections discuss how DOE has addressed each of those seven
factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of potential new or amended standards on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. DOE first uses an annual cash-flow approach to determine
the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-term
assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2)
cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and payback period (``PBP'') associated with new or
amended standards. These measures are discussed further in the
following section. For consumers in the aggregate, DOE also calculates
the national net present value of the consumer costs and benefits
expected to result from particular standards. DOE also evaluates the
impacts of potential standards on identifiable subgroups of consumers
that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (Life-Cycle
Cost (``LCC'') and Payback Period Analysis (``PBP''))
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP
analysis.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to

[[Page 28874]]

recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more
efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost due to a more stringent
standard by the change in annual operating cost for the year that
standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered products in the first full year of compliance with
new or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As
discussed in section IV.H of this document, DOE uses the NIA
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing product classes, and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered products. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data
available to DOE, the standards adopted in this document would not
reduce the utility or performance of the products under consideration
in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It
also directs the Attorney General to determine the impact, if any, of
any lessening of competition likely to result from a standard and to
transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the
publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature
and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) To assist the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') in making such a determination, DOE
transmitted copies of its proposed rule and the NOPR TSD to the
Attorney General for review, with a request that the DOJ provide its
determination on this issue. In its assessment letter responding to
DOE, DOJ concluded that it does not have evidence that the new proposed
energy conservation standards for GSLs are substantially likely to
adversely impact competition. DOE is publishing the Attorney General's
assessment at the end of this final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy
savings from the adopted standards are likely to provide improvements
to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy system.
Reductions in the demand for electricity also may result in reduced
costs for maintaining the reliability of the Nation's electricity
system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to estimate how
standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation capacity, as
discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and greenhouse gases (``GHGs'') associated with energy
production and use. DOE conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how
potential standards may affect these emissions, as discussed in section
IV.K of this document; the estimated emissions impacts are reported in
section V.B.6 of this document. DOE also estimates the economic value
of emissions reductions resulting from the considered TSLs, as
discussed in section IV.L of this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic
justification that does not fit into the other categories described
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other
factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP
analyses generate values used to calculate the effect potential amended
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In
addition, DOE routinely conducts an economic analysis that considers
the full range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and
the environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section IV.F of this final rule.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to GSLs. Separate subsections address each
component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation standards. The national impact analysis uses a
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: <a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4">www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4</a>. Additionally,
DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information
Administration's (``EIA's'') Annual

[[Page 28875]]

Energy Outlook (``AEO'') for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. Scope of Coverage

This rulemaking covers all consumer products that meet the
definition of ``general service lamps'' as codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
While all GSLs are subject to the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR
430.32(dd), DOE is not adopting amended energy conservation standards
in this final rule for all GSLs, though DOE may consider amended
standards for them in a future rulemaking. In this rulemaking, DOE is
analyzing and adopting amended standards for CFLs and general service
LED lamps that have a lumen output within the range of 310-3,300
lumens; have an input voltage of 12 volts or 24 volts, at or between
100 to 130 volts, at or between 220 to 240 volts, or of 277 volts for
integrated lamps, or are able to operate at any voltage for non-
integrated lamps; and do not fall into any exclusion from the GSL
definition at 10 CFR 430.2. In this rulemaking as specified in Sec.
430.32(dd)(1)(iv)(C), DOE is not analyzing and adopting amended
standards for general service organic LED lamps and any GSL that (1) is
a non-integrated lamp that is capable of operating in standby mode and
is sold in packages of two lamps or less; (2) is designed and marketed
as a lamp that has at least one setting that allows the user to change
the lamp's CCT and has no setting in which the lamp meets the
definition of a colored lamp (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2); and is sold
in packages of two lamps or less; (3) is designed and marketed as a
lamp that has at least one setting in which the lamp meets the
definition of a colored lamp (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2) and at least
one other setting in which it does not meet the definition of colored
lamp (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2) and is sold in packages of two lamps
or less; or (4) is designed and marketed as a lamp that has one or more
component(s) offering a completely different functionality (e.g., a
speaker, a camera, an air purifier, etc.) where each component is
integrated into the lamp but does not affect the light output of the
lamp (e.g., does not turn the light on/off, dim the light, change the
color of the light, etc.), is capable of operating in standby mode, and
is sold in packages of two lamps or less. See section IV.A.3 of this
document for further details. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii) of EPCA
provides that this rulemaking's scope shall not be limited to
incandescent technologies. In accordance with this provision, the scope
of this rulemaking encompasses other GSLs in addition to GSILs.
General service lamp means a lamp that has an American National
Standards Institute (``ANSI'') base; is able to operate at a voltage of
12 volts or 24 volts, at or between 100 to 130 volts, at or between 220
to 240 volts, or at 277 volts for integrated lamps, or is able to
operate at any voltage for non-integrated lamps; has an initial lumen
output of greater than or equal to 310 lumens (or 232 lumens for
modified spectrum general service incandescent lamps) and less than or
equal to 3,300 lumens; is not a light fixture; is not an LED downlight
retrofit kit; and is used in general lighting applications. General
service lamps include, but are not limited to, general service
incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, general service light-
emitting diode lamps, and general service organic light emitting diode
lamps. General service lamps do not include: (1) Appliance lamps; (2)
Black light lamps; (3) Bug lamps; (4) Colored lamps; (5) G shape lamps
with a diameter of 5 inches or more as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002; (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; and (26) Traffic signal lamps. 10 CFR
430.2.
The definitions for compact fluorescent lamps, general service
light-emitting diode lamps, and general service organic light emitting
diode lamps, and other terms used in the GSL definition are also
specified in 10 CFR 430.2.
Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)(II) directs DOE to
consider whether the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should
be maintained or discontinued. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE reviewed
the regulatory definitions of GSL, GSIL, and supporting definitions
adopted in the May 2022 Definition Final Rule and determined that no
amendments are needed with regards to the maintenance or
discontinuation of exemptions for certain incandescent lamps. 88 FR
1638, 1651. DOE received no comments regarding this assessment. DOE
maintains this assessment in this final rule.
1. Supporting Definitions
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed minor updates to clarify
certain supplemental definitions adopted in the May 2022 Definition
Final Rule. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the
existing definition of LED downlight retrofit kit to specify that it
must be a retrofit kit classified or certified to Underwriters
Laboratories (``UL'') 1598C-2014.\22\ 88 FR 1638, 1652.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ UL, UL1598C Standard for Safety Light-Emitting Diode (LED)
Retrofit Luminaire Conversion Kits. Approved November 17, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEMA requested that DOE reference UL 1598C generally, without
reference to a specific publication year. NEMA noted that American
National Standards publications (e.g., ANSI/UL 1598C) are dynamic with
revisions continuously evaluated, refined, voted upon, published, and
implemented by subject matter experts seeking to improve the utility of
these publications in the market. NEMA stated that by specifying a
publication year, DOE would be unnecessarily forgoing the benefit of
revisions to this important consumer safety standard and working
against the standards' adoption in the broader market. (NEMA, No. 183
at p. 3).
The GSL definition states that a GSL is not an LED downlight
retrofit kit. 10 CFR 430.2. Therefore, the definition of LED downlight
retrofit kit informs what is or is not a GSL. DOE reviewed UL 1598C-
2014 before proposing that a LED downlight retrofit kit be classified
or certified to the standard. 88 FR 1638, 1652. DOE would need to
review updates in any new version of the standard to assess any impacts
on the LED downlight retrofit kit definition and subsequently on the
GSL definition. If DOE does not specify the version of the UL 1598C
standard, it may result in

[[Page 28876]]

