58330

Proposed

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

General Counsel, GC-72, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-

9507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Pursuant

to section 325 of the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C.

6295, the Department of Energy (DOE)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY proposed to revise the energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EE-RM -97-500]

RIN 1904-AA75

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products : Fluorescent

Lamp Ballasts Energy Conservation

Standards

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION : Notice of limited reopening of

the record and opportunity for public

comment.

SUMMARY : The Department of Energy

reopens the record of its rulemaking to

revise energy conservation standards for

fluorescent lamp ballasts under the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

This notice provides an opportunity for

public comment regarding the

Department's consideration of

consumers who choose electronic

ballast T-8 systems over electronic

ballast T-12 systems and consumers

who choose electronic ballasts over

cathode cutout ballasts.

DATES : Comments must be received on

or before November 30, 1998.

ADDRESSES : Written comments are

welcome. Please submit 10 copies (no

faxes) to: Brenda Edwards-Jones, U. S.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp

Ballasts, Docket No. EE-RM-97-500,

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl

Adams, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, EE-43, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202)

586-9127, or Eugene Margolis, Esq.,

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

conservation standards applicable to

fluorescent lamp ballasts, as well as a

variety of other consumer products. 59

FR 10464 (March 4, 1994). On January

31, 1995, the Department published a

rulemaking determination that, based on

comments received, it would issue a

revised notice of proposed rulemaking

for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 60 FR

5880 (January 31, 1995). Section

325 (o) (2) requires that any amended

standard be designed to achieve the

maximum improvement in energy

efficiency that is technologically

feasible and economically justified. 42

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2).

During the conduct of several

workshops and in other discussions

with stakeholders , two issues have

arisen that the Department wishes to

notice to the public prior to the issuance

of a revised proposed rule.

Issue 1

In the analyses for the 1994 Proposed

Rule, the February, 1996, Draft Report

and the July, 1997, Draft Report

regarding the potential impacts of

possible energy efficiency levels for

fluorescent lamp ballasts, the

Department conducted the analyses by

comparing magnetic ballast T-12

systems to electronic ballast T-12

systems and magnetic T-8 systems to

electronic T-8 systems when evaluating

efficiency levels where the consumer is

faced with standard levels requiring

electronic ballasts. The Department was

silent on any comparison of magnetic

T-12 systems to electronic ballast T-8

systems. The analyses were conducted

in a manner which essentially assumed

all consumers of magnetic T-12 ballast

systems would replace them with

electronic T-12 ballast systems. Prior to

18 months ago, there had been no

comments regarding the validity or

impact of conducting the analysis in

this manner.

Current industry data indicates that

approximately 94 percent of consumers

who choose electronic ballasts choose

T-8 systems. DOE has now received a

Federal Register

Vol. 63, No. 210

Friday, October 30, 1998

number of comments that by only

considering consumers purchasing T-12

ballast systems, the Department would

not capture the full range of impacts

likely to result from the rulemaking.-

During the March 18, 1997, workshop

on the Revised Life Cycle Cost and

Engineering Analysis of Fluorescent

Lamp Ballasts, the Alliance to Save

Energy, Natural Resources Defense

Council and American Council for an

Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

commented that the Department, in

considering standards at the electronic

ballast efficiency level, should include

consideration of the benefits or costs

that result when consumers choose to

purchase electronic ballast T-8 systems

instead of electronic ballast T-12

systems. This issue was raised again by

ACEEE in its written comments of

October 2, 1997, on the Draft Report on

Potential Impact of Possible Energy

Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp

Ballasts (ACEEE, No. 14) and again in its

written comments of June 5, 1998, in

response to the Public Workshop on

Possible Impacts of Energy Efficiency

Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

conducted on April 28, 1998. (ACEEE,

No. 24).

In consideration of these comments,

this issue was further discussed with

the National Electrical Manufacturers

Association (NEMA) at a meeting on

June 9-10, 1998. At this meeting, DOE

and NEMA members discussed ways to

compare an electronic ballast T-12

system to an electronic ballast T-8

system, including how such a

comparison would require an additional

normalization step to account for the

lamp lumen differences. Preliminary

impact analyses using a normalization

approach which uses the mean

characteristics representative of the

most popular T-12 and T-8 lamps

indicates that a shift from T-12 lamps

with electronic ballasts to T-8 lamps

with electronic ballasts would yield

significant additional energy and life

cycle cost savings. Any such market

shift in lamp usage caused by a ballast

standard could also have an impact on

lamp manufacturers.

