[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:

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


[[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