changes to these definitions that have not been reviewed by DOE and/or
put forth for public comment. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is
adopting the definition for LED downlight retrofit kit with reference
to UL 1598C-2014 as proposed in the January 2023 NOPR. Further, note
that the edition of UL 1598C DOE reviewed and proposed for
incorporation in the January 2023 NOPR was the first edition dated
January 16, 2014, including revisions through November 17, 2016. To
ensure the appropriate version is being referenced and to align with
the referencing of industry standards in other definitions, DOE is
specifying the year when referencing UL 1598C in the LED downlight
retrofit kit definition as UL 1598C-2016 in this final rule.
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE also proposed to update the industry
standards referenced in the definitions of ``Reflector lamp'' and
``Showcase lamp.'' Specifically, DOE proposed to remove the reference
to ANSI C78.20-2003 \23\ from the definitions of ``Showcase lamp'' and
``Reflector lamp.'' ANSI C78.20-2003 is an industry standard for A, G,
PS, and similar shapes with E26 bases and therefore is not relevant to
these lamp types. Further, ANSI has replaced another industry standard,
ANSI C79.1-2002,\24\ with ANSI C78.79-2014 (R2020).\25\ Accordingly,
DOE proposed to update the following supporting definitions that
currently reference ANSI C79.1-2002 to reference ANSI C78.79-2014
(R2020): (1) ``Specialty MR lamp'' definition; (2) ``Reflector lamp''
definition; (3) ``General service incandescent lamp'' definition with
respect to a G shape lamp with a diameter of 5 inches or more; and (4)
``General service lamp'' definition with respect to G shape lamps with
a diameter of 5 inches or more; MR shape lamps that have a first number
symbol equal to 16; Reflector lamps that have a first number symbol
less than 16; S shape or G shape lamps that have a first number symbol
less than or equal to 12.5; T shape lamps that have a first number
symbol less than or equal to 8. 88 FR 1638, 1652. DOE received no
comments on this proposal. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE adopts
the updates to industry standards referenced in these supporting
definitions as proposed in the January 2023 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C78.20-2003
American National Standard for Electric Lamps--A, G, PS, and Similar
Shapes with E26 Medium Screw Bases. Approved Oct. 30, 2003.
\24\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C79.1-2002
American National Standard For Electric Lamps--Nomenclature for
Glass Bulbs Intended for Use with Electric Lamps. Approved Sept. 16,
2002.
\25\ American National Standards Institute, ANSI C 78.79-2014
(R2020) American National Standard for Electric Lamps--Nomenclature
for Envelope Shapes Intended for Use with Electric Lamps. Approved
Jan. 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received a comment regarding the term ``general service.''
Seasonal Specialties commented that there does not seem to be a
definition for ``general service'', and it is unclear what ``general
service'' includes and excludes. (Seasonal Specialties, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 18-19)
As noted previously in section IV.A of this document, the
definition of GSL in 10 CFR 430.2 specifies a GSL must have an ANSI
base, operate in certain voltage ranges, and have lumens in certain
lumens ranges. It also identifies lamp types that are GSLs as well as
26 lamp types that are exempt from the GSL definition. Hence, DOE finds
that the GSL definition in 10 CFR 430.2 clearly specifies what is or is
not a GSL and no other definitions are necessary.
Additionally, DOE received comments on the definition of standby
power. NEMA recommended that DOE revise the definition of ``Standby
mode,'' because the current definition focuses only on the energy
consumption of a lamp's standby mode condition and not the reason that
it operates on standby (i.e., a lamp's functional capabilities). NEMA
stated that the definition of ``Standby mode'' in the January 2023 NOPR
TSD could become problematic and restrictive as the category more fully
develops. NEMA recommended that DOE instead replace the term ``Standby
mode'' with ``Lamp capable of operating in standby mode'' and to denote
it as an ``an energy-using product.'' (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 9) Lutron
commented that it supports NEMA's revisions to the January 2023 NOPR
definition of ``standby mode.'' (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 8)
The definition of ``standby mode'' is a statutory definition
specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(iii). In appendix A of the January
2023 NOPR TSD, DOE repeated this definition as it appears in 42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(iii) and is codified in 10 CFR 430.2. This definition
specifies that standby mode means the condition in which an energy-
using product is connected to a main power source; and offers certain
user-oriented or protective functions. (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(iii),
10 CFR 430.2)
NEMA's suggested changes would add language that states, ``Lamps
capable of operating in standby mode.'' However, this definition
applies to all covered products, not only lamps. Further, in the
January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed a table to codify the proposed GSL
standards in the CFR. This table included the column ``Standby Mode
Operation'' indicating the lamps that are capable of standby mode
operation and those that are not and the standards to which they would
be subject. 88 FR 1638, 1718. Therefore, proposed GSL standards and
those adopted in this rulemaking would clearly indicate the difference
between lamps capable of operating in standby mode and those that are
not. NEMA also suggested adding language that specifies the product in
standby mode as ``an energy-using product.'' This language is already
present in the existing definition. Finally, NEMA's concern that the
definition does not focus on the lamp's functional capabilities that
require it to operate in standby mode is addressed in paragraph 2 of
the definition, which describes the additional user-oriented or
protective functions the product offers. Hence, because it is a
statutory definition and changing it would not have a substantive
impact on clarity or accuracy, DOE is not amending the definition of
``Standby mode'' in this final rule.
2. Definition of Circadian-Friendly Integrated Light-Emitting Diode
(``LED'') Lamp
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed a definition for
``circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp'' and proposed that lamps
meeting that definition be excluded from the GSL definition. DOE
identified commercially available integrated LED lamps that are
marketed as aiding in the human sleep-wake (i.e., circadian) cycle by
changing the light spectrum and also observed that their efficacies
ranged from 47.8 lm/W to 85.7 lm/W. Specifically, DOE proposed to
define ``circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp'' as an integrated LED
lamp that (1) is designed and marketed for use in the human sleep-wake
(circadian) cycle; (2) is designed and marketed as an equivalent
replacement for a 40 W or 60 W incandescent lamp; (3) has at least one
setting that decreases or removes standard spectrum radiation emission
in the 440 nm to 490 nm wavelength range; and (4) is sold in packages
of two lamps or less. 88 FR 1638, 1652. In addition, based on the
potential utility they offer and DOE's tentative findings that such
lamps did not have high efficacy values, DOE proposed to exclude them
from meeting the definition of GSLs.
DOE received several comments regarding the proposed definition and
exemption of the circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp, including

[[Page 28877]]

comments questioning DOE's authority to exempt them from the GSL
definition.
Earthjustice and ASAP et al. stated that DOE lacks the legal
authority to exempt these lamps and doing so would violate the anti-
backsliding provision. (Earthjustice, No. 179 at pp. 1-3; ASAP et al.,
No. 174 at pp. 1-2) Earthjustice commented that the proposed GSL
exemption for circadian-friendly LED lamps would mean that these lamps
would no longer be subject to the 45 lm/W backstop standard level or
any standard, an action EPCA's anti-backsliding provision explicitly
forbids. Regarding authority, Earthjustice commented that the January
2023 NOPR cited no EPCA provision for excluding circadian-friendly
integrated LED lamps from the GSL definition, indicating that such
authority does not exist. Earthjustice commented that EPCA grants DOE
explicit authority to enlarge the scope of GSLs to encompass any lamps
``used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by general
service incandescent lamps'' but offers limited authority to grant
exemptions. Further, Earthjustice stated that the requirement per EPCA
that DOE complete a rulemaking to consider whether ``the exemptions for
certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued'' (see
42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)) is not applicable in this case.
Earthjustice stated that EPCA authorizes DOE to exclude: (1) from the
term ``medium base compact fluorescent lamp'' any lamp that is
``designed for special applications'' and ``unlikely to be used in
general purpose applications'' (see 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(S)(ii)(II)); and
(2) from the terms ``fluorescent lamp'' and ``incandescent lamp'' any
lamp to which DOE makes ``a determination that standards for such lamp
would not result in significant energy savings because such lamp is
designed for special applications or has special characteristics not
available in reasonably substitutable lamp types'' (see 42 U.S.C.
6291(30)(E)). Earthjustice stated that neither of these two provisions
authorizes DOE to exclude products from the definition of GSLs because
GSLs need not meet the definitions of MBCFL, fluorescent lamp, or
incandescent lamp to be covered as GSLs. Earthjustice concluded by
stating that because the proposed action for circadian-friendly LED
lamps does not fit into one of the categories of exemptions DOE is
statutorily authorized to create, the proposed action is unlawful, and
that where a statute confers authority on an agency to create specific
exemptions, broader authority to create other types of exemptions
cannot be inferred. (Earthjustice, No. 179 at pp. 1-3)
NEMA stated that the proposed circadian-friendly integrated LED
lamp exemption could lead to standards being set at the State level,
resulting in a patchwork of product regulations. NEMA recommended that
DOE finalize a rule that creates no exemptions and sets minimum ELs for
all GSLs, regardless of product claims. NEMA recommended that DOE work
with stakeholders to develop better, more useful definitions, and to
set minimum ELs for energy conservation standards that will allow the
market to develop and mature. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 4).
Based on the comment received, DOE does not have sufficient
information to establish a separate product class for circadian-
friendly integrated LED lamps. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Therefore, DOE
is not exempting circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps from the GSL
definition in this final rule. As a result, these lamps will be subject
to the standards for GSLs.
With regards to the specific definition of circadian-friendly
lamps, CLASP, NYSERDA, and the CEC commented that DOE's proposed
definition of circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps is too broad and
recommended that DOE include more specific requirements. (CEC, No. 176
at p. 3; NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3; CLASP, No. 177 at pp. 3-4)
Specifically, NYSERDA stated that the proposed definition called only
for a ``decrease'' in blue light without providing more strict specific
guidance (i.e., ``decreasing by 90 percent'') or requiring removal of
blue light. NYSERDA commented that the definition could be met by
minimal design modifications targeting blue wavelengths, with the
result that inefficient LED lamps in popular form factors could
continue to be available without producing positive health outcomes.
(NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3) CLASP also recommended that DOE not
include language like ``one setting that decreases or removes standard
spectrum radiation'' and rather specify that such lamps should only--
and always--operate in this modified mode. CLASP offered the example of
DOE subjecting ``modified-spectrum'' GSLs which had a neodymium coating
on the glass to an adjusted efficacy level because of the modified-
spectrum feature. (CLASP, No. 177 at pp. 3-4) NYSERDA also stated that
the other criteria in DOE's proposed definition (i.e., marketing,
replacement wattage, and packaging) could also be easily adjusted to
meet the definition through minimal manufacturer changes. (NYSERDA, No.
166 at pp. 2-3) EEI stated that it was unclear how efficiency connected
to DOE's proposed criteria that circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps
be sold in packages of two lamps or less. Regarding the criteria that
the lamp be designed and marketed as an equivalent replacement for a 40
W or 60 W incandescent lamp, EEI stated that there could be
replacements for other wattage equivalents such as 100 W incandescent
or 72 W halogen. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 19-20)
DOE believes at this time that circadian friendly integrated LED
lamps do not possess unique attributes compared to other GSLs. There is
no consensus on specific lamp attributes that meaningfully impact the
human circadian cycle. The human circadian system's response curves are
not yet fully understood and the proper dosing of light to achieve
circadian effects has not been standardized. Therefore, DOE finds that
an accurate definition of a circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp is
not possible and the claim that these lamps provide unique utility is
not accurate at this time. Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt a
definition of circadian-friendly integrated LED lamp at this time,
which is consistent with comments on the proposed rule. As noted above,
DOE is not exempting circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps from the
GSL definition in this final rule and as a result, these lamps will be
subject to the standards for GSLs.
3. Scope of Standards
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE stated that it was not assessing
standards for general service organic light-emitting diode (``OLED'')
lamps, a type of GSL, in this rulemaking. 88 FR 1638, 1653. Due to the
lack of commercially available GSLs that use OLED technology, in the
January 2023 NOPR DOE determined that it is unclear whether the
efficacy of these products can be increased. DOE tentatively determined
that standards for these lamps would not be technologically feasible
and did not evaluate them in the January 2023 NOPR. DOE did not receive
any comments on this proposal. In this final rule, DOE continues to not
evaluate standards for general service OLED lamps for the reasons
stated previously.
DOE received comments that it should create separate product
classes and thereby standards for each of the following lamp types: (1)
lamps that change the lamp's correlated color temperature (``CCT'');
(2) lamps that change the lamp to be a colored lamp; (3) lamps that are
capable of operating

