Federal Register, Volume 65 Issue 182 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56740-56749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24004]

[[Page 56739]]

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

Part V

Department of Energy

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

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

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

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp
Ballasts Energy Conservation Standards; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 19, 2000 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 56740]]

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

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, Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or Department) has determined
that revised energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp
ballasts will result in significant conservation of energy, are
technologically feasible, and are economically justified. On this
basis, the Department is today amending the existing energy
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts as proposed and as
recommended by stakeholders.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of this rule and the standards is
April 1, 2005.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Technical Support Document (TSD) may be read
at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, U.S. Department of
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-3142, between the hours of 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Copies
of the TSD may be obtained from: the Codes and Standards Internet site
at: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/applbrf/ballast.html or from the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-
41, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585. (202) 586-
9127.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Adams, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-41, 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:
I. Introduction
a. Overview
b. Authority
c. Background
II. General Discussion
a. Test Procedures
b. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
c. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
d. Rebuttable Presumption
e. Economic Justification
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
2. Life-cycle Costs
3. Energy Savings
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
6. Need of The Nation to Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
III. Methodology
IV. Discussion of Comments
V. Analytical Results and Conclusion
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Reviews
a. Review under the National Environmental Policy Act
b. Review under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''
c. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
d. Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act
e. Review under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil JusticeReform''
f. ``Takings'' Assessment Review
g. Review under Executive Order 13132
h. Review under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
i. Review under the Treasury and General GovernmentAppropriation
Act of 1999.
j. Review Under the Plain Language Directives
k. Congressional Notification

I. Introduction

a. Overview

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended, specifies that
the Department must consider for amended standards those standard
levels that ``achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency
which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and
economically justified'' and which will ``result in significant
conservation of energy.'' 42 U.S.C. 6295. Consistent with these
statutory requirements, DOE today is amending the energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts for commercial and industrial
applications.
When today's standards go into effect, they will essentially
require fluorescent lamp ballasts for F40 and F96 lamps to be the
electronic type. The standards will segment the market into new
applications and replacement applications and extend the implementation
dates to mitigate the burdens to acceptable levels. The standards
provide a phase-in period of approximately five years, until April 1,
2005, for new applications. In addition, today's rule provides an
additional phase in, until June 30, 2010, for ballasts intended for the
replacement market. Replacement ballasts must be labeled for
replacement use, have output leads which, when fully extended, are less
than the length of the lamp it is intended to operate and be shipped in
packages of ten or less.
Today's rule exempts ballasts designed for residential
applications, ballasts capable of being dimmed to 50 percent or less of
its maximum output, and ballasts for use with two F96T12HO lamps at an
ambient temperature of-20 deg.F used with outdoor signs.
As a result of today's rule, we estimate the cumulative national
energy savings ranging from 1.20 to 2.32 Quads of energy for the period
2005 through 2030. These energy savings will result in carbon emission
reductions of 11 to 19 million metric tons and NOX emission
reductions of 34 to 60 thousand metric tons, during the same time
frame. We believe most commercial and industrial consumers will save
money. In total, we estimated the energy savings to have a net present
value to American business and industry of 1.42 to 2.60 billion
dollars.

b. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,
Public Law 94-163, as amended by the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act, Public Law 95-619, by the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act, Public Law 100-12, by the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Amendments of 1988, Public Law 100-357, and the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486\1\ created the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products other than Automobiles. The
consumer products subject to this program (often referred to hereafter
as ``covered products'') include fluorescent lamp ballasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, the
National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the National Appliance
Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, and the Energy Policy Act of
1992, is referred to in this notice as the ``Act.'' Part B of Title
III is codified at 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. Part B of Title III of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National
Energy Conservation Policy Act only, is referred to in this notice
as the National Energy Conservation Policy Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the Act, the program consists essentially of three parts:
testing, labeling, and Federal energy conservation standards. The
Department, in consultation with the

[[Page 56741]]

National Institute of Standards and Technology, amends or establishes
new test procedures for each of the covered products. Section 323. Test
procedures appear at 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prescribes rules governing the
labeling of covered products after DOE publishes test procedures.
Section 324(a). At the present time, there are Federal Trade Commission
rules requiring labels for fluorescent lamp ballasts.
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988
prescribed Federal energy conservation standards for ballasts. Section
325(g). The Act specifies that the standards are to be reviewed by the
Department no later than January 1, 1992. Section 325(g)(7)(A).
Any new or amended standard must be designed so as to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. Section 325(o)(2)(A).
Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) provides that before DOE determines whether
a standard is economically justified, it must first solicit comments on
a proposed standard. After reviewing comments on the proposal, DOE must
then determine that the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens,
based, to the greatest extent practicable, on a weighing of the
following seven factors:

``(i) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers
and on the consumers of the products subject to such standard;
(ii) 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 products which are likely to
result from the imposition of the standard;
(iii) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to
result directly from the imposition of the standard;
(iv) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered products likely to result from the imposition of the
standard;
(v) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
imposition of the standard;
(vi) The need for national energy conservation; and
(vii) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.''

