# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-07831 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** April 19, 2024 - **Citation:** 89 FR 28856 ## Text 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 www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure. The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. 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: Laura.Zuber@hq.doe.gov. 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 ( www.UL.com ). 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 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 ER19AP24.000 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). ER19AP24.001 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 2 ”), 22.1 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”), 133.3 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO X ”), 608.1 thousand tons of methane (“CH 4 ”), 0.70 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N 2 O”), and 0.15 tons of mercury (“Hg”). 7 The estimated cumulative reduction in CO 2 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 2 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 2 (“SC-CO 2 ”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH 4 ”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N 2 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 www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO 2 and NO X 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 monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (“PM 2.5 ”) concentrations from two precursors (SO 2 and NO X ), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (for NO X ), but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM 2.5 , PM 2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 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 ER19AP24.002 ER19AP24.003 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 X and SO 2 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 ER19AP24.004 ER19AP24.005 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 X and SO 2 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 2 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 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 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). ER19AP24.006 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. ER19AP24.007 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- 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 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: www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/GSL_EnforcementPolicy_4_25_22.pdf. 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 ER19AP24.008 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 www.regulations.gov. ) 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 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 2 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: www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Lighting%20Sunset%20Memo.pdf. 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 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. 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 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: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4. Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”) Annual 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 § 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 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 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 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 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 § 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 i [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-07831. Public record. Not legal advice.