[[Page 28878]]

in standby mode and have at least one additional feature that does not
control light output; and (4) lamps that are non-integrated and capable
of operating in standby mode. In this rulemaking, DOE did not analyze
amended standards for these lamp categories because DOE lacks
sufficient information about the performance of these lamps given the
rapidly evolving market. DOE has carefully reviewed the lamp categories
and determined that because the markets for these lamps are rapidly
developing, DOE is unable to make a clear and accurate determination
regarding the consumer utility, how various technology options would
affect the efficiency, and the maximum technologically feasible
efficiency of these lamps, which prevents DOE from determining whether
a specific standard for these lamps would be economically justified at
this time. Accordingly, DOE did not consider standards for these lamps
in this rulemaking. DOE may evaluate amended standards for these lamps
in a future rulemaking. DOE notes that these lamps are still subject to
the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd). For a full
discussion of these comments and DOE's responses, see section IV.B.2 of
this document.
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to exempt circadian-friendly
integrated LED lamp (see section IV.A.2 of this document) from amended
standards because these lamps offered a utility to consumers in the
form of aiding in the human sleep-wake (i.e., circadian) cycle and also
these lamps did not have high efficacies. 88 FR 1638, 1652. DOE
received several comments citing concerns regarding potential loopholes
resulting from such an exemption from standards. ASAP et al., CLASP,
NYSERDA, and the CEC commented that DOE's proposal to exclude
circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps from GSL regulation would risk
creating a loophole and allow inefficient lamps on the market. (CEC,
No. 176 at p. 3; NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3; CLASP, No. 177 at pp. 3-
4; ASAP et al., No. 174 at pp. 1-2) NEMA stated that the circadian-
friendly integrated lamp definition and exemption could provide
manufacturers an opportunity to evade regulations. (NEMA, No. 183 at p.
4) DOE also received comments on the utility of circadian-friendly
integrated LED lamps. NYSERDA commented that these lamps provide
general illumination and found no clear evidence of a utility that
justified exempting the lamps. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at p. 2) NEMA stated
that the human circadian system's response curves are not yet fully
understood and the proper dosing of light to achieve circadian effects
has not been standardized. NEMA noted that IES RP-46 Recommended
Practice: Supporting the Physiological and Behavioral Effects of
Lighting in Interior Daytime Environments is still in development. NEMA
commented some spectrally tunable lamps are marketed with ``circadian
features'' entrainment but there are reasons to dismiss such claims
because the ability to affect circadian entrainment is not a product
attribute but a matter of proper lighting product application (i.e.,
attention to timing, intensity, spectrum and duration of the applied
light). Further NEMA commented that the two circadian-friendly
integrated LED lamps cited in the January 2023 NOPR could be applied in
such a way as to not produce the claimed circadian effects and offer a
limited representation of the circadian entrainment potential as they
only decrease or remove blue light to promote better sleep while other
products can be programmed to provide more or less blue light by time
of day. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 3-4)
DOE also received comments addressing DOE's observed lower efficacy
of the circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps and suggestions to
establish appropriate standards for these lamps instead of exempting
them from standards. ASAP et al. commented that DOE's proposal to
exempt circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps because it had observed
an efficacy range of 47.8 lm/W to 85.7 lm/W suggested DOE assumed that
the lower efficacy is representative of this technology. ASAP et al.
stated that this may not be the case, as many common integrated
omnidirectional short lamps on the market today have efficacies of 80-
90 lm/W, which is similar to those of some of the circadian-friendly
lamps identified by DOE. (ASAP et al., No. 174 at pp. 1-2) CLASP and
ASAP et al. commented that circadian-friendly lamps are based on the
same design principles as other LED lamps (e.g., improved drivers and
LED chips) and therefore can be made more efficient in the same way.
CLASP and ASAP et al. commented that, rather than exempting the lamps,
DOE should determine the technologically justified efficacy adjustment
for these lamps. (ASAP et al., No. 174 at pp. 1-2; CLASP, No. 177 at
pp. 3-4)
Similarly, NYSERDA, the CEC, and the CA IOUs recommended that DOE
consider establishing a separate product class targeting circadian-
friendly products at a level slightly lower than currently proposed for
most product classes of GSLs. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3; CA IOUs,
No. 167 at p. 3; CEC, No. 176 at p. 3-4) NYSERDA commented that such a
product class should include a clear definition and serve a specific
health utility. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3) The CEC also stated that
the definition should include specific and objective features, such as
color shifting, that can provide a basis for determining the additional
power required to efficiently provide one or more specific circadian
benefits. (CEC, No. 176 at p. 3-4) NYSERDA and the CEC stated that the
product class approach based on a well-defined lamp type would achieve
DOE's intent to preserve the circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps
while limiting a loophole that would result in inefficient LED lamps on
the market. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at pp. 2-3; CEC, No. 176 at p. 3-4) The
CA IOUs commented that circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps are in
early stages of development and there is no industry-wide definition of
``circadian-friendly'' lighting. The CA IOUs recommended that
circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps be defined as proposed in the
January 2023 NOPR but be subjected to a reasonable minimum luminous
efficacy requirement. Additionally, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE
require manufacturers to report shipments of circadian-friendly
integrated LED lamps and issue public reports on shipment growth. The
CA IOUs added that DOE could then make informed adjustments to the
definition and standards as necessary for circadian-friendly integrated
LED lamps in a future GSL rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 167 at p. 3)
Based on the comments received, there is no clear consensus on
specific lamp attributes that meaningfully impact the human circadian
cycle. The human circadian system's response curves are not yet fully
understood and the proper dosing of light to achieve circadian effects
has not been standardized. Further, as pointed out by the commenters,
there are circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps with comparable
efficacies to other GSLs. As a result, DOE does not have sufficient
information to establish a separate product class for circadian-
friendly integrated LED lamps. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) And as
Earthjustice noted, DOE agrees that the proposed GSL exemption for
circadian-friendly LED lamps would mean that these lamps would no
longer be subject to the 45 lm/W backstop standard level or any
standard, an action EPCA's anti-backsliding provision explicitly
forbids. Consistent with these and the above comments, DOE is including
circadian-friendly

[[Page 28879]]

integrated LED lamps within the scope of amended standards. DOE notes,
however, that it could decide not to amend existing standards for
circadian-friendly integrated LED lamps in a future rulemaking if so
warranted by a product class designation.
Relatedly, while all GSLs are subject to the 45 lm/W sales
prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd), not all GSLs are subject to the
amended standards adopted in this final rule, though DOE may consider
amended standards for them in a future rulemaking. In this rulemaking,
DOE is analyzing and adopting amended standards for CFLs and general
service LED lamps that have a lumen output within the range of 310-
3,300 lumens; have an input voltage of 12 volts or 24 volts, at or
between 100 to 130 volts, at or between 220 to 240 volts, or of 277
volts for integrated lamps, or are able to operate at any voltage for
non-integrated lamps; and do not fall into any exclusion from the GSL
definition at 10 CFR 430.2. In this rulemaking as specified in Sec.
430.32(dd)(1)(iv)(C), DOE is not analyzing and adopting amended
standards for general service organic LED lamps and any GSL that:
(1) Is a non-integrated lamp that is capable of operating in
standby mode and is sold in packages of two lamps or less;
(2) Is designed and marketed as a lamp that has at least one
setting that allows the user to change the lamp's CCT and has no
setting in which the lamp meets the definition of a colored lamp (as
defined in 10 CFR 430.2); and is sold in packages of two lamps or less;
(3) Is designed and marketed as a lamp that has at least one
setting in which the lamp meets the definition of a colored lamp (as
defined in 10 CFR 430.2) and at least one other setting in which it
does not meet the definition of colored lamp (as defined in 10 CFR
430.2) and is sold in packages of two lamps or less; or
(4) Is designed and marketed as a lamp that has one or more
component(s) offering a completely different functionality (e.g., a
speaker, a camera, an air purifier, etc.) where each component is
integrated into the lamp but does not affect the light output of the
lamp (e.g., does not turn the light on/off, dim the light, change the
color of the light, etc.), is capable of operating in standby mode, and
is sold in packages of two lamps or less. Lamps that would not meet
these criteria and therefore would not be exempt from standards would
be lamps that have integrated motion sensors that affect light output,
lamps with internal battery backup used for light output, and lamps
designed and marketed as dusk to dawn lamps.
Please note that DOE is not exempting circadian-friendly integrated
LED lamps from the GSL definition or the scope of standards in this
final rule. As a result, these lamps will be subject to the standards
for GSLs.
4. Scope of Metrics
As stated in section II.A, this rulemaking is being conducted
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B) and (m). Under 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(6)(B)(i)(I), DOE is required to determine whether standards in
effect for GSILs should be amended to reflect lumen ranges with more
stringent maximum wattage than the standards specified in paragraph
(1)(A) (i.e., standards enacted by section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA
\26\). The scope of this analysis is not limited to incandescent lamp
technologies and thus encompasses all GSLs. In the January 2023 NOPR,
DOE explained that the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule codified the
statutory backstop requirement in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)
prohibiting sales of GSLs that do not meet a 45 lm/W efficacy standard.
Because incandescent and halogen GSLs would not be able to meet the 45
lm/W requirement, they are not considered in the analysis for this
rulemaking. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE discussed its decision to use
minimum lumens per watt as the metric for measuring lamp efficiency for
GSLs rather than maximum wattage of a lamp. 88 FR 1638, 1653. DOE did
not receive comments on this decision. In this final rule, DOE
continues to use minimum lumens per watt as the metric for measuring
lamp efficiency for GSLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ This provision was to be codified as an amendment to 42
U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(A). But because of an apparent conflict with
section 322(b) of EISA, which purported to ``strik[e] paragraph
(1)'' of section 6295(i) and replace it with a new paragraph (1),
neither this provision nor other provisions of section
321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA that were to be codified in 42 U.S.C.
6295(i)(1) were ever codified in the U.S. Code. Compare EISA,
section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii), with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1). It appears,
however, that Congress's intention in section 322(b) of EISA was to
replace the existing paragraph (1), not paragraph (1) as amended in
section 321(a)(3). Indeed, there is no reason to believe that
Congress intended to strike these new standards for GSILs. DOE has
thus issued regulations implementing these uncodified provisions.
See, e.g., 10 CFR 430.32(x) (implementing standards for GSILs, as
set forth in section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE also discussed proposed updates to
existing metrics and the proposed addition of new metrics for GSLs.
These included updating the existing lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours
and at 40 percent of lifetime, rapid cycle stress test, lifetime
requirements, and adding a power factor and start time requirement for
MBCFLs. DOE also proposed adding a power factor requirement for
integrated LED lamps. Finally, DOE proposed codifying color rendering
index (``CRI'') requirements for lamps that are intended for a general
service or general illumination application (whether incandescent or
not); have a medium screw base or any other screw base not defined in
ANSI C81.61-2006 \27\; are capable of being operated at a voltage at
least partially within the range of 110 to 130 volts; and are
manufactured or imported after December 31, 2011 as specified in
section 321(a) of EISA. 88 FR 1638, 1653. The following sections
discuss the comments received on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ American National Standards, ``for electrical lamp bases--
Specifications for Bases (Caps) for Electric Lamps,'' approved
August 25, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Lifetime
NYSERDA commented that it supports DOE's proposed increase to a
10,000-hour lifetime for MBCFLs and recommended DOE consider adding a
10,000-hour-minimum requirement for LED lamps to ensure consumer needs
are met. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at p. 3)
DOE only has authority to amend the lifetime requirement for
MBCFLs, not LED lamps. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (``EPAct 2005'')
amended EPCA by establishing energy conservation standards for MBCFLs,
which were codified by DOE in an October 2005 final rule. 70 FR 60413.
Performance requirements were specified for five metrics: (1) minimum
initial efficacy; (2) lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours; (3) lumen
maintenance at 40 percent of lifetime; (4) rapid cycle stress; and (5)
lamp life. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(1)) In addition to revising the existing
requirements for MBCFLs, DOE has the authority to establish
requirements for additional metrics including CRI, power factor,
operating frequency, and maximum allowable start time based on the
requirements prescribed by the August 9, 2001 ENERGY STAR[supreg]
Program Requirements for CFLs Version 2.0, or establish other
requirements after considering energy savings, cost effectiveness, and
consumer satisfaction. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(2)-(3)) Based on this
authority, in the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the
existing lifetime requirement for MBCFLs. The only metric that DOE
proposed for LED lamps was a minimum power factor for integrated LED
lamps. DOE finds that it has the authority to set this metric because
power factor impacts energy use. A low power factor product is
inefficient and