In a letter to the Department, dated

October 16, 1998, NEMA stated that

DOE should not consider the impact of

any shift from T- 12 systems to T-8

systems because any additional benefits

would accrue from system efficiencies

of the ballast and the lamp.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 35

58330 

Proposed Rules 

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER 

contains notices to the public of the proposed 

issuance of rules and regulations. The 

purpose of these notices is to give interested 

persons an opportunity to participate in the 

rule making prior to the adoption of the final 

rules. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EE-RM-97-500] 

RIN 1904-AA75 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Fluorescent 

Lamp Ballasts Energy Conservation 

Standards 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of limited reopening of 

the record and opportunity for public 

comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

reopens the record of its ru1emaking to 

revise energy conservation standards for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 

This notice provides an opportunity for 

public comment regarding the 

Department's consideration of 

consumers who choose electronic 

ballast T -8 systems over electronic 

ballast T-12 systems and consumers 

who choose electronic ballasts over 

cathode cutout ballasts. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 30, 1998. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments are 

welcome. Please submit 10 copies (no 

faxes) to: Brenda Edwards-Jones, U. S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

EffiCiency and Renewable Energy, 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp 

Ballasts, Docket No. EE-RM-97-500, 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Adams, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, EE-43, 1000 

Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121. (202) 

586-9127, or Eugene Margolis, Esq., 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

General Counsel. GC-72, 1000 

Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-

9507. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 325 of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.s.C. 

6295, the Department of Energy (DOE) 

proposed to revise the energy 

conservation standards applicable to 

fluorescent lamp ballasts, as well as a 

variety of other consumer products. 59 

FR 10464 (March 4,1994). On January 

31,1995, the Department published a 

ru1emaking determination that, based on 

comments received, it would issue a 

revised notice of proposed ru1emaking 

for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 60 FR 

5880 Oanuary 31. 1995). Section 

325 (0) (2) requires that any amended 

standard be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 42 

U.S.C.6295(0)(2). 

During the conduct of several 

workshops and in other discussions 

with stakeholders, two issues have 

arisen that the Department wishes to 

notice to the public prior to the issuance 

of a revised proposed rule. 

Issue 1 

In the analyses for the 1994 Proposed 

Rule, the February, 1996, Draft Report 

and the July, 1997, Draft Report 

regarding the potential impacts of 

possible energy efficiency levels for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts, the 

Department conducted the analyses by 

comparing magnetic ballast T -12 

systems to electronic ballast T -12 

systems and magnetic T -8 systems to 

electronic T -8 systems when evaluating 

efficiency levels where the consumer is 

faced with standard levels reqUiring 

electronic ballasts. The Department was 

silent on any comparison of magnetic 

T -12 systems to electronic ballast T-8 

systems. The analyses were conducted 

in a manner which essentially assumed 

all consumers of magnetic T-12 ballast 

systems would replace them with 

electronic T -12 ballast systems. Prior to 

18 months ago, there had been no 

comments regarding the validity or 

impact of conducting the analysis in 

this manner. 

Current industry data indicates that 

approximately 94 percent of consumers 

who choose electronic ballasts choose 

T -8 systems. DOE has now received a 

Federal Register 

Vol. 63, No. 210 

Friday, October 30, 1998 

number of comments that by only 

considering consumers purchasing T -12 

ballast systems, the Department would 

not capture the full range of impacts 

likely to result from the rulemaking.-

During the March 18, 1997, workshop 

on the Revised Life Cycle Cost and 

Engineering Analysis of Fluorescent 

Lamp Ballasts, the Alliance to Save 

Energy, Natural Resources Defense 

Council and American Council for an 

Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) 

commented that the Department, in 

considering standards at the electronic 

ballast effiCiency level. should include 

consideration of the benefits or costs 

that result when consumers choose to 

purchase electronic ballast T -8 systems 

instead of electronic ballast T -12 

systems. This issue was raised again by 

ACEEE in its written comments of 

October 2, 1997, on the Draft Report on 

Potential Impact of Possible Energy 

EffiCiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp 

Ballasts (ACEEE, No. 14) and again in its 

written comments of June 5, 1998, in 

response to the Public Workshop on 

Possible Impacts of Energy Efficiency 

Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

conducted on April 28, 1998. (ACEEE, 

No. 24). 

