[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 210 (Friday, October 30, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58330-58331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29156]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 210 / Friday, October 30, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 58330]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket Number EE-RM-97-500]
RIN 1904-AA75
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Fluorescent
Lamp Ballasts Energy Conservation Standards
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of limited reopening of the record and opportunity for
public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy reopens the record of its rulemaking
to revise energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This notice provides an
opportunity for public comment regarding the Department's consideration
of consumers who choose electronic ballast T-8 systems over electronic
ballast T-12 systems and consumers who choose electronic ballasts over
cathode cutout ballasts.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 30, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Written comments are welcome. Please submit 10 copies (no
faxes) to: Brenda Edwards-Jones, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Docket No. EE-RM-97-500,
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0121.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Adams, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-43, 1000
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202) 586-9127,
or Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585,
(202) 586-9507.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 325 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6295, the Department of Energy
(DOE) proposed to revise the energy conservation standards applicable
to fluorescent lamp ballasts, as well as a variety of other consumer
products. 59 FR 10464 (March 4, 1994). On January 31, 1995, the
Department published a rulemaking determination that, based on comments
received, it would issue a revised notice of proposed rulemaking for
fluorescent lamp ballasts. 60 FR 5880 (January 31, 1995). Section
325(o)(2) requires that any amended standard be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2).
During the conduct of several workshops and in other discussions
with stakeholders , two issues have arisen that the Department wishes
to notice to the public prior to the issuance of a revised proposed
rule.
Issue 1
In the analyses for the 1994 Proposed Rule, the February, 1996,
Draft Report and the July, 1997, Draft Report regarding the potential
impacts of possible energy efficiency levels for fluorescent lamp
ballasts, the Department conducted the analyses by comparing magnetic
ballast T-12 systems to electronic ballast T-12 systems and magnetic T-
8 systems to electronic T-8 systems when evaluating efficiency levels
where the consumer is faced with standard levels requiring electronic
ballasts. The Department was silent on any comparison of magnetic T-12
systems to electronic ballast T-8 systems. The analyses were conducted
in a manner which essentially assumed all consumers of magnetic T-12
ballast systems would replace them with electronic T-12 ballast
systems. Prior to 18 months ago, there had been no comments regarding
the validity or impact of conducting the analysis in this manner.
Current industry data indicates that approximately 94 percent of
consumers who choose electronic ballasts choose T-8 systems. DOE has
now received a number of comments that by only considering consumers
purchasing T-12 ballast systems, the Department would not capture the
full range of impacts likely to result from the rulemaking. During the
March 18, 1997, workshop on the Revised Life Cycle Cost and Engineering
Analysis of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, the Alliance to Save Energy,
Natural Resources Defense Council and American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy (ACEEE) commented that the Department, in considering
standards at the electronic ballast efficiency level, should include
consideration of the benefits or costs that result when consumers
choose to purchase electronic ballast T-8 systems instead of electronic
ballast T-12 systems. This issue was raised again by ACEEE in its
written comments of October 2, 1997, on the Draft Report on Potential
Impact of Possible Energy Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp
Ballasts (ACEEE, No. 14) and again in its written comments of June 5,
1998, in response to the Public Workshop on Possible Impacts of Energy
Efficiency Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts conducted on April
28, 1998. (ACEEE, No. 24).
In consideration of these comments, this issue was further
discussed with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
at a meeting on June 9-10, 1998. At this meeting, DOE and NEMA members
discussed ways to compare an electronic ballast T-12 system to an
electronic ballast T-8 system, including how such a comparison would
require an additional normalization step to account for the lamp lumen
differences. Preliminary impact analyses using a normalization approach
which uses the mean characteristics representative of the most popular
T-12 and T-8 lamps indicates that a shift from T-12 lamps with
electronic ballasts to T-8 lamps with electronic ballasts would yield
significant additional energy and life cycle cost savings. Any such
market shift in lamp usage caused by a ballast standard could also have
an impact on lamp manufacturers.
In a letter to the Department, dated October 16, 1998, NEMA stated
that DOE should not consider the impact of any shift from T-12 systems
to T-8 systems because any additional benefits would accrue from system
efficiencies of the ballast and the lamp.
[[Page 58331]]
The Department believes its analysis of the impacts of a potential
standard level on consumers, manufacturers and the nation, as
prescribed by EPCA, requires the analysis to compare the marketplace
before and after standards and to measure the impacts of changes. DOE
believes this policy is consistent with previous rulemakings such as
the Department's consideration of a possible shift from gas mobile home
furnaces to electric heat if the gas mobile home furnace standards were
increased.