[[Page 28880]]

requires an increase in an electric utility's generation and
transmission capacity. (See further details on the power factor
requirement for integrated LED lamps in section IV.A.4.c of this
document.)
b. Color Rendering Index (``CRI'')
NYSERDA stated its support for the inclusion of a minimum of 80 CRI
for non-modified-spectrum GSLs, noting that an 80 CRI or above has been
demonstrated to ensure sufficient visual acuity for general
illumination situations. (NYSERDA, No. 166 at p. 3) EEI stated that
while a CRI of 80 was adequate, a higher CRI is always better and a CRI
of 90 would be preferable, if possible. (EEI, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 24-26) NEMA stated its support for DOE's
proposal to codify a minimum CRI of 80 but requested the requirement
apply to all GSLs within the scope of the rulemaking rather than only
to those with medium screw bases or any other screw base not defined in
ANSI C81.61-2006, as specified in the January 2023 NOPR. NEMA stated
that the proposed CRI requirement excludes many lamps in the scope of
this regulation that are already normalized at a minimum CRI of 80 due
to consumer preference and therefore their inclusion in the requirement
would pose no regulatory burden for manufacturers. Further, NEMA stated
its concern that as an offset to the new efficacy and performance
requirements, the removal of a consistent regulated threshold will
incentivize market introduction of lower CRI products. Additionally,
NEMA stated that to its knowledge, there are no modified-spectrum
incandescent lamps in the U.S. market today and recommended that all
mentions of ``modified spectrum'' be excluded from the final rule. In
the event that regulatory requirements for this product category must
be maintained, NEMA recommended that all requirements for modified
spectrum lamps be made identical to those of the non-modified spectrum
lamps. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 5)
These CRI requirements are from section 321(a) of EISA, which
amended 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1). But because of an apparent conflict with
section 322(b) of EISA, which purported to strike paragraph (1) of 42
U.S.C. 6295(i) and replace it with a new paragraph (1), neither this
provision nor other provisions of section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA that
were to be codified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1) were ever codified in the
U.S. Code. It has been DOE's position that Congress's intention in
section 322(b) of EISA was to replace the existing paragraph (1), not
the newly amended paragraph (1). There is no reason to believe that
Congress intended to amend 42 U.S.C. 6295(i) to include requirements
for CRI only to delete those the requirements in the same Act. See 88
FR 1638, 1653. In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to codify the CRI
requirements in section 321(a) of EISA and mistakenly included a 2028
compliance date for CRI requirements. 88 FR 1638, 1654, 1719. However,
section 321(a)(3)(A)(ii) of EISA and 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1) specify that
these CRI requirements apply to lamps manufactured or imported after
December 31, 2011. Because DOE lacks the legal authority to change the
compliance date of CRI requirements established in EISA, DOE is
declining to codify the CRI requirements in this rulemaking and will,
instead, conduct a separate rulemaking to codify these requirements.
c. Power Factor
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed a minimum power factor
requirement of 0.5 for MBCFLs and 0.7 for integrated LED lamps. 88 FR
1638, 1654. The CEC stated its support for DOE's proposal to include a
minimum power factor for MBCFLs and integrated LED lamps. The CEC
stated that as the number of LED lamps increases, harmonic waves sent
over the power grid can cause issues, requiring expensive equipment to
correct such issues and if uncorrected, harmonic waves will reduce the
quality of power delivered to all electrical loads, including lamps,
and the grid will experience avoidable losses. (CEC, No. 176 at pp. 4-
5) NYSERDA stated its support for a power factor requirement of 0.7 for
integrated LED lamps as established by ENERGY STAR. (NYSERDA, No. 166
at p. 3)
Hawaii State Energy Office (``HSEO'') stated that it supported a
minimum power factor of 0.9 with certain exemptions for specialty
lamps. HSEO further stated that regarding lamps of less than 5 W, given
the efficacy of CFLs and LED lamps, 0.7 would be an appropriate minimum
power factor. (HSEO, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 36) EEI
also stated that both CFLs and LED lamps should have power factors over
0.9 as low power factors are not good for the grid and there are
commercial customers that face financial penalties if their power
factors go below 0.9. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp.
24-26)
NEMA recommended that DOE specify minimum power factors by wattage
rather than setting a minimum power factor for all integrated LED
lamps. NEMA stated that DOE should adopt the power factor requirements
set forth in ANSI C82.77-10 without modification. Specifically, in its
comment NEMA provides a table from ANSI C82.77-10 with the following
power factor requirements: no minimum power factor for lamps less than
or equal to 5 W, a minimum power factor of 0.57 for lamps 5 W to 25 W
inclusive, and a minimum power factor of 0.86 for lamps greater than
25W. (Note: The table also specifies requirements for the minimum
displacement factor, but it is not clear from NEMA's statements whether
it is recommending DOE should require this additional requirement.)
NEMA also noted that ENERGY STAR requirements are similarly less strict
for low power lamps--i.e., no minimum power factor for lamps less than
or equal to 5 W, a minimum power factor of 0.6 for lamps greater than
5W to less than or equal to 10 W, and a minimum power factor of 0.7 for
lamps greater than 10W. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 4-5, 40-41)
NEMA provided several reasons for using the wattage-tiered approach
to power factor requirements specified in ANSI C82.77-10. NEMA stated
that these requirements align with the International Electrotechnical
Commission (``IEC'') standard and Global Lighting Association
recommendations. NEMA stated that any reduction of imaginary current
(which causes electrical losses in the equipment of the power company)
from the proposed increase in power factor will be minimal compared to
that due to the proposed increases in efficacy. NEMA stated that a
single higher power factor requirement for products of all wattages
will increase the amount of electronics in lamps and thereby the size
of the lamps, especially posing a problem for small, low power lamps,
and increasing the manufacturing burden to achieve the regulated
efficacies. NEMA also stated that additional electronics required to
achieve the higher power factor causes a small, unavoidable decrease in
efficacy. Further, NEMA stated that there is a correlation between low
power lamps and low power factor. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 4-5)
Regarding data available for determining an appropriate power
factor requirement, Signify and Westinghouse stated that databases from
sources such as ENERGY STAR contain a limited number of products that
are not always representative of the entire market and DOE should be
cautious of using them to develop requirements that apply to all lamps
on the market. (Signify, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at p. 29;

[[Page 28881]]

Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 30-31)
In the January 2023 NOPR and in this final rule, DOE considered
ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification V2.1 requirements,\28\ industry
standards, and characteristics of lamps in the current market when
selecting power factor requirements for MBCFL and integrated LED lamps.
88 FR 1638, 1654. The assessment of lamps in the current market was
based on the lamps database developed for the NOPR analysis and this
final rule analysis (see section IV.D of this document). This lamps
database is a comprehensive accounting of lamps on the market as it
includes data from manufacturer catalogs, DOE's compliance
certification database, retailer websites, and the ENERGY STAR
Certified Light Bulbs database. Hence, DOE considered power factor
requirements based on data that is representative of all lamps on the
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ ENERGY STAR Lamps Specification V2.1, ENERGY STAR Program
Requirements for Lamps
(Light Bulbs), January 2, 2017. Available at:
<a href="http://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Lamps%20V2.1%20Final%20Specification.pdf">www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ENERGY%20STAR%20Lamps%20V2.1%20Final%20Specification.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Passive and active technologies that can correct power factors in
lamps are commercially available and the circuitry used in power factor
correction is made to be very efficient, while consuming small amounts
of power. DOE reviewed the current U.S. market via its lamps database
used in this analysis (see section IV.D of this document) and found
that about 98 percent of integrated LED lamps have power factors of 0.7
or greater. DOE also found numerous low-wattage LED lamps from 2 to 5
W, on the market, that are within the covered lumen range of GSLs, have
a power factor of 0.7 or greater, and meet the max tech levels for
integrated LED lamps. Hence, DOE finds that a power factor requirement
of 0.7 for integrated LED lamps is achievable for lamps across all
wattages and does not prevent these lamps from meeting or exceeding the
max-tech levels across the full lumen range. Therefore, in this final
rule, DOE is adopting the power factor requirements as proposed in the
January 2023 NOPR for MBCFLs and integrated LED lamps.
d. Summary of Metrics
Table IV.1 summarizes the non-efficacy metrics being adopted in
this rulemaking (efficacy metrics are discussed in the engineering
analysis; see section IV.D of this document). For MBCFLs, performance
requirements were specified for five metrics: (1) minimum initial
efficacy; (2) lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours; (3) lumen maintenance
at 40 percent of lifetime; (4) rapid cycle stress; and (5) lamp life.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(1)) In addition to revising the existing
requirements for MBCFLs, DOE has the authority to establish
requirements for additional metrics including CRI, power factor,
operating frequency, and maximum allowable start time based on the
requirements prescribed by the August 9, 2001 ENERGY STAR[supreg]
Program Requirements for CFLs Version 2.0, or establish other
requirements after considering energy savings, cost effectiveness, and
consumer satisfaction. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(2)-(3)) DOE is also
establishing a minimum power factor for integrated LED lamps. DOE finds
that it has the authority to set this metric because power factor
impacts energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(bb)(3)(B)) A low power factor
product is inefficient and requires an increase in an electric
utility's generation and transmission capacity. DOE has determined that
these new metrics for MBCFLs and integrated LED lamps will provide
consumers with increased energy savings and/or consumer satisfaction
for those products capable of achieving the adopted standard levels.
DOE has existing test procedures for the metrics being proposed. (See
sections III.C and IV.A.5 of this document for more information on test
procedures for GSLs.) Further, DOE has concluded that the new metrics
being adopted in this rule will not result in substantial testing
burden, as many manufacturers already test their products according to
these metrics.

