Tuesday,

September 19, 2000

Part V

Department

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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

Tuesday, 

September 19, 2000 

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 
56740 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 182 /Tuesday, September 19, 2000 /Rules and Regulations

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 1E190, 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

1. 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°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

102-4861 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.

Under the Act, the program consists

essentially of three parts: testing,

labeling, and Federal energy

conservation standards. The

Department, in consultation with the

I 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.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

56740 Federal Register I Vol. 65, No. 182 I Tuesday, September 19, 2000 I Rules and Regulations 

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 lE190,1000 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.htmlor 

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°F used with outdoor signs. 

As a result oftoday'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 

102-4861 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. 

Under the Act, the program consists 

essentially of three parts: testing, 

labeling, and Federal energy 

conservation standards. The 

Department, in consultation with the 

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

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,z 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.

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, refrigeratorfreezers, 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,

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.

56741

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,

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 182/Tuesday, September 19, 2000/Rules and Regulations 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(0)(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(0)(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 ofthe 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. 

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, refrigeratorfreezers, 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, 

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. 

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 

appli,ances 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 ofthe 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, 
56742 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 182 /Tuesday, September 19, 2000 /Rules and Regulations

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.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

56742 Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 182/Tuesday, September 19, 2000/Rules and Regulations 

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/buildingsl 

codes_standards/applbrflballast.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 ofthe effective date ofthe 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 

(0)(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(0)(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(0)(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(0)(2)(B)(i) ofthe 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. 
Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 182 /Tuesday, September 19, 2000 /Rules and Regulations

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

56743

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/ c o des-standards/app lbrf/

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 phasein 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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 182/Tuesday, September 19, 2000/Rules and Regulations 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, ofthat 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 ofthe 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 phasein 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 
56744 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 182 /Tuesday, September 19, 2000 /Rules and Regulations

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° 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 enduser 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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

56744 Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 18Z/Tuesday, September 19, ZOOO/Rules and Regulations 

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° 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 

byNEMA. 

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

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(1) 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

56745

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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 18Z/Tuesday, September 19, ZOOO/Rules and Regulations 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 SYL VANIA 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(1) 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 

HV AC 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 oftheir 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 oUhe 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 
56746 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 182 /Tuesday, September 19, 2000 /Rules and Regulations

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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

56746 Federal Register I Vol. 65, No. 182 I Tuesday, September 19, 2000 I Rules and Regulations 

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 FR4729 (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 
Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 182 /Tuesday, September 19, 2000 /Rules and Regulations

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

56747

1(b)(12) of Executive Order 12866 and

the Presidential memorandum of June 1,

1998:

e Organization of the material to

serve the needs of the readers

(stakeholders).

® Use of common, everyday words in

short sentences.

e 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:

§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-

(f) (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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 18Z/Tuesday, September 19, ZOOO/Rules and Regulations 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 oftoday'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(0) 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(0) ofthe 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 

U.S.C. 6295(0)), 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 ofthe 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 l(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 oOune 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 

l(b)(12) of Executive Order 12866 and 

the Presidential memorandum oOune 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: 

§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) ofthis 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 
56748 Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 182 /Tuesday, September 19, 2000 /Rules and Regulations

(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:

Application for operation of

Ballast

input

Total

nominal Ballast

efficacy

voltage lamp

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-

(p) A ballast that is designed for

dimming or for use in ambient

temperatures of 0 °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:

Application of operation of

Ballast

input

voltage

Total

nominal

lamp

watts

Ballast

efficacy

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 labeled for use only in residential (C) Is marked "FOR REPLACEMENT

paragraph (m)(3) do not apply to: building applications; or USE ONLY";

(A) A ballast that is designed for (D) A replacement ballast as defined (D) Is shipped by the manufacturer in

dimming to 50 percent or less of its in paragraph (m)(4)(ii) of this section. packages containing not more than 10

maximum output; iii) For purposes of this paragraph ballasts;

(m), a replacement ballast is defined as (B) A ballast that is designed for use a ballast that: (E) Has output leads that when fully

with two F96T12HO lamps at ambient (A) Is manufactured on or before June extended are a total length that is less

temperatures of - 20 °F or less and for 30, 2010; than the length of the lamp with which

use in an outdoor sign; (B) Is designed for use to replace an it is intended to be operated; and

(C) A ballast that has a power factor existing ballast in a previously installed (F) Meets or exceeds the ballast

of less than 0.90 and is designed and luminaire; efficacy factor in the following table:

Application for operation of

Ballast

input

Total

nominal Ballast

efficacy

voltage lamp

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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

56748 Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 18Z/Tuesday, September 19, ZOOO/Rules and Regulations 

(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: 

Application for operation of 

Ballast 

input 

voltage 

Total Ballast nominal efficacy lamp 

walts 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 

(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 OF 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; 

(E) 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 

Application of operation of 

277 220 0.390 

(ii) Designed-

(A) To operate at nominal input 

voltages of 120 or 277 volts; 

(E) 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: 

Ballast Total Ballast 

input nominal efficacy lamp voltage walts 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 

(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; 

(E) A ballast that is designed for use 

with two F96T12HO lamps at ambient 

temperatures of - 20 of or less and for 

use in an outdoor sign; 

(C) A ballast that has a power factor 

ofless 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. 

lii) For purposes ofthis paragraph 

(m), a replacement ballast is defined as 

a ballast that: 

(A) Is manufactured on or before June 

30,2010; 

(E) Is designed for use to replace an 

existing ballast in a previously installed 

luminaire; 

Application for operation of 

277 220 0.39 

(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: 

Ballast Total Ballast 

input nominal efficacy lamp voltage walts 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 
Federal Register /Vol. 65, No. 182 /Tuesday, September 19, 2000 /Rules and Regulations

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) 514-24011(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. §§ 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 § 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

56749

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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 106

Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 18Z/Tuesday, September 19, ZOOO/Rules and Regulations 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, NW., Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, 

(202) 514-24011(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(0)(2)(B)(i) of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 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 § OAO(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