[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