[[Page 28882]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.009

5. Test Procedure
As noted in section III.C of this document, GSILs and certain IRLs,
CFLs, and LED lamps are GSLs. DOE's test procedures for GSILs and IRLs
are set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix R. DOE's test
procedure for CFLs is set forth at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
W. DOE's test procedure for integrated LED lamps is set forth at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix BB. DOE's test procedure for GSLs that
are not GSILs, IRLs, CFLs, or integrated LED lamps is set forth at 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix DD.
DOE received comments on some of DOE's test procedures applicable
to GSLs. NEMA stated that section 3.1.4 in appendix BB and section 3.5
in appendix DD specifies testing be done at the ``maximum input power''
and for a color-tunable (multi-primary) lamp this will typically occur
when all LED packages within are driven at 100-percent output. NEMA
stated that when all primary color sources (e.g., R, G, B, and W) are
at full output, the chromaticity coordinates of the whole lamp may not
be on or even close to the blackbody locus, about which white light
chromaticities are standardized. Further, NEMA stated that depending on
the exact parameters of the LED packages within, the chromaticity
coordinates for this operating condition may not be in the range for
which the color-rendering index, as defined in International Commission
on Illumination 13.3, is a valid metric. NEMA stated that at the
maximum input power condition, the lamp may not be operating as a GSL,
but as a colored lamp. NEMA further commented that section 5.1 of the
ENERGY STAR lamps V2.1 specification states that testing is to be done
at the most consumptive white light setting covered by the
specification. NEMA stated that this approach guarantees a tested lamp
will operate in the GSL region with a chromaticity defined by ANSI
C78.377 and accepted as ``white'' light. NEMA stated that DOE should
amend its test procedures to require testing for color-tunable lamps at
the highest input power nominal white chromaticity as defined in ANSI
C78.377. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 21-22)
NEMA further stated that lamps with four or more primary colors
exhibit a wider gamut area and will be able to produce a consumer-
selected chromaticity with many different settings of those primaries.
NEMA commented that, for example, a lamp may have one mode to maximize
light output and another to maximize color rendering, and that the
input power is likely to differ among modes. NEMA recommended that
where the same chromaticity can be achieved with multiple primary
settings, DOE should allow the manufacturer to determine the test
conditions and provide instruction for how to repeat the condition for
the highest input power white light chromaticity as per ANSI C78.377.
(NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 21-22)
DOE is exempting from standards adopted in this final rule lamps
that allow consumers to change the lamp from a non-colored lamp to a
colored lamp (as defined in 10 CFR 430.2), which is referred to in
NEMA's comment as a color tunable lamp. DOE appreciates NEMA's comments
on how the test procedure might be amended to better address these
products and encourages NEMA to submit them during an active rulemaking
to amend the test procedure for integrated LED lamps and other GSLs.
DOE is not amending any test procedure in this final rule.
NEMA stated that section 3.4 of appendix DD states to operate non-
integrated LED lamps at the

[[Page 28883]]

manufacturer declared input voltage and current, which only provides a
partial description of the testing conditions and does not represent a
repeatable test condition for Type A or Type C linear LED lamps
(``TLEDs''). NEMA stated it is repeating the point made in the 2016 GSL
test procedure rulemaking that frequency and waveform are important
parameters that vary among LED lamps. NEMA stated that DOE should amend
the test procedure to allow testing with a manufacturer-designated
commercial ballast in alignment with ANSI C78.53, and DOE should accept
ANSI C78.53 testing for compliance with this rule. NEMA stated that
manufacturers would specify performance ratings, indicate a ballast
factor associated with those ratings, and identify the compatible
ballast type and model. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 21)
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE did not propose amendments to the GSL
test procedures. DOE cannot amend a test procedure without allowing
opportunity for comment on proposed changes. DOE notes that it received
similar comments regarding testing non-integrated LED lamps in response
to the test procedure rulemaking for GSLs that culminated in a final
rule published on October 20, 2016 (``October 2016 TP Final Rule''). 81
FR 72493. In that final rule, DOE concluded that requiring
manufacturers to specify input voltage and current and operate the lamp
at full light output resulted in a repeatable test procedure that
allows for performance to be more fairly compared. 81 FR 72493, 72496.
DOE will consider the comments including new information regarding
testing of non-integrated LED lamps provided in this rulemaking in a
future test procedure rulemaking.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope
of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of GSLs. The key findings of
DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See
chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market
and technology assessment.
1. Concerns Regarding LED Lamp Technology
DOE received 158 comments from private citizens.\29\ The comments,
along with those from Soft Lights and Friends of Merrymeeting Bay,
focused on various concerns regarding LED lamp technology including
health impacts, lamp attributes, application, consumer costs, and
manufacturer impacts. In this rulemaking, LED lamp technology is
considered as a means for improving the energy efficiency of GSLs (see
section IV.C of this document) and will be needed to achieve the
standards being adopted in this final rule (see section V.C of this
document). DOE has reviewed the concerns expressed in comments from
private citizens and continues to consider LED lamp technology as a
means for improving energy efficiency of GSLs in this rulemaking. The
sections below provide a general summary of the comments received from
private citizens and DOE responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Comments submitted in response to the January 2023 NOPR,
including comments from private citizens can be found in the docket
of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for
GSLs at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022/comments">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022/comments</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Health Impacts
DOE received comments from private citizens that LED lamps can lead
to adverse health effects (e.g., headaches, eye strain, sleep issues,
seizures). Commenters stated that this was due to the blue light that
LED lamps emit and their overall brightness, which are issues that do
not occur with incandescent or halogen lamps. In the May 2022 Backstop
Final Rule and May 2022 Definition Final Rule DOE also received
comments on potential adverse health effects of LED lamps. In the May
2022 Backstop Rule, DOE responded to these comments, stating that DOE
researched studies and other publications to ascertain any known
impacts of LED lamps on human health and has not found any evidence
concluding that LED lighting used for general lighting applications
directly results in adverse health effects. 87 FR 27439, 27457. In the
May 2022 Definition Final Rule, DOE also stated it had considered the
comments. DOE further stated it had considered the potential for health
benefits of emissions reductions from reducing energy use by the
covered products. In that rule, DOE maintained that the final rule's
definitional changes appropriately promote EPCA's goals for increasing
the energy efficiency of covered products through the establishment and
amendment of energy conservation standards and promoting conservation
measures when feasible. 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq., as amended. 87 FR
27461, 27468. (See May 2022 Backstop Final Rule and May 2022 Definition
Final Rule for full comments and responses.) Additionally, Soft Lights
filed a petition requesting DOE withdraw the May 2022 Backstop Final
Rule and May 2022 Definition Final Rule. Soft Lights' petition asserted
that LED lamps do not provide uniform illumination, do not emit light
that disperses following the inverse square law, and are not regulated
with regards to comfort, health or safety by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (``FDA''). DOE denied the petition stating that granting
Soft Light's request would be inconsistent with statutory law. Further,
DOE declined to comment on Soft Light's assertion that the FDA has
failed to publish comfort, health, or safety regulations for LEDs,
stating these arguments are not for consideration by DOE. DOE also
stated it is not aware of any prohibition on the use of LED lighting
that would have impacted its rulemakings. 88 FR 16869, 16870. DOE notes
that the FDA has authority to regulate certain aspects of LED products
as radiation-emitting devices and has issued performance standards for
certain types of light-emitting products.\30\ Currently, there are no
FDA performance standard for LED products in part 1040. DOE is not
currently aware or any prohibition on the use of LED lighting that
would impact this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ See, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act section 531 et
seq.; 21 U.S.C. 360KK; and 21 CFR part 1040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this final rule, DOE maintains its responses in previous
rulemakings and petition denials regarding potential adverse health
impacts of LED lamps.
DOE also received comments that LED lamps have adverse health
effects on animal and plant life. Commenters stated that LED lamps
contain toxic waste, plastic waste, and substances that pollute the
land and water. DOE has not found any information or data indicating
LED lamps contain toxic waste. In reviewing general guidelines for
disposing of LED lamps, DOE found that either there is no guidance, or
the guidance is to recycle them as electronic products. Hence DOE finds
that LED lamps are similar in terms of the waste

[[Page 28884]]