In addition, section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) establishes a rebuttable
presumption of economic justification in instances where the Secretary
determines 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 * * *.'' The
rebuttable presumption test is an alternative path to establishing
economic justification.
Section 327 of the Act addresses the effect of Federal rules on
State laws or regulations concerning testing, labeling, and standards.
Generally, all such State laws or regulations are superseded by the
Act. Section 327(a)-(c).

c. Background

The National Energy Conservation Policy Act,\2\ which amended the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, required DOE to establish mandatory
energy efficiency standards for each of the 13 covered products. These
standards were to be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency that was technologically feasible and economically
justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The consumer products covered by the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act included: refrigerators and refrigerator-
freezers; freezers; dishwashers; clothes dryers; water heaters; room
air conditioners; home heating equipment not including furnaces;
television sets; kitchen ranges and ovens; clothes washers;
humidifiers and dehumidifiers; central air conditioners; and
furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Energy Conservation Policy Act provided, however, that
no standard for a product be established if there were no test
procedure for the product, or if DOE determined by rule either that a
standard would not result in significant conservation of energy, or
that a standard was not technologically feasible or economically
justified. In determining whether a standard was economically
justified, the Department was directed to determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceeded its burdens by weighing the seven
factors discussed above.
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, which became law on
March 17, 1987, amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act in part
by: redefining ``covered products'' (specifically, refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers were combined into one product type
from two; humidifiers and dehumidifiers were deleted; and pool heaters
were added); establishing Federal energy conservation standards for 11
of the 12 covered products; and creating a schedule, according to which
each standard is to be reviewed to determine if an amended standard is
required. It also established the rebuttable presumption test of
economic justification.
The National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988,
which became law on June 28, 1988, established Federal energy
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. These amendments
also created a review schedule for DOE to determine if any amended
standard for fluorescent lamp ballasts is required.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992, which became law on October 24,
1992, addressed various commercial appliances and equipment.
As directed by the Act, DOE published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking for fluorescent lamp ballasts, as well as a variety of other
consumer products. (55 FR 39624, September 28, 1990). The advance
notice presented the product classes that DOE planned to analyze, and
provided a detailed discussion of the analytical methodology and
analytical models that the Department expected to use in performing the
analysis to support this rulemaking.
Pursuant to section 325 of the Act, 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).
A moratorium was placed on publication of proposed or final rules
for appliance efficiency standards as part of the FY 1996
appropriations legislation. Public Law 104-134. That moratorium expired
on September 30, 1996.
On July 15, 1996, the Department published a Process Improvement
Rule establishing procedures, interpretations and policies to guide the
Department in the consideration of new or revised appliance efficiency
standards (Procedures for Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products). 61 FR 36974.
The Department conducted numerous meetings, workshops and
discussions regarding energy efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp
ballasts resulting in the publication of a Draft Report on Potential
Impact of Possible Energy Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp
Ballasts, July, 1997; a Summary of Inputs for the Technical Support
Document: Energy Efficiency Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts,
April 20, 1998; and a Ballast Manufacturer Impact Analysis Analytical
Approach, April 10, 1998. 62 FR 38222 (July 17, 1997) and 63 FR 16706
(April 6, 1998). A workshop was conducted on these analyses and
documents on April 28,

[[Page 56742]]

1998. 63 FR 16706 (April 6, 1998). Based on comments and the growing
popularity of electronic ballasts with T8 lamps, the Department
solicited further comments specifically on the issue of whether market
shifts (e.g., from T12 to T8 lamps) should be considered in determining
the impact of an energy conservation standard on commercial and
industrial consumers, manufacturers and the nation. 63 FR 58330
(October 30, 1998). Further comments on the above analyses, and
modifications resulting from those comments, culminated in publishing a
revised analysis on the Codes and Standards internet site (http://
www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes__standards/applbrf/ballast.html) in
April of 1999. We also conducted a workshop reviewing this analysis on
June 1, 1999. 64 FR 24634 (May 7, 1999). On the basis of comments
received on these documents, DOE reviewed its analysis and prepared a
TSD which also was placed on the above Codes and Standards internet
site.
On October 12 and 13, 1999, the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association convened a meeting where its members negotiated with
representatives of the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance to Save
Energy and the Oregon Energy Office to produce a joint comment proposal
for amended fluorescent lamp ballast standards. (Hereafter referred to
as the Joint Comment.) The Department was invited and attended as an
observer. We evaluated the impacts of the joint comment proposal and
issued a proposed rule based on those comments. 65 FR 14128 (March 15,
2000). (Hereafter referred to as the Proposed Rule.) A public hearing
on the proposed rule was held in Washington, D.C. on April 18, 2000.

