Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, 52892-52899 [2011-21636]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52892
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the value of wait time ($10.04) to arrive
at the value of the additional driving
time travelers arriving in the United
States once Whitetail is closed. Finally,
we double this to account for round trip
costs to reach a total time cost of
$51,626.
Besides the cost of additional travel
time, we must consider the vehicle costs
of a longer trip. We must first estimate
the number of miles the closure of
Whitetail would add to travelers’ trips.
The annual traffic arriving at Whitetail
is 1,300 vehicles. Since we assume that
the closure will add 40 miles to each
crossing, the closure will add a total of
52,000 miles to travelers’ trips each
year. We next monetize the delay by
applying the IRS’s standard mileage rate
for business travel of $0.50 to these
vehicles, which includes fuel costs,
wear-and-tear, and depreciation of the
vehicle. Because this is an estimate for
business travel, it may overstate slightly
costs for leisure travelers using their
vehicles on leisure activities. Finally,
we double the costs to account for the
return trip. We estimate that a closure
of Whitetail will cost U.S. citizens
$52,000 in additional vehicular costs.
The final cost we must consider is the
cost to the economy of lost revenue
resulting from potential decreased
Canadian travel. Because of the lack of
data on the nature of travel through
Whitetail and its effect on the local
economy, we are unable to monetize or
quantify these costs. We therefore
discuss this qualitatively.
Since both U.S. and foreign travelers
will be inconvenienced by the closure of
the port of Whitetail, it is possible that
fewer foreign travelers will choose to
cross the border into the United States.
To the extent that these visitors were
spending money in the United States,
local businesses would lose revenue.
Since fewer than four vehicles a day
enter the United States at Whitetail, this
effect is likely to be very small. Also,
these revenue losses could be mitigated
by those U.S. citizens who would now
choose to remain in the United States.
We believe that the total impacts on the
economy due to decreased travel to the
United States are negligible.
In summary, the closure of the port of
Whitetail would cost CBP $158,000 in
direct closure costs in the first year, and
U.S. travelers $51,626 in time costs and
$52,000 in vehicle costs annually. Total
costs to close the port are thus
approximately $262,000 in the first year
and $104,000 each following year.
3. Net Effect of Closure
The costs to CBP of leaving the port
of Whitetail open are $8.5 million the
first year and $500,000 each following
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
year. The cost of closing the port are
$262,000 the first year and $104,000
each following year. Thus, the net
benefit of the Whitetail closure is about
$8.2 million the first year and $396,000
each year after that.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This section examines the impact of
the rule on small entities as required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
603), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness
Act of 1996. A small entity may be a
small business (defined as any
independently owned and operated
business not dominant in its field that
qualifies as a small business per the
Small Business Act); a small not-forprofit organization; or a small
governmental jurisdiction (locality with
fewer than 50,000 people).
Because CBP does not collect data on
the number of small businesses that use
the port of Whitetail, we cannot
estimate how many would be affected
by this rule. However, an average of
only four vehicles cross into the United
States at Whitetail each day, and the
total cost of the rule to the public is only
about $104,000 a year, even assuming
the longest possible detour for all traffic.
DHS does not believe that this cost rises
to the level of a significant economic
impact. DHS thus believes that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. DHS welcomes any comments
regarding this assessment. If it does not
receive any comments contradicting this
finding, DHS will certify that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities at the final rule stage.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions are
necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
E. Executive Order 13132
The rule will not have substantial
direct effects 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. Therefore, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, this rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
warrant the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement.
V. Authority
This change is proposed under the
authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 6 U.S.C. 112,
203 and 211, 8 U.S.C. 1103 and 19
U.S.C. 2, 66 and 1624.
VI. Proposed Amendment to
Regulations
If the proposed closure of the port of
Whitetail, Montana, is adopted, CBP
will amend the lists of CBP ports of
entry at 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) and 8 CFR
100.4(a) to reflect this change.
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–21624 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE–2007–BT–STD–0016]
RIN 1904–AB50
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability and
request for public comment.
AGENCY:
On April 11, 2011, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)
proposing new and amended standards
for fluorescent lamp ballasts (ballasts)
pursuant to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA).