produced by any other electronic products. Given LED lamp lifetime,
most LED lamps will last longer and therefore not need to be replaced
as frequently as other lamp technologies, leading to less waste.
Further, DOE's research found no sources indicating that LED lamps
covered under the GSL definition have adverse impacts on animal or
plant life.
Based on the previous assessments, DOE continues to consider LED
lamp technology as a means for improving energy efficiency of GSLs in
this rulemaking (see section IV.C of this document).
b. Lamp Attributes
DOE received comments that LED lamps are failing prematurely (e.g.,
burning out or changing color) before their marketed lifetime (e.g.,
failure at 6 months, at 10 percent of marketed lifetime). Commenters
attributed this to overheating of components. DOE reviewed the latest
industry articles, journals, and research reports on this topic. DOE's
research indicates that premature LED lamp failure can be attributable
to factors including poorly designed lamps, power surges, or
incompatible fixtures, among others. However, DOE has not found data or
reports indicating that premature LED lamp failure is a significant
problem with lamps offered on the market.
Flicker in LED lamps was also cited as an issue by commenters.
Commenters stated that this could be due to installing LED lamps on
existing dimmers. DOE reviewed the latest industry articles, journals,
and research reports on this topic. While flicker was an issue in the
early stages of LED lamp technology development, DOE's research has
indicated no evidence that it remains a prevalent issue with lamps
currently on the market. Flicker in LED lamps can occur due to use with
an incompatible dimmer switch. Not all incandescent/halogen dimmers
(i.e., phase-cut control dimmers) are incompatible with LED technology.
NEMA's Solid State Lighting (``SSL'') 7A, which provides basic
requirements for phase-cut dimming of LED light sources, includes a
list of forward phase-cut dimmers and scenarios in which they can be
compatible with LED technology (e.g., up to 125 W LED load). Further,
in response to the May 2022 Definition Final Rule, NEMA had estimated
520 million out of 665 million decorative lamps on mostly switch-
controlled sockets have already been converted to LED technology. DOE
finds that NEMA's comment indicates that almost 80 percent of
decorative lamps on switch-controlled sockets have already been
converted to LED technology without a significant negative market
reaction. 87 FR 27461, 27468. Further, manufacturers such as Signify,
Green Creative, and Waveform Lighting are developing LED lamps that are
compatible with a wider range of dimmer switches.
DOE also received comments that LED lamps emit unnatural blueish
light that is too bright for regular use making them an inadequate
replacement for incandescent and halogen lamps which emit light that
mimics natural sunlight more closely. However, LED lamps are sold in a
variety of color temperatures including the traditional 2700 K warm
white CCT typically found in incandescent lamps. DOE's review of the
market, including offerings at major retailers, indicates that these
LED lamps are widely available on the market.
DOE received comments that LED lamps should be labeled with their
peak luminance and this metric should be regulated. Commenters stated
that the correct metric for measuring LED visible radiation is
luminance (candela per square meter). Commenters further stated that
the metric of lumens per watts can eliminate innovation with
ultraviolet (``UV'') and infrared (``IR'') wavelengths that are used
for color rendering and health benefits. Regarding labeling, the
Federal Trade Commission specifies labeling requirements for products
including GSLs (see 16 CFR 305.5(c)). As noted in section IV.A.4, this
rulemaking uses lumens per watt as the metric to measure efficiency of
GSLs. Lumens do include the measure of candela as they are the luminous
flux emitted within a unit solid angle (one steradian) by a point
source having a uniform luminous intensity of one candela.\31\
Additionally, lumens are the measure by which lamp manufacturers
specify light output on lamp specification sheets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Illuminating Engineering Society, ``Lumens.'' Available at
<a href="http://www.ies.org/definitions/lumen/">www.ies.org/definitions/lumen/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also received comments that the owner's manuals for garage door
openers state that they are designed for incandescent lamps and LED
lamps can cause interference with the remote door openers. DOE reviewed
the websites of manufacturers of the garage door openers mentioned in
these comments. The websites cite universal LED lamps that can be used
with garage door openers and would not cause interference. Further,
Lighting Supply, a distributor of lamps for garages, states on its
website that interference is primarily an issue with LED lamps from
unknown manufacturers as most known brands are certified by the Federal
Communications Commission, which requires lamps to have shielding
within them to mitigate any radio frequency interference.
Additionally, DOE received comments that the use of LEDs in vehicle
lights makes these lights bright and strenuous to eyes, creating
hazardous driving conditions. In the analysis for the January 2017
Definition Final Rules, DOE determined that certain voltages and/or
base types are typical for specialty lighting applications and excluded
them from the GSL definition. 82 FR 7267, 7306, 7310. Typical specialty
lighting applications include lamps used in vehicles.
Finally, DOE received comments that LED streetlights are too bright
and when they degrade, the lights turn purple, flash on and off, and
eventually burn out after a couple of years. DOE also received comments
that LED lamps contribute to light pollution in the night sky. In
response to similar comments received, in the May 2022 Backstop Final
Rule DOE noted that the GSL definition excludes lamps with lumens
greater than 3,300 and stated that streetlamps and lighting for
construction applications are generally 5,000 lumens or greater. 87 FR
27439, 27457. Further, DOE's research of street lighting products shows
that most products are sold as complete fixtures rather than as
individual lamps and, therefore, would not fall within the GSL
definition. As such, the lamps relevant to these comments are generally
not covered as GSLs and therefore, not within the scope of the
rulemaking.
Based on the above assessments, DOE does not find that there are
issues with the lamp attributes of GSL LED lamps and continues to
consider LED lamp technology as a means for improving the energy
efficiency of GSLs (see section IV.C of this document).
c. Application
DOE received comments that LED lamps are too large to replace
incandescent lamps in preexisting fixtures. Some commenters provided
specifics--i.e., B10 shape, E12 base LED lamps are 4 to 4.8 inches in
length and 1.4 to 1.6 inches in width whereas their incandescent
counterparts measure 3.8 inches in length and 1.25 inches in width. DOE
reviewed several major manufacturer catalog and retailer websites and
compared the specifications of the incandescent and LED version of B10
shape, E12 base lamps and found that the difference in width ranges
from 0 to 0.05 inches and the difference in length ranges is 0.0 to 0.1
inches. DOE finds that these

[[Page 28885]]

differences in width and length are not as large as cited by the
commenters and therefore, would likely not affect the usability of
these lamps within existing fixtures. Hence, DOE does not find the size
of LED lamps to be prohibitive of being used in existing fixtures.
DOE also received comments that LED lamps are inaccurately marketed
to be used in enclosed fixtures and the comments further stated that
LED lamp components are more sensitive to overheating so they are prone
to premature failure due to the increased heat inside enclosed
fixtures. DOE reviewed the latest industry articles, journals, and
research reports on this topic. DOE's research found no evidence that
lamps specifically rated for use in an enclosed fixture are failing due
to use in an enclosed fixture; nor has it found this to be a reported
issue within the lighting industry.
DOE received comments that the CRI of LED lamps is worse than
incandescent lamps and high-CRI and red-rendering (R9) LED lamps cannot
meet the proposed standards and would eliminate innovation of better
color rendering LED lamps. DOE's analysis ensures that a range of lamp
characteristics such as lumens, CCT, and CRI are available at the
highest levels of efficacy. This includes products with high CRIs
(i.e., 90 or above). (See section IV.D.1.d of this document for more
details.)
For the concerns noted above by commentators DOE did a thorough
assessment of products and reviewed the latest industry articles,
journals, and research reports on these topics. DOE was unable to find
data or evidence showing that these concerns are being cited as
prevalent and/or significant issues in the lamp market. Based on the
assessments above, DOE does not find that there are issues with the use
and application of GSL LED lamps and therefore continues to consider
LED lamp technology as a means for improving the energy efficiency of
GSLs (see section IV.C of this document).
d. Consumer Costs and Manufacturer Impacts
DOE received comments that LED lamps are not as cost efficient
compared to incandescent and halogen lamps. Commenters stated that
incandescent lamps are 100-percent energy efficient and pay for
themselves when the outside temperature is below room temperature by
reducing the need for heat systems. Commenters also stated that due to
the cost of the LED lamps as well as the cost of upgrading to an
appropriate dimmer, the final costs end up being more than the
projected savings. Commenters stated DOE's estimate that switching to
LED lamps could save $3 billion per year equates to around $2 per month
per household, which should not be considered significant. DOE also
received comments that the best way to conserve energy is to use lights
less often regardless of lamp technology. DOE notes that May 2022
Backstop Final Rule codified a 45 lm/W requirement that incandescent
and halogen lamps are unable to meet. Therefore, incandescent and
halogen lamps were not analyzed as options available to consumers
during the analysis period for this final rule. DOE does not anticipate
that consumers will need to upgrade their dimmer under a standard
compared to the dimmers that would be used with CFLs and LED lamps
available in the no-new-standards case. With respect to the
significance of savings, DOE notes that most households own a
significant number of GSLs (the 2015 U.S. Lighting Market
Characterization report estimates an average of over 50 lamps per
household \32\). The household-level savings will be significantly
higher than the savings associated with a single purchase. For details
on consumer cost savings from these standards being adopted in this
final rule, see sections V.B.1 and V.B.3.b. of this document. DOE
agrees that energy savings can be had from a reduction in operating
hours but notes this is also the case under a standard, and DOE does
not estimate a change in operating hours under a standard. (See section
IV.H.1 of this document for discussion.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 U.S. Lighting Market
Characterization. 2017. U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC
Report No. DOE/EE-1719. (Last accessed August 10, 2023.)
<a href="http://www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization">www.energy.gov/eere/ssl/downloads/2015-us-lighting-market-characterization</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Product Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may establish separate standards for a group of covered products (i.e.,
establish a separate product class) if DOE determines that separate
standards are justified based on the type of energy used, or if DOE
determines that a product's capacity or other performance-related
feature justifies a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a
determination whether a performance-related feature justifies a
different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of
the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE determines are
appropriate. (Id.)
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed product class divisions
based on lamp component location (i.e., location of ballast/driver);
capability of operating in standby mode; directionality (i.e.,
omnidirectional versus directional); and lamp length (i.e., 45 inches
or longer [``long''] or less than 45 inches [``short'']) as product
class setting factors. 88 FR 1638, 1656. In chapter 3 of the final rule
TSD, DOE discusses factors it ultimately determined were not
performance-related features that justify different standard levels;
including lamp technology, lumen package, lamp cover, dimmability, base
type, lamp spectrum, CRI, and CCT. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD
for further discussion.
DOE received several comments on product class setting factors
including lamp cover, lamp length, tunability, and non-illumination
features. These comments are discussed in the following sections.
a. Lamp Cover
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE considered lamp cover as a
performance-related feature that justified a different standard level
but determined that it was not such a feature (see chapter 3 of the
January 2023 NOPR TSD). NEMA stated that when visible, frosted lamps
reduce glare, although they are slightly less efficient. While max-tech
performance may be achievable with clear lamps, they represent only a
portion of the GSL market. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 20)
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE considered the impact of a lamp cover
(e.g., added glass, silicone coating) over the main light source, which
can reduce the lumen output of the lamp. The lamp cover adds a white
finish to these lamps, and they are sometimes referred to as frosted
lamps. By contrast, lamps without a cover are sometimes referred to as
bare or clear. In some cases, covered lamps may offer utility to
consumers as they more closely resemble traditional lighting
technologies and are frequently utilized where a lamp is visible (e.g.,
without a lamp shade). DOE examined the difference in efficacies of
lamps that have a cover versus those that do not. DOE found that while
a cover could generally decrease efficacy, it could also increase it,
such as when a phosphor coating transforms light emitted from LEDs into
visible light. DOE also determined that many LED lamps that have covers
have high efficacies. GSLs without a cover (i.e., clear, bare) are
mainly in the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class. This
product class also has lamps with covers (i.e., frosted lamps). DOE's
analysis shows that both the frosted and