II. General Discussion

a. Test Procedures

The Act provides that no standard for a product be established if
there is no test procedure for the product. The Amendments of 1988 set
forth test procedures and energy conservation standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts. Based upon the Amendments of 1988, the Department
published the Federal test procedures for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 56
FR 18682 (April 24, 1991). As of the effective date of the extant
energy conservation standards (ballasts manufactured on or after
January 1, 1990; sold by the manufacturer on or after April 1, 1990; or
incorporated into a luminaire by a luminaire manufacturer on or after
April 1, 1991), all ballasts, be they energy efficient magnetic,
cathode cutout or electronic, for use in connection with F40T12, F96T12
or F96T12HO lamps, are required to meet a ballast efficacy factor as
measured by the Federal test procedures. No one has petitioned DOE
indicating the Department's test procedures are inadequate for testing
fluorescent lamp ballasts using the above technologies. Since these are
the same technologies considered in today's final rule, the Department
considers the current Federal test procedures applicable and
appropriate for today's final rule. Furthermore, stakeholders
commenting in the Joint Comments stated that they consider the current
Federal test procedures applicable and appropriate for their
recommended ballast standards. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at 6).

b. Technological Feasibility

1. General
There are lamp ballasts in the market at all of the efficiency
levels prescribed in today's final rule. The Department, therefore,
believes all of the efficiency levels contained in today's final rule
are technologically feasible.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
The Act requires the Department, in considering any new or amended
standards, to consider those that ``shall be designed to achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency * * * which the Secretary
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.''
(Section 325 (o)(2)(A)). Accordingly, for each class of product
considered in this rulemaking, a maximum technologically feasible (max
tech) design option was identified and considered as discussed in the
Proposed Rule. 65 FR 14128, 14130 (March 15, 2000).

c. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
The Department forecasted energy savings through the use of a
national energy savings (NES) spreadsheet as discussed in the Proposed
Rule. 65 FR 14128, 14131 (March 15, 2000).
2. Significance of Savings
Under section 325(o)(3)(B) of the Act, the Department is prohibited
from adopting a standard for a product if that standard would not
result in ``significant'' energy savings. While the term
``significant'' has never been defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of
Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d
1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), concluded that Congressional intent in
using the word ``significant'' was to mean ``non-trivial.''

d. Rebuttable Presumption

The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act established new
criteria for determining whether a standard level is economically
justified. Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) states:

``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, there shall be a rebuttable presumption
that such standard level is economically justified. A determination
by the Secretary that such criterion is not met shall not be taken
into consideration in the Secretary's determination of whether a
standard is economically justified.''

If the increase in initial price of an appliance due to a
conservation standard would repay itself to the consumer in energy
savings in less than three years, then we presume that such standard is
economically justified. This presumption of economic justification can
be rebutted upon a proper showing.

e. Economic Justification

As noted earlier, Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Act provides seven
factors to be evaluated in determining whether a conservation standard
is economically justified.
1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
We considered the economic impact on manufacturers and consumers as
discussed in the Proposed Rule. 65 FR 14128, 14132 (March 15, 2000).
2. Life-Cycle Costs
We considered life cycle costs as discussed in the Proposed Rule.
65 FR 14128, 14132 (March 15, 2000).
3. Energy Savings
While significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for imposing an energy conservation standard, the Act
requires DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard,
to consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to
result directly from revised standards. The Department used the NES
spreadsheet results, discussed earlier, in its consideration of total
projected savings.

[[Page 56743]]

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
This factor cannot be quantified. In establishing classes of
products and by providing exemptions, the Department has eliminated any
degradation of utility or performance in the products in today's final
rule.
An issue of utility that was considered was the possibility of
interference with certain equipment, such as medical monitoring
equipment, caused by the high frequency of electronic ballasts. To
prevent any interference that cannot be solved by electronic ballast
designers, the Department is not establishing a standard for T8
ballasts, thereby allowing magnetic T8 ballasts for such applications.
5. Impact of Lessening of Competition
It is important to note that this factor has two parts; on the one
hand, it assumes that there could be some lessening of competition as a
result of standards; and on the other hand, it directs the Attorney
General to gauge the impact, if any, of that effect.
In order to assist the Attorney General in making such a
determination, the Department provided the Attorney General with copies
of the Proposed Rule and the Technical Support Document for review. In
a letter responding to the Proposed Rule, the Attorney General
concluded ``that the proposed standards would not adversely affect
competition in the ballast market.'' (Department of Justice, No. 99).
The letter is printed at the end of today's rule.
6. Need of The Nation To Conserve Energy
We reported the environmental effects from today's final rule in
the Proposed Rule. 65 FR 14128, 14153 (March 15, 2000).
7. Other Factors
This provision allows the Secretary of Energy, in determining
whether a standard is economically justified, to consider any other
factors that the Secretary deems to be relevant. Under this factor, the
Secretary has decided to consider the life-cycle cost impacts on those
subgroups of consumers who, if forced by standards to purchase
electronic ballasts, would choose to switch from T12 to T8 lighting
systems. This analysis is part of the Department's continuing effort to
study the economic impact of standards on consumers. While the
Department does not believe it can set standard levels based on
consumer purchasing behavior given the findings of the court in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F. 2d 1355, 1406-07 (D.C.
Cir. 1985), where the court stated that ``the entire point of a
mandatory program was to change consumer behavior'' and ``the fact that
consumers demand short payback periods was itself a major cause of the
market failure that Congress hoped to correct,'' the Department
considered the impact of likely consumer actions.
The Secretary also has strongly considered the Joint Comment. The
Joint Comment segments the ballast market by defining replacement
ballasts and proposed extended implementation dates for all segments of
the ballast market to comply with the new standards. The Joint Comment
also includes certain exemptions. All of these applications are
oriented toward mitigating financial impacts on manufacturers and
ensuring a minimal level of disruption to the ballast replacement
marketplace.