During the subsequent public meeting
and in written comments, stakeholders
provided additional data and raised
concerns regarding the test data DOE
used in support of the NOPR and DOE’s
approach to accounting for
measurement variation and compliance
certification requirements. In response
to several of those comments, DOE
conducted additional testing and is
publishing this notice to: announce the
availability of additional data provided
by the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) and additional
DOE test data; address the differences
between the DOE test data and the data
submitted by NEMA; describe the
methodological changes DOE is
considering based on the additional data
and present efficiency levels developed
using the revised methodology and all
available test data; and request public
comment on the updated analyses, as
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
well as the submission of data and other
relevant information.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this notice of
data availability submitted no later than
September 14, 2011. See section VI,
‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this notice for
details.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted
must identify the notice of data
availability (NODA) for fluorescent
lamp ballasts and provide the docket
number EERE–2007–BT–STD–0016
and/or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN) 1904–AB50. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: ballasts.rulemaking@ee.
doe.gov. Include the Docket Number
EERE–2007–BT–STD–0016 and/or RIN
number 1904–AB50 in the subject line
of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 950
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202) 586–2945. If possible, please
submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see section VI of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for
review at https://www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: https://www.regulations.gov.
The https://www.regulations.gov Web
page contains a link to the docket for
this notice, along with simple
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section VI.A for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
further information on how to submit
comments through https://
www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586–2945 or by e-mail:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Tina Kaarsberg, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1393. E-mail:
Tina.Kaarsberg@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–7796. E-mail:
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or
review public comments, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2945. E-mail:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Additional Data
III. Comparison of NEMA-Provided Data and
DOE Data
A. NEMA Reduction Factor
B. Sample Size
C. Lab Accreditation
D. Measured Versus Calculated BLE
E. Total Lamp Arc Power Approximations
IV. Accounting for Variation and Compliance
Certification Procedures
A. Compliance Certification Requirements
and Design Variation
B. Measurement Variation
V. Efficiency Levels
A. Functional Form
B. Preliminary Efficiency Levels
1. IS and RS Ballasts
2. PS Ballasts
3. Eight-Foot HO Ballasts
4. Sign Ballasts
5. Residential Ballasts
VI. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
The EPCA establishes energy
conservation standards for certain
ballasts and requires that DOE conduct
two cycles of rulemaking to determine
whether to amend the standards for
ballasts, including whether to adopt
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52893
standards for additional ballasts. (42
U.S.C. 6295(g)(5)–(8)) To complete the
first of these rulemakings, DOE
published the 2000 Ballast Rule. 65 FR
56740 (Sept. 19, 2000). To complete the
second rulemaking, DOE is considering
amendments to the existing standards
for ballasts and evaluating standards for
additional ballasts.
In April 2011, DOE published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that
proposed new and amended energy
conservation standards for fluorescent
lamp ballasts (hereafter the April 2011
NOPR). 76 FR 20090. In conjunction
with the NOPR, DOE also published on
its Web site the complete technical
support document (TSD) for the
proposed rule, which described the
analyses DOE conducted and included
technical documentation for each
analysis. The TSD also included the
engineering analysis spreadsheets, the
life cycle cost (LCC) spreadsheet, the
national impact analysis spreadsheet,
and the manufacturer impact analysis
(MIA) spreadsheet.1
DOE held a public meeting on May
10, 2011, to hear oral comments on and
solicit information relevant to the
proposed rule (hereafter the May 2011
public meeting). At this meeting, NEMA
presented test data that they found
inconsistent with the data collected by
DOE and that could affect the standards
established in the final rule. In general,
NEMA’s ballast luminous efficiency
(BLE) values appeared to be lower than
those obtained by DOE. These
observations caused NEMA to question
the validity of the data collected by DOE
for the April 2011 NOPR. NEMA
specifically cited lab accreditation,
sample size, and calculations of BLE as
potential sources of the discrepancies
they observed. Other stakeholders
agreed that there were discrepancies
between the two data sets and
emphasized the importance of
identifying the source of the differences.
In addition, DOE received comments on
the methodology used to account for
compliance certification requirements,
design variation, and measurement
variation. DOE also received comments
on the appropriate shape of DOE’s
proposed efficiency level curves.2
Since the publication of the NOPR,
DOE has analyzed NEMA’s data and
conducted additional testing to enhance
1 The spreadsheets developed for this rulemaking
proceeding are available at: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html.
2 Comments referenced here are available in the
docket for this rulemaking, which can be found at
regulations.gov under docket number EERE–2007–
BT–STD–0016.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
52894
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
its analysis. In order to incorporate
these additional results, DOE has
modified slightly its approach to the
engineering analysis and thus is
considering efficiency levels that differ
from those presented in the April 2011
NOPR.