In consideration of these comments, 

this issue was further discussed with 

the National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) at a meeting on 

June 9-10, 1998. At this meeting, DOE 

and NEMA members discussed ways to 

compare an electronic ballast T -12 

system to an electronic ballast T-8 

system, including how such a 

comparison would require an additional 

normalization step to account for the 

lamp lumen differences. Preliminary 

impact analyses using a normalization 

approach which uses the mean 

characteristics representative of the 

most popular T -12 and T -8 lamps 

indicates that a shift from T -12 lamps 

with electronic ballasts to T -8 lamps 

with electronic ballasts would yield 

Significant additional energy and life 

cycle cost savings. Any such market 

shift in lamp usage caused by a ballast 

standard could also have an impact on 

lamp manufacturers. 

In a letter to the Department, dated 

October 16, 1998, NEMA stated that 

DOE should not consider the impact of 

any shift from T -12 systems to T-8 

systems because any additional benefits 

would accrue from system efficiencies 

of the ballast and the lamp. 
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 210 /Friday, October 30, 1998 /Proposed Rules

The Department believes its analysis

of the impacts of a potential standard

level on consumers, manufacturers and

the nation, as prescribed by EPCA,

requires the analysis to compare the

marketplace before and after standards

and to measure the impacts of changes.

DOE believes this policy is consistent

with previous rulemakings such as the

Department's consideration of a possible

shift from gas mobile home furnaces to

electric heat if the gas mobile home

furnace standards were increased.

Further, the Department believes,

based on current sales, if a standard

required consumers of magnetic ballast

T- 12 systems to purchase electronic

ballasts, it is likely that many if not

most of these consumers would choose

to purchase electronic ballast T-8

systems. In determining the likely

benefits and costs for the nation and the

likely impacts on manufacturers, the

Department intends to explore a range

of market scenarios using different

assumptions about the likely effects of

a new DOE standard on ballasts on the

market shares of T-8 and T-12 systems.

Additionally, the Department intends to

analyze both the range of life cycle costs

for consumers who choose electronic

ballast T-12 systems and the range of

life cycle costs for consumers who

choose electronic ballast T-8 systems.

By this notice, the Department is

soliciting public comment on whether a

market shift from T- 12 systems to T-8

systems is likely to occur if an energy

conservation standard were set at a level

requiring electronic ballasts, the extent

of any such shift in terms of a

percentage and whether any such shift

should be considered in determining the

impact of an energy conservation

standard set at a level requiring

electronic ballasts on consumers,

manufacturers and the nation.

Issue 2

In the analyses for the 1994 Proposed

Rule, the February, 1996, Draft Report

and the July, 1997, Draft Report

regarding the potential impacts of

possible energy efficiency levels for

fluorescent lamp ballasts, the

Department conducted the analysis by

comparing magnetic ballasts to cathode

cutout ballasts when evaluating

efficiency levels where the consumer is

faced with standard levels requiring

cathode cutout ballasts. The Department

was silent on any comparison of

cathode cutout ballasts to electronic

ballasts. The analyses were conducted

in a manner which essentially assumed

all consumers of magnetic ballasts

would replace them with cathode cutout

ballasts. Currently cathode cutout

ballasts represent approximately one

percent of the magnetic ballast market.

In discussions with manufacturers

after the June 9-10, 1998 meeting at

NEMA, manufacturers stated a belief

that when faced with such a standard,

many consumers would choose

electronic ballasts instead of cathode

cutout ballasts. They indicated this

choice would increase the impact on

manufacturers who produce magnetic

ballasts and requested changes in the

manufacturer impact analysis, as

specifically, the Government Regulatory

Impact Model (GRIM), to account for

this possible shift.

The Department, believes its analysis

of the impacts of a potential standard

level on consumers, manufacturers and

the nation, as prescribed by EPCA,

requires the analysis to compare the

marketplace before and after standards

and to measure the impacts of changes.

DOE believes this policy is consistent

with previous rulemakings such as the

Department's consideration of a possible

shift from gas mobile home furnaces to

electric heat if the gas mobile home

furnace standards were increased.