III. Methodology

As discussed in the Proposed Rule, the Department developed new
analytical tools for this rulemaking. The first tool was a spreadsheet
that calculates Life-Cycle-Cost (LCC) and Payback. The second
calculates national energy savings (NES). The Department also
completely revised the methodology used in assessing manufacturer
impacts including the adoption of the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (GRIM). Additionally, DOE developed a new approach using the
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate impacts of ballast
energy efficiency standards on electric utilities and the environment.
65 FR 14128, 14133-35 (March 15, 2000).

IV. Discussion of Comments

As noted above, DOE proposed to revise the energy conservation
standards applicable to fluorescent lamp ballasts on 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. Since that time, the
Department conducted numerous meetings, workshops and discussions
regarding energy efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts,
resulting in a Draft Report on Potential Impact of Possible Energy
Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, July, 1997; Summary of
Inputs for the Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Standards
for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, April 20, 1998; and Ballast Manufacturer
Impact Analysis Analytical Approach, April 10, 1998. 62 FR 38222 (July
17, 1997) and 63 FR 16706 (April 6, 1998). A workshop was conducted on
these analyses and documents on April 28, 1998. 63 FR 16706 (April 6,
1998). Based on comments and the growing popularity of electronic
ballasts with T8 lamps, the Department solicited further comments
specifically on the issue of whether market shifts (e.g., from T12 to
T8 lamps) should be considered in determining the impact of an energy
conservation standard on commercial and industrial consumers,
manufacturers and the nation. 63 FR 58330 (October 30, 1998). Further
comments on the above analyses, and modifications resulting from those
comments, culminated in publishing an analysis on the Codes and
Standards Internet site (http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/
codes__standards/applbrf/ballast.html) in April of 1999. We also
conducted a workshop on that analysis on June 1, 1999. 64 FR 24634 (May
7, 1999). These analyses presented the impacts of standards on
consumers, the nation and manufacturers. The Department considered all
comments regarding this rulemaking made prior to the three documents
and posted revised analyses listed above, to have been resolved or
contained within comments pertaining to those documents. Therefore, in
the Proposed Rule, the Department only addressed comments made relative
to those documents. Additionally, the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA), the American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ACEEE), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the
Alliance to Save Energy (Alliance) and the Oregon Energy Office
(Oregon) submitted a joint comment for amended fluorescent lamp ballast
standards. (Joint Comment, No. 91).
The Joint Comment presented the Department with a proposal for
segmenting the market and extending the implementation dates to
mitigate the burdens to acceptable levels while maintaining most of the
benefits of standards. For example, the phase-in period for the
standards proposed in the Joint Comment is approximately five years,
until April 1, 2005. This allows the manufacturers and the marketplace
additional time to make an orderly transition from energy efficient
magnetic ballasts to the more efficient ballasts. In addition, the
Joint Comment proposed an additional five-year phase-in for standards
for ballasts intended for replacement market. While it is generally
impossible to distinguish a ballast for the replacement market from one
used in new construction or

[[Page 56744]]