Further, the Department believes, based on current sales, if a
standard required consumers of magnetic ballast T-12 systems to
purchase electronic ballasts, it is likely that many if not most of
these consumers would choose to purchase electronic ballast T-8
systems. In determining the likely benefits and costs for the nation
and the likely impacts on manufacturers, the Department intends to
explore a range of market scenarios using different assumptions about
the likely effects of a new DOE standard on ballasts on the market
shares of T-8 and T-12 systems. Additionally, the Department intends to
analyze both the range of life cycle costs for consumers who choose
electronic ballast T-12 systems and the range of life cycle costs for
consumers who choose electronic ballast T-8 systems. By this notice,
the Department is soliciting public comment on whether a market shift
from T-12 systems to T-8 systems is likely to occur if an energy
conservation standard were set at a level requiring electronic
ballasts, the extent of any such shift in terms of a percentage and
whether any such shift should be considered in determining the impact
of an energy conservation standard set at a level requiring electronic
ballasts on consumers, manufacturers and the nation.
Issue 2
In the analyses for the 1994 Proposed Rule, the February, 1996,
Draft Report and the July, 1997, Draft Report regarding the potential
impacts of possible energy efficiency levels for fluorescent lamp
ballasts, the Department conducted the analysis by comparing magnetic
ballasts to cathode cutout ballasts when evaluating efficiency levels
where the consumer is faced with standard levels requiring cathode
cutout ballasts. The Department was silent on any comparison of cathode
cutout ballasts to electronic ballasts. The analyses were conducted in
a manner which essentially assumed all consumers of magnetic ballasts
would replace them with cathode cutout ballasts. Currently cathode
cutout ballasts represent approximately one percent of the magnetic
ballast market.
In discussions with manufacturers after the June 9-10, 1998 meeting
at NEMA, manufacturers stated a belief that when faced with such a
standard, many consumers would choose electronic ballasts instead of
cathode cutout ballasts. They indicated this choice would increase the
impact on manufacturers who produce magnetic ballasts and requested
changes in the manufacturer impact analysis, as specifically, the
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to account for this possible
shift.
The Department believes its analysis of the impacts of a potential
standard level on consumers, manufacturers and the nation, as
prescribed by EPCA, requires the analysis to compare the marketplace
before and after standards and to measure the impacts of changes. DOE
believes this policy is consistent with previous rulemakings such as
the Department's consideration of a possible shift from gas mobile home
furnaces to electric heat if the gas mobile home furnace standards were
increased.
Given the small current market share of cathode cutout ballasts,
the Department believes it would be reasonable to assume that with an
energy conservation standard set at the cathode cutout level, many
consumers would choose electronic ballasts, even though the cathode
cutout ballast would then be the lowest cost ballast. It would also be
reasonable to assume that many or most of the consumers who choose
electronic ballasts will also choose to convert from T-12 to T-8 lamps
at the time of ballast replacement. In determining the likely benefits
and costs for the nation and the likely impacts on manufacturers, the
Department intends to explore a range of market scenarios using
different assumptions about the likely effects of a new DOE standard on
ballasts on the market shares of electronic and cathode cutout
ballasts. Additionally, the Department intends to analyze both the
range of life cycle costs for consumers who choose electronic ballasts
and the range of life cycle costs for consumers who choose cathode
cutout ballasts. By this notice, the Department is soliciting public
comment on whether a market shift from cathode cutout ballasts to
electronic ballasts is likely to occur if an energy conservation
standard were set at a level requiring cathode cutout ballasts, the
extent of any such shift in terms of a percentage, the percentage of
those consumers choosing electronic ballasts who would choose T-8
systems and whether any shift should be considered in determining the
impact of an energy conservation standard set at a level requiring
cathode cutout ballasts on consumers, manufacturers and the nation.
Public Comment
DOE seeks comments on the following:
In considering standards set at the level of electronic
ballasts, whether a market shift from T-12 systems to T-8 systems is
likely to occur, the extent of any such shift in terms of a percentage
and whether any such shift should be considered in determining the
impact of an energy conservation standard on consumers, manufacturers
and the nation.
In considering standards that would require T-12 cathode
cutout ballasts, whether a market shift from cathode cutout ballasts to
electronic ballasts is likely to occur, the extent of any such shift in
terms of a percentage, the percentage of those consumers choosing
electronic ballasts who would choose T-8 systems and whether any shift
should be considered in determining the impact of an energy
conservation standard on consumers, manufacturers and the nation.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on October 26, 1998.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 98-29156 Filed 10-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P