Given the small current market share

of cathode cutout ballasts, the

Department believes it would be

reasonable to assume that with an

energy conservation standard set at the

cathode cutout level, many consumers

would choose electronic ballasts, even

though the cathode cutout ballast would

then be the lowest cost ballast. It would

also be reasonable to assume that many

or most of the consumers who choose

electronic ballasts will also choose to

convert from T-12 to T-8 lamps at the

time of ballast replacement. In

determining the likely benefits and costs

for the nation and the likely impacts on

manufacturers, the Department intends

to explore a range of market scenarios

using different assumptions about the

likely effects of a new DOE standard on

ballasts on the market shares of

electronic and cathode cutout ballasts.

Additionally, the Department intends to

analyze both the range of life cycle costs

for consumers who choose electronic

ballasts and the range of life cycle costs

for consumers who choose cathode

cutout ballasts. By this notice, the

Department is soliciting public

comment on whether a market shift

from cathode cutout ballasts to

electronic ballasts is likely to occur if an

energy conservation standard were set at

a level requiring cathode cutout ballasts,

the extent of any such shift in terms of

a percentage, the percentage of those

consumers choosing electronic ballasts

who would choose T-8 systems and

whether any shift should be considered

in determining the impact of an energy

58331

conservation standard set at a level

requiring cathode cutout ballasts on

consumers, manufacturers and the

nation.

Public Comment

DOE seeks comments on the

following:

e In considering standards set at the

level of electronic ballasts, whether a

market shift from T- 12 systems to T-8

systems is likely to occur, the extent-of

any such shift in terms of a percentage

and whether any such shift should be

considered in determining the impact of

an energy conservation standard on

consumers, manufacturers and the

nation.

e In considering standards that would

require T-12 cathode cutout ballasts,

whether a market shift from cathode

cutout ballasts to electronic ballasts is

likely to occur, the extent of any such

shift in terms of a percentage, the

percentage of those consumers choosing

electronic ballasts who would choose

T-8 systems and whether any shift

should be considered in determining the

impact of an energy conservation

standard on consumers, manufacturers

and the nation.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on October 26,

1998.

Dan W. Reicher,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 98-29156 Filed 10-29-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 25611]

RIN 2120-AC84

Retrofit of Improved Seats in Air

Carrier Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION : Notice of public meeting,

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY : This document announces a

public meeting in which the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) will

discuss changes in and solicit comments

and information from the public on the

FAA's current draft rule to require the

retrofit of improved seats in air carrier

transport category airplanes. A Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that

proposed requiring more crashworthy

seats on most air carrier airplanes

operating under parts 121 and 135 was

published on May 17, 1988. The draft

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 35

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 21O/Friday, October 30, 1998/Proposed Rules 58331 

The Department believes its analysis 

of the impacts of a potential standard 

level on consumers, manufacturers and 

the nation, as prescribed by EPCA, 

requires the analysis to compare the 

marketplace before and after standards 

and to measure the impacts of changes. 

DOE believes this policy is consistent 

with previous rulemakings such as the 

Department's consideration of a possible 

shift from gas mobile home furnaces to 

electric heat if the gas mobile home 

furnace standards were increased. 

Further, the Department believes, 

based on current sales, if a standard 

required consumers of magnetic ballast 

T -12 systems to purchase electronic 

ballasts, it is likely that many if not 

most of these consumers would choose 

to purchase electronic ballast T-8 

systems. In determining the likely 

benefits and costs for the nation and the 

likely impacts on manufacturers, the 

Department intends to explore a range 

of market scenarios using different 

assumptions about the likely effects of 

a new DOE standard on ballasts on the 

market shares of T -8 and T -12 systems. 

Additionally, the Department intends to 

analyze both the range of life cycle costs 

for consumers who choose electronic 

ballast T -12 systems and the range of 

life cycle costs for consumers who 

choose electronic ballast T -8 systems. 

By this notice, the Department is 

soliciting public comment on whether a 

market shift from T -12 systems to T -8 

systems is likely to occur if an energy 

conservation standard were set at a level 

requiring electronic ballasts, the extent 

of any such shift in terms of a 

percentage and whether any such shift 

should be considered in determining the 

impact of an energy conservation 

standard set at a level requiring 

electronic ballasts on consumers, 

manufacturers and the nation. 