renovation, the Joint Comment recommended that replacement ballasts be
labeled for replacement use, have output leads which, when fully
extended, are less than the length of the lamp it is intended to
operate and they are shipped in packages of ten or less. In addition to
the above, the Joint Comment also proposed limiting the exemptions
relative to the extant standards. For example, the standards found in
the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 provided
exemptions for cold temperature and dimming ballasts. The Joint Comment
proposed limiting the exemption for cold temperature ballasts to those
capable of being dimmed to 50 percent or less of its maximum output and
the cold temperature ballast exemption would be limited to ballasts for
use with two F96T12HO lamps at an ambient temperature of -20 deg. F and
which is for use with outdoor signs.
While these stakeholders had previously commented on the above
three documents and the web posting, the Department stated in the
Proposed Rule, that based on their joint comment, the Joint Comment
superceded their previous comments. Therefore, their previous comments
were not addressed in the Proposed Rule.
NEMA, supported by MagneTek, Advance Transformer, OSRAM SYLVANIA,
Power Lighting Products and Robertson Worldwide, testified at the
Proposed Rule public hearing that they support the energy conservation
standards contained in the Proposed Rule and requested that DOE issue
those proposed energy conservation standards. They also stated the
submission of the Joint Comment does not and should not supersede their
previous comments. (NEMA, No. 95CC; MagneTek, No. 95BB; Advance, No.
95DD; OSRAM, No. 95HH; Power Lighting, No. 95GG; Robertson, No. 95FF).
NEMA stated and commented that they are not requesting any revisions to
the TSD, but are requesting that DOE acknowledge that there are
differences of opinion regarding the derivation of certain inputs to
the TSD. NEMA mentioned four items in particular: end-user ballast
prices, electricity prices for magnetic ballast users, comparing T12
systems to T8 systems and comparing fixtures that use one ballast to
fixtures that use more than one ballast. (NEMA, No. 99 at 3).
ACEEE commented it supports the Proposed Rule. While fully
supporting the Proposed Rule, ACEEE also stated that it questions some
aspects of the analysis as stated in its previous comments. ACEEE
specifically stated that it believes the manufacturer impact analysis
significantly overstates the impacts on manufacturers and that it
disagrees with the comments raised by NEMA. However, ACEEE is not
asking for any revisions to the analysis, but that DOE should merely
note the items that are in question. (ACEEE, No. 96).
NRDC commented that it supports the Proposed Rule and, while it
does not endorse all of the steps of the analysis, it stated that DOE
was correct in responding only to the Joint Comment. (NRDC, No. 97).
In a consensus process all parties typically give ground on
positions held to arrive at a mutually agreeable outcome. Based on
previous comments, we believed this to be the case for the stakeholders
in this rulemaking in arriving at the recommended standards in the
Joint Comments. For example, some stakeholders had previously commented
that the ballast prices used in the Department's analysis were too
high, and some had previously commented that the ballast prices used
were too low. Since these stakeholders had agreed to a common overall
position in the Joint Comments, we believed it unnecessary to the
discuss the details of their previous disagreeing comments. However,
the Department acknowledges that there are differences of opinion on
the various inputs and details of the analysis contained in the TSD
including the four areas mentioned by NEMA.
The Department acknowledges end-user ballast prices are difficult
to obtain since ballasts are part of lighting systems. However, the
Department believes the end-user ballast prices used in the TSD are the
best available and that the range of prices used represent a reasonable
range of ballast prices paid by end-users. The Department acknowledges
NEMA and ACEEE disagree with the prices used.
The Department examined state by state shipment data and electric
prices submitted by NEMA and, after running a regression analysis on
the data, found extremely low correlation between the magnetic/
electronic ballast mix and state electricity price. Therefore, we did
not discriminate between types of ballast users and ranges of
electricity prices. The Department acknowledges NEMA continues to
believe magnetic ballast users enjoy lower electricity prices than
electronic ballast users.
The Department did report and consider the impacts of consumers
switching from T12 systems to T8 systems and from multiple magnetic
ballast fixtures to single electronic ballast fixtures. The Department
continues to believe that is the way many consumers will respond to
today's standard. The Department acknowledges NEMA's belief those
comparisons should not be made in the rule.
In addition to the above four items, Advance also commented that
there is undue emphasis in the Proposed Rule on a scenario in which a
major U.S. ballast factory is closed in the base case. Advance asks DOE
to rephrase its comments on this sensitivity analysis. (Advance, No.
95DD).
Based on the dwindling U.S. ballast manufacturing job market from
1996, when NEMA testified before the U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Power that 4,000 U.S. ballast manufacturing
jobs would be at risk from an electronic ballast rule, to 1998, when
the Department conducted its MIA and found only 738 U.S. ballast
manufacturing jobs exist, it seemed reasonable to consider a
sensitivity scenario where such job loss continued. However, no undue
emphasis was placed on this scenario, and the Department acknowledges
there is no testimony or evidence that Advance would close its major
U.S. ballast factory and that the scenario is hypothetical.
Additionally, the Department asked for comments in the Proposed
Rule on two issues to which NEMA responded. (NEMA, No. 98 at 4). The
first issue was the validity of the analytical method used in the
Proposed Rule to determine the impact of the standard on the national
demand for labor. NEMA believes the method is inaccurate and that it is
extremely difficult to make predictions regarding how expenditures in
various sectors of the economy will result in labor demand 10 to 30
years in the future. The Department will continue to explore this issue
in other rules in an effort to capture the total employment impact of
energy conservation standards, both on manufacturers and the nation at
large.
The second issue was how the Proposed Rule could have been written
to make it easier to understand. NEMA stated that the Proposed Rule was
well written and easy to understand if the party reading it had
technical knowledge of the subject and that the style was an
improvement over past Federal Register notices.

V. Analytical Results and Conclusion

Analytical Results

The Department presented the results of its analytical analysis,
which was based on the Joint Comment, as discussed in the Proposed
Rule, and no changes have been made to the analysis

[[Page 56745]]

for today's final rule. 65 FR 14128, 14141-54 (March 15, 2000).
The rulemaking process is such that months to years can take place
between the time an analysis is completed and a final rule, based on
that analysis, is issued. During that time span, conditions or data are
likely to change and the Department attempts to insure that any such
changes will not compromise the robustness of the analysis or lead to a
different conclusion. For example, the Proposed Rule used the 1999
Annual Energy Outlook forecast of electric prices and electrical
generation mix to determine energy savings and net present value. Since
the analysis was completed, the 2000 AEO forecast became available. The
Department examined the impact of the 2000 AEO forecast on energy
savings and net present value and found its impact on energy savings
would be to change the range of energy savings reported in the Proposed
Rule of 1.20 to 2.32 Quads to 1.23 to 2.39 Quads and the range of net
present values reported in the Proposed Rule of 1.42 to 2.60 billion
dollars to 1.42 to 2.62 billion dollars. The Department does not
consider these changes to be meaningful or a basis to revise the
analysis. Additionally, it would be unfair and incorrect to select only
one portion of the analysis for revision, such as the electric price,
without also examining other related inputs, such as equipment prices,
which also might have slightly changed.
There also are other changes which have occurred, possibly in
response to the Proposed Rule, which would probably somewhat revise the
numerical results of a revised analysis. For example, OSRAM SYLVANIA
has purchased the Motorola Lighting Division which would probably
slightly change a revised MIA. However, the Department believes no
changes to the MIA are warranted because of this change since OSRAM
SYLVANIA supported today's final rule at the public hearing, which
occurred after the purchase. While the Department acknowledges that the
analysis performed for the Proposed Rule does not fully reflect some of
the changes in the industry and energy markets that have occurred more
recently, the Department believes that this analysis is still a valid
basis for today's final rule.