[[Page 28886]]

clear lamps in this product class can meet the max-tech EL identified
in the January 2023 GSL NOPR and in this analysis. Hence, for the
reasons provided in the January 2023 NOPR and above, DOE is not
creating a product class for covered versus bare products in this final
rule.
b. Lamp Dimensions
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE stated it observed that pin base LED
lamp replacements with 2G11 bases and lengths close to 2 feet are less
efficacious than 2-foot linear LED lamps. To further understand this
observation on lamp length, DOE requested comments on, assuming all
other attributes are the same, how the efficacy of pin base LED lamp
replacements compares to that of linear LED lamps. 88 FR 1638, 1657.
NEMA commented that DOE should avoid assuming that pin base LED
retrofit lamps and linear LED retrofit lamps have similar luminous
efficacy because they differ in shape, size, directionality, and
operating environments. NEMA stated that pin base retrofit lamps and
linear LED retrofit lamps differ in the following ways: (1) pin base
LED lamps designed to replace legacy CFLs either do not have the same
single straight tube shape or are designed to take advantage of LED
package directionality to provide more directional illumination; (2)
pin base LED lamps must fit within a much smaller, shorter, and
narrower luminaire type and application than linear LED retrofit lamps
and are designed to direct light output either horizontally or
vertically, depending on the luminaire type and application; and (3)
typically, the thermal environment differs greatly between these
applications, resulting in different efficiency expectations. NEMA
stated that only in limited cases when the lamps have the same shape
and directionality of light output is the luminous efficacy of a pin
base LED retrofit lamp and linear LED retrofit lamp directly
comparable. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 6)
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE requested comment on the observed
lower pin base LED lamps with 2G11 base and close to 2-feet length
(typically used as replacements for pin base CFLs) having a lower
efficacy than linear LED lamps 2 feet in length (88 FR 1638, 1657), as
DOE expected them to achieve similar levels of efficacy due to
similarity in length. DOE appreciates NEMA's comments, which help
inform the differences between these two lamp configurations and
potential impacts on efficacy. Because they are both less than 45
inches in length, DOE groups them in the same product class (i.e.,
either the Integrated Omnidirectional Short product class or the Non-
integrated Omnidirectional Short product class) (see table IV.2 for
product class division summary). In the January 2023 NOPR and in this
final rule, DOE did not observe that the difference in efficacy between
these two lamp configurations is substantial enough to result in a loss
of the consumer utility provided by each lamp. DOE's analysis indicates
that both pin base LED lamps with a 2G11 base close to 2 feet in length
and linear LED lamps that are 2 feet can meet the max-tech ELs
considered for the Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short product class
(see section IV.D.1.d of this document). Therefore, DOE does not find
that adjustments to product class setting factors are necessary.
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE observed that 4-foot T5 and 8-foot T8
linear LED lamps were not reaching the same efficacies as 4-foot T8
linear LED lamps. DOE tentatively concluded that this is not due to a
technical constraint due to diameter but rather lack of product
development of 4-foot T5 and 8-foot T8 linear LED lamps. DOE requested
comments and data on the impact of diameter on efficacy for linear LED
lamps. 88 FR 1638, 1656-1657.
Westinghouse stated that for linear fluorescent tubes a smaller
diameter means higher efficacy, for LED lamps it is the inverse as a
smaller diameter means less space for electronics and thermal
management. (Westinghouse, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 27 at pp. 42-
43) DOE appreciates Westinghouse's comments, which help inform the
impact of diameter on linear LED lamps. Linear LED lamps of both T5 and
T8 diameters are grouped in the Integrated Omnidirectional Long product
class (see table IV.2 for product class division summary) and both can
meet the max-tech ELs. Hence, adjustments to product class setting
factors are not necessary.
c. Non-Integrated Standby Operation
NEMA commented that none of DOE's proposed product classes included
LED smart and connected lamps that are also non-integrated. To account
for these products, NEMA recommended the following product classes: (1)
Non-integrated Omnidirectional short (with standby) capturing the low
voltage LED retrofit lamps less than 45 inches in length, (2) Non-
integrated Omnidirectional long (with standby) capturing lamps
operating on non-building mains 45 inches or more in length, and (3)
Non-integrated Directional (with standby) capturing LED lamps designed
to replace legacy CFLs. NEMA specified that all of these lamps would
require operating on a remote driver or legacy fluorescent or high-
intensity discharge (``HID'') ballast. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 6)
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed only standby mode operation
as a product class setting factor for integrated lamps. At the time of
the January 2023 NOPR analysis, DOE did not observe non-integrated GSLs
with standby mode power consumption. 88 FR 1638, 1657, 1667. Based on a
review of the market for this final rule analysis, DOE identified non-
integrated LED lamps that have standby mode power operation capability
allowing the lamp to have dimming controls. For example, DOE identified
a linear LED lamp that is designed to operate on fluorescent lamp
ballast (i.e., Type B), to have additional circuitry contained within
the lamp that interprets the signal from the ballast and changes the
light output accordingly. Hence, because the standby mode operation of
this lamp is not solely external to the lamp (i.e., in the ballast or
driver) but also part of the lamp itself, DOE considers it as having
standby mode operation capability and therefore standby mode power
consumption.
Because the market for these non-integrated LED lamps that have
standby mode power operation capability is rapidly developing, DOE is
unable to make a clear and accurate determination regarding the
consumer utility, how various technology options would affect the
efficiency, and maximum technologically feasible efficiency of these
lamps, which prevents DOE from determining whether a specific standard
for these lamps would be economically justified at this time.
Accordingly, DOE did not consider amended standards for these lamps in
this rulemaking. DOE may evaluate amended standards for these products
in a future rulemaking. DOE notes that these lamps are still subject to
the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd). The criteria that
non-integrated GSLs with standby mode power operation capability must
meet to be exempt from amended standards adopted in this final rule is
specified in section IV.A.3 of this document.
d. Tunability
NEMA and Lutron stated that DOE incorrectly assumed that all lamps
capable of operating in standby mode are fundamentally the same as
lamps without standby functionality but with the addition of wireless
communication components. NEMA and Lutron stated that because of this
assumption, DOE did not create product classes for tunable white lamps
and color tunable lamps. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 8; Lutron,

[[Page 28887]]

No. 182 at p. 2) NEMA stated that including these additional categories
will allow for a thorough analysis of lamps capable of operating in
standby mode by the next rulemaking in 2028--which may result in the
need for separate categories, different efficacy curves, and amended
test procedures--and will allow DOE to set efficacy levels without
restricting innovation in the coming years. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 13-
14) Lutron stated that the product classes and scaling approach for
standby mode proposed in the January 2023 NOPR would limit innovation
and potentially regulate out of the market many lamps capable of
dynamic color tuning and dynamic spectral tuning. (Lutron, No. 182 at
pp. 2-3)
NEMA and Lutron stated that for these lamps DOE should set separate
product classes and adopt ELs proposed in the January 2023 NOPR as
follows: (1) Tunable white integrated omnidirectional lamps capable of
operating in standby mode subject to EL 6; (2) Tunable white integrated
directional lamps capable of operating in standby mode subject to EL 4;
(3) Full-color tunable integrated omnidirectional lamps capable of
operating in standby mode subject to EL 4; and (4) Full-color tunable
integrated directional lamps capable of operating in standby mode
subject to EL 4. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 8; Lutron, No. 182 at p. 3)
NEMA and Lutron defined ``tunable white'' as a feature allowing the
end user to adjust the light output to create different colors of white
light; in which tuning must be capable of altering the color appearance
along the black body curve from two or more LED colors, where each LED
color is inside one of those defined by ANSI-defined (ANSI C78.377)
white correlated color temperature ranges (i.e., between 2700 K and
6500 K) inside of the seven-step MacAdam ellipse or the ANSI
quadrangles. NEMA and Lutron defined ``full color tunable'' as a
feature allowing the end user to adjust the light output to create
white or colored white; in which tuning must include white light that
can alter the color appearance along the black body curve by
dynamically tuning color from three of more colors of LEDs where at
least one LED extends to colors beyond the ANSI-defined (ANSI C78.377)
white correlated color temperature ranges (i.e., between 2700 K and
6500 K) outside of the seven-step MacAdam ellipse or the ANSI
quadrangles. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 14; Lutron, No. 182 at p. 2)
Lutron and NEMA provided comments on the impact on efficacy due to
the tunable features of these lamps. Lutron commented that tunable
lamps are less efficacious than a single-chromaticity lamp \33\ because
tunable lamps require: (1) effective LED color mixing on a small light-
emitting surface, which leads to higher LED current densities; (2) a
control system to vary intensity of each LED color; and (3) optics to
mix LED colors into the appropriate beam pattern. Lutron estimated a
10-percent efficacy loss independent from the power consumed in standby
mode. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ Commenters use ``static'' white lamps and single
chromaticity lamps interchangeably and DOE assumes these terms
identify lamps that are non-tunable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lutron stated it is possible for static white lamps to meet the
proposed EL requirement by employing highly efficacious white LEDs in
efficient configurations. Lutron stated, in contrast, tunable white
lamps employ a second color LED close to the blackbody locus at a
different CCT and color tunable lamps employ three or more colors of
LEDs where at least one LED is far from the blackbody locus. Lutron
stated that these additional color LEDs are less efficacious because
the human eye is insensitive to light radiated from LEDs at colors far
from green (555 nm), such as red (620 nm) or blue (470 nm). (Lutron,
No. 182 at pp. 4-5, 6) NEMA provided the example that having the
functionality of selecting ``warm white'' (i.e., a setting
corresponding to nominally 2700 K on the blackbody locus) may require
both white LEDs and lower efficacy LEDs, such as red and blue, to
achieve the precise color point. NEMA stated primary color LEDs are
placed farther out in the color space, expanding the gamut area, which
represents the number of colors, including shades of white, the lamp
can produce. NEMA stated that the result is a loss in efficacy compared
to a single chromaticity lamp containing only 2700 K LEDs and that this
loss is in addition to the efficacy reduction caused by the lamp's
standby power functionality. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 10)
Lutron also stated that, compared to tunable white lamps, full-
color-tunable lamps introduce at least one color far from the blackbody
locus to achieve the desired utility, and because the human eye is less
sensitive to wavelengths far from green, there is an impact on efficacy
beyond the impacts described for white tunable lamps. As an example,
Lutron stated that 1400 K or lower, which is a setting that may provide
more consumer comfort, can't be achieved without a higher intensity of
red LEDs. Lutron commented that greater control of color variation and
accuracy, color quality, beam angle, and other aspects can require
higher-end LEDs, more sophisticated designs, and innovative
constructions that prevent the lamps from achieving high efficacy
levels. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 5-6)
Lutron and NEMA also provided comments on the utility of tunable
lamps. Lutron and NEMA stated that tunable white lamps and color
tunable lamps are a growing sector of the market. (Lutron, No. 182 at
pp. 7-8; NEMA, No. 183 at p. 10) Lutron stated that tunable lamps offer
capabilities such as dimming, scene selection, geo-fencing, event
scheduling, programmability and demand response to further achieve
energy savings. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 7) Lutron and NEMA stated that
sectors such as retail, hospitality, restaurants, bars, entertainment,
museums, theme parks, and architectural use lighting with deep dimming,
warm dimming, CCT control, and color saturation to create unique
consumer experiences. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 7; NEMA, No. 183 at p. 10)
Lutron cited DOE's web page on ``Understanding LED Color-Tunable
Products'' as noting that offices using white light during work hours
could shift to evening get-togethers with saturated mood-setting colors
without using additional color lamps that are exempted from DOE
standards and therefore may not be efficacious. (Lutron, No. 182 at pp.
6-7) Lutron stated that one of the key benefits of all color tunable
lamps is the ability to control colors and match chromaticity and also
manipulate light and color intensities to affect moods and create
effects. Lutron commented that tunable white lamps offer users multiple
similar benefits as color tunable lamps, such as simulating daylight or
candlelight to set a mood without the use of additional lighting or to
match existing light to provide light consistency in a space. Lutron
also stated that the ability to change the intensity and color of white
light has been incorporated into green building and healthy building
standards, particularly the WELL standard, operated by the
International WELL Building Institute. (Lutron, No. 182 at p. 7)
NEMA also raised concerns regarding the DOE test procedure and its
applicability for color tunable GSLs. Specifically, NEMA stated that
DOE's test procedure for GSLs requires testing at maximum input power
at which setting a color tunable lamp may not be operating as a GSL,
but as a colored lamp. NEMA further noted that a lamp may have one mode
to maximize light output and another to maximize color