Issue 2 

In the analyses for the 1994 Proposed 

Rule, the February, 1996, Draft Report 

and the July, 1997, Draft Report 

regarding the potential impacts of 

possible energy efficiency levels for 

fluorescent lamp ballasts, the 

Department conducted the analysis by 

comparing magnetic ballasts to cathode 

cutout ballasts when evaluating 

efficiency levels where the consumer is 

faced with standard levels requiring 

cathode cutout ballasts. The Department 

was silent on any comparison of 

cathode cutout ballasts to electronic 

ballasts. The analyses were conducted 

in a manner which essentially assumed 

all consumers of magnetic ballasts 

would replace them with cathode cutout 

ballasts. Currently cathode cutout 

ballasts represent approximately one 

percent of the magnetic ballast market. 

In discussions with manufacturers 

after the June 9-10, 1998 meeting at 

NEMA, manufacturers stated a belief 

that when faced with such a standard, 

many consumers would choose 

electronic ballasts instead of cathode 

cutout ballasts. They indicated this 

choice would increase the impact on 

manufacturers who produce magnetic 

ballasts and requested changes in the 

manufacturer impact analysis, as 

specifically, the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM), to account for 

this possible shift. 

The Department believes its analysis 

of the impacts of a potential standard 

level on consumers, manufacturers and 

the nation, as prescribed by EPCA, 

reqUires the analysis to compare the 

marketplace before and after standards 

and to measure the impacts of changes. 

DOE believes this policy is consistent 

with previous rulemakings such as the 

Department's consideration of a possible 

shift from gas mobile home furnaces to 

electric heat if the gas mobile home 

furnace standards were increased. 

Given the small current market share 

of cathode cutout ballasts, the 

Department believes it would be 

reasonable to assume that with an 

energy conservation standard set at the 

cathode cutout level, many consumers 

would choose electronic ballasts, even 

though the cathode cutout ballast would 

then be the lowest cost ballast. It would 

also be reasonable to assume that many 

or most of the consumers who choose 

electronic ballasts will also choose to 

convert from T -12 to T -8 lamps at the 

time of ballast replacement. In 

determining the likely benefits and costs 

for the nation and the likely impacts on 

manufacturers, the Department intends 

to explore a range of market scenarios 

using different assumptions about the 

likely effects of a new DOE standard on 

ballasts on the market shares of 

electronic and cathode cutout ballasts. 

Additionally, the Department intends to 

analyze both the range of life cycle costs 

for consumers who choose electronic 

ballasts and the range of life cycle costs 

for consumers who choose cathode 

cutout ballasts. By this notice, the 

Department is soliCiting public 

comment on whether a market shift 

from cathode cutout ballasts to 

electronic ballasts is likely to occur if an 

energy conservation standard were set at 

a level requiring cathode cutout ballasts, 

the extent of any such shift in terms of 

a percentage, the percentage of those 

consumers choosing electronic ballasts 

who would choose T -8 systems and 

whether any shift should be considered 

in determining the impact of an energy 

conservation standard set at a level 

requiring cathode cutout ballasts on 

consumers, manufacturers and the 

nation. 

Public Comment 

DOE seeks comments on the 

following: 

• In considering standards set at the 

level of electronic ballasts, whether a 

market shift from T -12 systems to T-8 

systems is likely to occur, the extenrof 

any such shift in terms of a percentage 

and whether any such shift should be 

considered in determining the impact of 

an energy conservation standard on 

consumers, manufacturers and the 

nation. 

e In considering standards that would 

require T -12 cathode cutout ballasts, 

whether a market shift from cathode 

cutout ballasts to electronic ballasts is 

likely to occur, the extent of any such 

shift in terms of a percentage, the 

percentage of those consumers chOOSing 

electronic ballasts who would choose 

T -8 systems and whether any shift 

should be considered in determining the 

impact of an energy conservation 

standard on consumers, manufacturers 

and the nation. 

Issued in Washington, D.C .. on October 26, 

1998. 

Dan W. Reicher, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 98-29156 Filed 10-29-98; 8:45 amI 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No. 256111 

RIN 2120-ACB4 

Retrofit of Improved Seats in Air 

Carrier Transport Category Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting, 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

public meeting in which the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) will 

discuss changes in and solicit comments 

and information from the public on the 

FAA's current draft rule to require the 

retrofit of improved seats in air carrier 

transport category airplanes. A Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that 

proposed requiring more crash worthy 

seats on most air carrier airplanes 

operating under parts 121 and 135 was 

published on May 17, 1988. The draft