Conclusion

Section 325(l) of the Act specifies that the Department must
consider, for amended standards, those standards that ``achieve the
maximum improvement in energy efficiency which the Secretary determines
is technologically feasible and economically justified'' and which will
``result in significant conservation of energy.'' Accordingly, the
Department first considered the benefits and burdens of the max tech
level of efficiency, i.e., electronic ballast standards. Furthermore,
in considering this standard level, the Department considered the
staggered implementation scheme and exemptions recommended in the Joint
Comments.
The Department concludes that an electronic ballast standard saves
a significant amount of energy. The energy savings reported in the
Department's analysis for an electronic ballast standard based on the
Joint Comments ranged between 1.20 to 2.32 Quads of energy, not
including the HVAC effects. The Department considers energy savings
within this range to be significant. Furthermore, these energy savings
are estimated to result in carbon emission reductions of 11 to 19
million metric tons and NOX emission reductions of 34 to 60
thousand metric tons.
The Department concludes that an electronic ballast standard is
technologically feasible as these products are currently available and
comprise roughly half of the market.
In determining the economic justification of the Proposed Rule,
which is the same as today's final rule, the Department considered the
burdens and benefits of an electronic ballast standard. 65 FR 14128,
14154 (March 15, 2000).
The burdens accrue to the manufacturers of magnetic ballasts, some
of their suppliers and employees, and to some commercial and industrial
consumers who, because of factors such as lower than average electric
costs or hours of operation, will experience increased life cycle
costs. The largest of these burdens accrue to the manufacturing sector.
In the Proposed Rule, the Department estimated that businesses involved
in the ballast industry would have net losses of between 47.4 and 121.4
millions of dollars of NPV as a result of electronic standards starting
in the year 2003.
On the other hand, most commercial and industrial consumers will
benefit from lower life cycle costs due to energy savings. In the
Proposed Rule, the Department estimated the value to society of these
savings to range from 2.43 to 3.86 billions of dollars of NPV as a
result of electronic standards starting in the year 2003. These savings
to the nation's businesses and industries potentially produce increased
jobs in the economy at large and the energy savings result in reduced
atmospheric emissions.
The Department gave considerable weight to the recommendations of
the Joint Comment which attempts to balance these burdens and benefits.
The Joint Comment proposal reduces energy savings by approximately 24
percent compared to the Department's analysis. These reductions come
mainly from delaying the effective dates of the standards from the year
2003 to 2005 and later for replacement ballasts. However, these same
extensions also reduce the impacts of the standards on manufacturers
from what the Department estimated to levels which the manufacturers
state are mitigated. (Joint Comment, No. 91 at 7). While the Department
did not revise the MIA for the Proposed Rule or today's final rule, we
believe the manufacturers' statement in the Joint Comment, that the
impacts on them from the proposal are mitigated, is sufficient to
conclude that, given the benefits, the standards in today's final rule
are economically justified.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act directs the Department to
consider the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to
result from the standards, as determined by the Attorney General. In a
letter responding to the Proposed Rule, the Attorney General concluded
``that the proposed standards would not adversely affect competition in
the ballast market.'' (Department of Justice, No. 99).
After carefully considering the analysis, comments and benefits
versus burdens, the Department is amending the energy conservation
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts as proposed in the Proposed
Rule. The Department concludes this standard saves a significant amount
of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified.
In determining economic justification, the Department finds that the
benefits of energy savings, consumer life cycle cost savings, national
net present value increase, job creation and emission reductions
resulting from the standards outweigh the burdens of the loss of
manufacturer net present value, possible plant closings and job loss
and consumer life cycle cost increases for some users of fluorescent
lamp ballasts covered by today's Final Rule.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

a. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

In issuing the March 4, 1994 Proposed Rule for energy efficiency
standards for

[[Page 56746]]

eight products, one of which was fluorescent lamp ballasts, the
Department prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-0819) that
was published within the Technical Support Document for that Proposed
Rule. (DOE/EE-0009, November 1993.) We found the environmental effects
associated with various standard levels for fluorescent lamp ballasts,
as well as the other seven products, to be not significant, and we
published a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 59 FR 15868
(April 5, 1994).
In conducting the analysis for the Proposed Rule, upon which
today's final rule is based, the Department evaluated design options as
suggested in comments. As a result, the energy savings estimates and
resulting environmental effects from revised energy efficiency
standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts in that analysis differ
somewhat from those that we presented for fluorescent lamp ballasts in
the 1994 Proposed Rule. Nevertheless, the environmental effects
expected from today's final rule fall within ranges of environmental
impacts from the revised energy efficiency standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts that DOE found in the FONSI not to be significant.

b. Review Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review''