[[Page 28888]]

rendering, and that the input power is likely to differ among modes.
(NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 21-22) (See further discussion of these comments
in section IV.A.5 of this document).
Because the market for these tunable lamps is rapidly developing,
DOE is unable to make a clear and accurate determination regarding the
consumer utility, how various technology options would affect the
efficiency, and maximum technologically feasible efficiency of these
lamps, which prevents DOE from determining whether a specific standard
for these lamps would be economically justified at this time.
Accordingly, DOE did not consider amended standards for these lamps in
this rulemaking. DOE may evaluate amended standards for these products
in a future rulemaking. DOE notes that these lamps are still subject to
the 45 lm/W sales prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd). The criteria that
tunable white GSLs and color tunable GSLs must meet to be exempt from
amended standards adopted in this final rule is specified in section
IV.A.3 of this document.
e. Non-Illumination Features
NEMA stated that there are multi-functional lighting products
without wireless communication components that include power-consuming
non-lighting features when the product is not generating light. NEMA
gave examples of outdoor lamps with motion sensors for home security,
outdoor dusk-to-dawn lamps with ambient light sensors, and indoor lamps
with an internal battery backup to be used as a flashlight for use
during a power outage. NEMA stated that the January 2023 NOPR did not
accommodate these products and elimination of their security/safety
features would be a mistake and impede further innovation and
development for future generations of similar products. NEMA stated
that for these lamps, DOE's approach of determining ELs for lamps with
standby mode power by adding 0.5 W to ELs for similar non-standby mode
lamps, assuming all else being equal, was not correct. NEMA stated that
for these lamps DOE should set separate product classes and adopt ELs
proposed in the January 2023 NOPR as follows: (1) Omnidirectional lamps
capable of operating on standby mode, incorporating energy-consuming
non-illumination feature(s) subject to EL 4 and (2) Directional lamps
capable of operating on standby mode, incorporating energy-consuming
non-illumination feature(s) subject to EL 4. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 13-
14)
NEMA provided comments on the impact on efficacy due to the non-
illumination features of these lamps. As an example, NEMA stated that a
lamp with a speaker has unavoidably lower efficacy than lamps with no
additional features. NEMA stated that a lamp with Bluetooth speaker
functionality would be roughly 30 percent lower in efficacy compared to
the equivalent light output single-chromaticity lamp without integrated
speakers. NEMA stated that these lamps provide desirable features for
consumers, who will often purchase and install several of the lamps in
a room. (NEMA, No. 183 at pp. 11-12) Additionally, NEMA stated that
unless a lamp offers a physical switch or an app-based method for
disabling the power from non-illumination features, the only way to
measure the lamp's luminous efficacy independent of the non-
illumination features is to disassemble the product and identify the
appropriate solder traces to cut. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 12)
NEMA stated that many smart lamps offer additional functionality
and added consumer benefit while providing energy-saving features such
as dimming, scheduling, high end trim, and demand response via digital
programming or manual setting of these features. NEMA stated the
International Energy Agency (``IEA'') SSL Annex Task 7, notes a large
market potential for internet-connected lighting systems in the
residential sector, including illumination and non-illumination
functionality such as: on/off control; changing CCT; dimming; motion
detection; daylight sensing to trigger automated lighting changes;
temperature and humidity sensing to control heating and air
conditioning; Wi-Fi signal boosting; smoke detection; security systems
including cameras; security-initiated lighting response; integrated
audio; baby monitoring; and energy consumption monitoring. NEMA,
however, disagreed with the assumption in the IEA report that smart
lamp penetration is limited to the residential sector and cited
applications in retail and hospitals. NEMA gave the example of the
usefulness of circadian entrainment smart lamp features in nursing
homes, congregate care, and independent living facilities, etc. (NEMA,
No. 183 at pp. 9, 12-13)
The CA IOUs commented that DOE's proposal may inadvertently
restrict the development of new types of lighting products that offer
additional capabilities that consumers desire, such as light sensors,
Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, speakers, cameras, or LAN links. The CA IOUs
commented these additional features often require standby energy
consumption that is higher than would be allowed in DOE's proposed
standards and to not eliminate them recommended DOE consider different
luminous efficacy requirements for GSLs with only lighting-related
features and for combination GSLs with non-lighting-related features.
(CA IOUs, No. 167 at p. 2)
Because the market for lamps with non-illumination features (i.e.,
features that do not control light output) is rapidly developing, DOE
is unable to make a clear and accurate determination regarding the
consumer utility, how various technology options would affect the
efficiency, and maximum technologically feasible efficiency of these
lamps, which prevents DOE from determining whether a specific standard
for these lamps would be economically justified. Accordingly, DOE did
not consider amended standards for these lamps in this rulemaking. DOE
may evaluate amended standards for these products in a future
rulemaking. DOE notes that these lamps are still subject to the 45 lm/W
sales prohibition at 10 CFR 430.32(dd) The criteria that GSLs with a
non-illumination feature and standby mode power operation capability
must meet to be exempt from amended standards adopted in this final
rule is specified in section IV.A.3 of this document.
f. Product Class Summary
In summary, in this final rule analysis, DOE is considering the
same product class setting factors as those considered in the January
2023 NOPR, as shown in table IV.2. To avoid any confusion as to what
lamp types are included in these product classes and therefore subject
to the amended standards being adopted in this final rule, DOE is
adding two clarifications to the GSL standards table being codified in
the CFR by this final rule. Firstly, for all Directional product
classes, DOE is specifying in the GSL standards table in the CFR that a
directional lamp is a lamp that meets the definition of reflector lamp
as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. Secondly, for the Non-integrated
Omnidirectional Short product class, DOE is specifying in the GSL
standards table in the CFR that this product class comprises, but is
not limited to, lamps that are pin base CFLs and pin base LED lamps
designed and marketed as replacements of pin base CFLs.

[[Page 28889]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.010

3. Technology Options
In the technology assessment, DOE identifies technology options
that are feasible means of improving lamp efficacy. This assessment
provides the technical background and structure on which DOE bases its
screening and engineering analyses. To develop a list of technology
options, DOE reviewed manufacturer catalogs, recent trade publications
and technical journals, and consulted with technical experts. In the
January 2023 NOPR, DOE identified 21 technology options that would be
expected to improve GSL efficacy, as measured by the applicable DOE
test procedure. The technology options were differentiated by those
that improve the efficacy of CFLs versus those that improve the
efficacy of LED lamps. 88 FR 1638, 1657.
With regards to the technology option of improved secondary optics
for LED lamp technology, NEMA stated it is important to note that
frosted bulbs, while slightly reducing light output, mitigate glare in
LED lamp designs and in doing so provide consumer-desired utility.
(NEMA, No. 183 at p. 7) DOE reviewed the utility and efficacy of
frosted lamps when evaluating lamp cover as a potential product class
setting factor (see IV.B.2.a of this document for the detailed
discussion). Additionally, NEMA requested that DOE adopt the
standardized terminology from ANSI/IES LS-1-22 \34\ to ensure clarity
in rulemaking discussions. NEMA noted that the term ``LED chip,'' as
used in the January 2023 NOPR, is a non-standardized term with ample
room for interpretation. (NEMA, No. 183 at p. 7). DOE appreciates
NEMA's comment. In chapter 3 of the January 2023 NOPR TSD DOE had
specified that the LED die, along with its electrode contacts and any
optional additional layers, is referred to as the ``LED chip.'' This
description of the LED chip aligns with the definition of LED package
\35\ specified in ANSI/IES LS-1-22. For further clarity and consistency
with industry definitions (i.e., ANSI/IES LS-1-22), DOE has replaced
references to ``LED chip'' with ``LED package'' in this final rule
notice and TSD. Additionally, in review of the nomenclature used in the
January 2023 NOPR and TSD to describe the technology option of reduced
current density, DOE stated that the LED package is driven at lower
currents. 88 FR 1638, 1657-1658 (see chapter 3 of January 2023 NOPR
TSD). Because ANSI/IES LS-1-22 defines LED array or module \36\ as an
assembly of LED packages intended to be connected to the LED driver,
DOE finds that it is more appropriate to phrase this technology option
as the LED array or module being driven at lower currents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ American National Standards Institute/Illuminating
Engineering Society, ANSI/IES LS-1-22, ``Lighting Science:
Nomenclature and Definitions for Illuminating Engineering.''
Approved Nov. 2, 2021.
\35\ ANSI/IES LS-1-22 defines ``LED package'' as an assembly of
one or more light emitting diode (LED) dies that includes wire bond
or other type of electrical connections, possibly with an optical
element and thermal, mechanical, and electrical interfaces. Power
source and ANSI standardized base are not incorporated into the
device. The device cannot be connected directly to the branch
circuit. Available at <a href="http://www.ies.org/definitions/led-package/">www.ies.org/definitions/led-package/</a>.
\36\ ANSI/IES LS-1-22 defines ``LED array or module'' as an
assembly of light emitting diode (LED) packages (components), or
dies on a printed circuit board or substrate, possibly with optical
elements and additional thermal, mechanical, and electrical
interfaces that are intended to connect to the load side of an LED
driver. Power source and ANSI standard base are not incorporated
into the device. The device cannot be connected directly to the
branch circuit. Available at <a href="http://www.ies.org/definitions/led-array-or-module/">www.ies.org/definitions/led-array-or-module/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this final rule as in the January 2023 NOPR, DOE is considering
the technology options as shown in table IV.3.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28890]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.011

[[Page 28891]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.012

[[Page 28892]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19AP24.013

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

C. Screening Analysis

DOE uses the following four screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in commercially viable, existing
prototypes will not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the
time of the projected compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility. If a technology is determined to
have a significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered
product type with performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as products generally available in the United States at the time,
it will not be considered further.
(4) Safety of technologies. If it is determined that a technology
would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, it will not
be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a technology has
proprietary protection and represents a unique pathway to achieving a
given efficiency level, it will not be considered further, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b).
In sum, if DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis. The reasons for eliminating any technology are discussed in
the following sections.
The subsequent sections include comments from interested parties
pertinent to the screening criteria, DOE's evaluation of each
technology option against the screening analysis criteria, and whether
DOE determined that a technology option should be excluded (``screened
out'') based on the screening criteria.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
In the January 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed to screen out multi-photon
phosphors for CFLs, and quantum dots and improved emitter materials for

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on April 19, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.