Today's regulatory action has been determined to be an
``economically significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Accordingly, today's action was subject to review under the
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget.
The draft submitted to OIRA and other documents submitted to OIRA
for review have been made a part of the rulemaking record and are
available for public review in the Department's Freedom of Information
Reading Room, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585,
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
telephone (202) 586-3142.
The Proposed Rule contained a summary of the Regulatory Analysis
which focused on the major alternatives considered in arriving at the
approach to improving the energy efficiency of consumer products. The
reader is referred to the complete draft ``Regulatory Impact
Analysis,'' which is contained in the TSD, available as indicated at
the beginning of this notice. It consists of: (1) A statement of the
problem addressed by this regulation, and the mandate for government
action; (2) a description and analysis of the feasible policy
alternatives to this regulation; (3) a quantitative comparison of the
impacts of the alternatives; and (4) the national economic impacts of
the proposed standard.

c. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires an
assessment of the impact of regulations on small businesses. Small
businesses are defined as those firms within an industry that are
privately owned and less dominant in the market.
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for fluorescent
lamp ballast manufacturers is 36124. To be categorized as a ``small''
fluorescent lamp ballast manufacturer, a firm must employ no more than
750 employees.
In the fluorescent lamp ballast industry, there is one ``small''
manufacturer who produces both ``affected'' magnetic and electronic
ballasts. The ``small'' manufacturer has its electronic and magnetic
ballast manufacturing operations in the same plant. Its smaller size
and less automated operations would seem to provide it with the
flexibility to adapt to a new electronic ballast standard without
significant asset write-offs or plant closures.
The negative impacts on the ``small'' manufacturer's cash flows
from operations, however, would likely be similar in proportion to
those of the larger manufacturers.
Since only one of the seven manufacturers of fluorescent lamp
ballasts is ``small,'' the Department concludes that today's final rule
would not affect a ``substantial'' number of ``small'' manufacturers.
In addition, the firm's flexible manufacturing operations, along with
the expected proportional financial impacts, strongly suggests that the
energy-efficiency standards would not produce ``significant'' economic
impacts on that one manufacturer. Furthermore, the small manufacturer
is a signer of the Joint Comment.
In view of the foregoing, the Department has determined and hereby
certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
that, for this particular industry, the standard levels in today's
final rule will not ``have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and it is not necessary to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.

d. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

No new information or record keeping requirements are imposed by
this rulemaking. Accordingly, no Office of Management and Budget
clearance is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.

e. Review Under Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform''

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, Section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on
Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE reviewed today's final
rule under the standards of section 3 of the Executive Order and
determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the final regulations
meet the relevant standards.

f. ``Takings'' Assessment Review

DOE has determined pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights,'' 52 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

g. Review under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 4, 1999) imposes certain

[[Page 56747]]

requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or
regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the
policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. Agencies also must have an accountable
process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications. DOE published its intergovernmental
consultation policy on March 14, 2000. (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined
today's final rule and has determined that it would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. State
regulations that may have existed on the products that are the subject
of today's final rule were preempted by the Federal standards
established in the NAECA Amendments of 1988. States can petition the
Department for exemption from such preemption based on criteria set
forth in EPCA.

h. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

With respect to a proposed regulatory action that may result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting
costs, benefits and other effects on the national economy. 2 U.S.C.
1532(a), (b). UMRA also requires each Federal agency to develop an
effective process to permit timely input by state, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed significant intergovernmental mandate. The
Department's consultation process is described in a notice published in
the Federal Register on March 18, 1997 (62 FR 12820). Today's final
rule may impose expenditures of $100 million or more on the private
sector. It does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate.
Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an agency to respond to the content
requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that
accompanies the proposed rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The content
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
Supplementary Information section of the Notice of Final Rulemaking and
``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for this Final Rule
responds to those requirements.
Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is
required. DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most
cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing
otherwise or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with
law. As required by section 325(o) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), today's final rule establishes
energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts that are
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and economically
justified. A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is
presented in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis'' section of the TSD for
today's final rule.

i. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. No. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may
affect family well-being. Today's final rule would not have any impact
on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a
Family Policymaking Assessment.

j. Review Under the Plain Language Directives

Section 1(b)(12) of Executive Order 12866 requires that each agency
draft its regulations to be simple and easy to understand, with the
goal of minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising
from such uncertainty. Similarly, the Presidential memorandum of June
1, 1998 (63 FR 31883) directs the heads of executive departments and
agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rulemaking
documents published in the Federal Register.
Today's rule uses the following general techniques to abide by
Section 1(b)(12) of Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential
memorandum of June 1, 1998:
Organization of the material to serve the needs of the
readers (stakeholders).
Use of common, everyday words in short sentences.
Shorter sentences and sections.

k. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report
regarding the issuance of today's final rule prior to the effective
date set forth at the outset of this notice. DOE also will submit the
supporting analyses to the Comptroller General (GAO) and make them
available to each House of Congress. The report will state that it has
been determined that the rule is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 22, 2000.
Dan W. Reicher,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 430 of Chapter II
of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations is amended, as set forth
below.

Part 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for Part 430 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2. Section 430.32 of subpart C is amended by revising paragraph (m)
to read as follows:

Sec. 430.32 Energy and water conservation standards and effective
dates.

* * * * *
(m) Fluorescent lamp ballasts.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (m)(2), (m)(3), and (m)(4) of
this section, each fluorescent lamp ballast--
(i) (A) Manufactured on or after January 1, 1990;
(B) Sold by the manufacturer on or after April 1, 1990; or
(C) Incorporated into a luminaire by a luminaire manufacturer on or
after April 1, 1991; and
(ii) Designed--
(A) To operate at nominal input voltages of 120 or 277 volts;
(B) To operate with an input current frequency of 60 Hertz; and

[[Page 56748]]

(C) For use in connection with an F40T12, F96T12, or F96T12HO lamps
shall have a power factor of 0.90 or greater and shall have a ballast
efficacy factor not less than the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Ballast nominal Ballast
Application for operation of input lamp efficacy
voltage watts factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One F40 T12 lamp....................... 120 40 1.805
277 40 1.805
Two F40 T12 lamps...................... 120 80 1.060
277 80 1.050
Two F96T12 lamps....................... 120 150 0.570
277 150 0.570
Two F96T12HO lamps..................... 120 220 0.390
277 220 0.390
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) The standards described in paragraph (m)(1) of this section do
not apply to--
(i) A ballast that is designed for dimming or for use in ambient
temperatures of 0 deg.F or less, or
(ii) A ballast that has a power factor of less than 0.90 and is
designed for use only in residential building applications.
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (m)(4) of this section, each
fluorescent lamp ballast--
(i) (A) Manufactured on or after April 1, 2005;
(B) Sold by the manufacturer on or after July 1, 2005; or
(C) Incorporated into a luminaire by a luminaire manufacturer on or
after April 1, 2006; and
(ii) Designed--
(A) To operate at nominal input voltages of 120 or 277 volts;
(B) To operate with an input current frequency of 60 Hertz; and
(C) For use in connection with an F40T12, F96T12, or F96T12HO
lamps; shall have a power factor of 0.90 or greater and shall have a
ballast efficacy factor not less than the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Ballast nominal Ballast
Application of operation of input lamp efficacy
voltage watts factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One F40 T12 lamp....................... 120 40 2.29
277 40 2.29
Two F40 T12 lamps...................... 120 80 1.17
277 80 1.17
Two F96T12 lamps....................... 120 150 0.63
277 150 0.63
Two F96T12HO lamps..................... 120 220 0.39
277 220 0.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) (i) The standards described in paragraph (m)(3) do not apply
to:
(A) A ballast that is designed for dimming to 50 percent or less of
its maximum output;
(B) A ballast that is designed for use with two F96T12HO lamps at
ambient temperatures of -20 deg.F or less and for use in an outdoor
sign;
(C) A ballast that has a power factor of less than 0.90 and is
designed and labeled for use only in residential building applications;
or
(D) A replacement ballast as defined in paragraph (m)(4)(ii) of
this section.
(ii) For purposes of this paragraph (m), a replacement ballast is
defined as a ballast that:
(A) Is manufactured on or before June 30, 2010;
(B) Is designed for use to replace an existing ballast in a
previously installed luminaire;
(C) Is marked ``FOR REPLACEMENT USE ONLY'';
(D) Is shipped by the manufacturer in packages containing not more
than 10 ballasts;
(E) Has output leads that when fully extended are a total length
that is less than the length of the lamp with which it is intended to
be operated; and
(F) Meets or exceeds the ballast efficacy factor in the following
table:

[[Page 56749]]

* * * * *

Appendix

[The following letter from the Department of Justice will not appear
in the Code of Federal Regulations.]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Main Justice Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20530-0001, (202) 514-2401/(202) 616-2645

Mary Anne Sullivan,
General Counsel, Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585.

Dear Ms. Sullivan:
I am responding to your March 28, 2000 letter seeking the views
of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of
the proposed energy efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp
ballasts. Your request was submitted pursuant to Section
325(o)(2)(B)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C.
Secs. 6291, 6295, which requires the Attorney General to make a
determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is
likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy efficiency
standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to
requests from other departments about the effect of a program on
competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for
the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR Sec. 0.40(g).
We have reviewed the proposed standards and the supplementary
information published in the Federal Register notice and submitted
to the Attorney General, which includes information provided to the
Department of Energy by ballast manufacturers, their suppliers, and
their customers. The proposed standards could not be met by most
types of magnetic fluorescent lamp ballasts and would likely result
in the increased use of electronic ballasts. Our conclusion is that
the proposed standards would not adversely affect competition in the
ballast market.
In reaching this conclusion we note that production of
electronic ballasts has already grown to more than 60 percent of
industry sales, and that each of the seven manufacturers that
together account for more than 95 percent of the domestic ballast
market already produces electronic ballasts. The ballast
manufacturers have said the proposed standards would not force any
of them to exit the ballast business.
Further, the proposed standards would be phased in--five years
for new ballasts and ten years for replacement ballasts--and include
a number of exemptions, such as an exemption for residential
applications. Finally, there is no indication in the record that the
proposed standards would limit electronic ballast production by any
firms and therefore would not likely reduce competition in the
production of electronic ballasts. We therefore conclude that the
proposed standards will not likely reduce competition in the sale of
ballasts.

Sincerely,

Joel I. Klein.

[FR Doc. 00-24004 Filed 9-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P