DOE is publishing today’s NODA to:
(1) Announce the availability of the
additional NEMA test data and the
additional test data developed by DOE;
(2) address the differences between test
data obtained by DOE and test data
submitted by NEMA; (3) describe the
methodological changes DOE is
considering based on the additional data
and present efficiency levels developed
using the revised methodology and all
available test data; and (4) request
public comment on these analyses, as
well as the submission of other relevant
information. The following sections
describe the additional data and revised
methodology in more detail. After
considering the comments received,
DOE will publish a final rule by October
28, 2011.3
II. Additional Data
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
For the April 2011 NOPR, DOE tested
more than 450 ballasts to develop
proposed energy conservation
standards. At the time the NOPR was
published, DOE posted test data to its
public Web site in Appendix 5C of the
TSD. Appendix 5C contained a listing of
all ballast models tested at DOE’s
primary lab for the April 2011 NOPR,
including identifying characteristics
such as lamp type operated, number of
lamps operated, starting method, ballast
factor, input voltage, and catalog
performance value. For each ballast
model, DOE also reported average 4
tested values for input power, total lamp
arc power, and BLE.5
At the May 2011 public meeting,
NEMA presented data collected from
several manufacturers. These test results
were contained in a power point
presentation that was subsequently
posted to the public meeting Web site
(https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
fluorescent_ballasts_nopr_public_
3 Under the consolidated Consent Decree in New
York v. Bodman, No. 05 Civ. 7807 (S.D.N.Y. filed
Sept. 7, 2005) and Natural Resources Defense
Council v. Bodman, No. 05 Civ. 7808 (S.D.N.Y. filed
Sept. 7, 2005), the U.S. Department of Energy was
required to publish a final rule amending energy
conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
no later than June 30, 2011. The consent decree was
later modified, requiring DOE to publish a final rule
no later than October 28, 2011.
4 The average across several samples for each
model number.
5 DOE obtained these values in accordance with
the active mode test procedure in Appendix Q1 of
10 CFR part 430.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
meeting.html). NEMA’s data included
average BLE values from three
manufacturers that were reduced by 0.8
percent to account for compliance
certification requirements. Attendees of
the public meeting noted that the BLE
values of the most efficient ballast
models tested by NEMA appeared to be
less than the most efficient ballast
models tested by DOE. These
stakeholders emphasized the
importance of identifying the reasons
for the differences between the two data
sets. In addition, several stakeholders
requested that DOE provide more
information, including data for
individual ballast samples and test
results from other labs at which testing
was conducted. NEMA also noted that
about 60 percent of DOE’s test data
represented ballast models with less
than four tested samples, which is not
consistent with the minimum number of
samples required to demonstrate
compliance with DOE’s standards. The
California Utilities (CA Utilities) stated
that if possible, DOE should conduct
testing of four or more samples to more
accurately reflect the testing process
that must be completed by
manufacturers for certification
purposes.
Following the May 2011 public
meeting, DOE posted to the public
meeting Web site a more comprehensive
set of test data used to develop the April
2011 NOPR, which specified ballasts by
serial numbers, added round robin test
results, and included results for each
sample tested, rather than the average
across several samples for each model
number. DOE also purchased and tested
additional ballasts to increase tested
models’ sample size to a minimum of
four samples consistent with
compliance certification requirements
in 10 CFR 429.26. DOE also tested
additional ballast models, particularly
for sign ballasts and residential ballasts,
to gain more market information about
these ballasts. This NODA announces
the availability of all available test
data—the NEMA-provided data, the
data utilized for the April 2011 NOPR,
and the results of additional testing
conducted after publication of the April
2011 NOPR—on DOE’s Web site: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html.
III. Comparison of NEMA-Provided
Data and DOE Data
At the May 2011 public meeting,
NEMA presented test results for its
highest efficiency NEMA Premium
products. NEMA explained that the data
contained in the presentation
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
represented the mean of four or five
samples that was then decreased by 0.8
percent to account for compliance
requirements. NEMA stated that this
reduction, consistent with DOE’s
proposed reduction to efficiency levels
in the April 2011 NOPR, was calculated
using the same methods that are
required to certify with new standards.
In addition to their observation that
the manufacturer-provided data was
lower in efficiency than DOE’s data,
NEMA expressed concern regarding
DOE’s data collection methods. NEMA
commented that the number of samples
DOE tested for several ballast models
was too small, potentially resulting in
test data not representative of the mean
efficiencies of the ballast model’s
population. They pointed out that for
the majority of ballast models included
in the analysis, DOE tested fewer than
four samples, which is not consistent
with the minimum number of samples
required to demonstrate compliance
with DOE’s standards. NEMA also
commented that the difference between
the data it collected and DOE’s results
may be due to DOE’s labs not having
proper accreditation. Furthermore,
NEMA stated that the measured BLEs
reported in appendix 5C of the NOPR
TSD were not consistent with the BLEs
calculated by NEMA (using data from
the same appendix).
Following the May 2011 public
meeting, several manufacturers
provided the model numbers and
corresponding efficiencies for the
ballasts included in NEMA’s data set.
Upon receiving this information, DOE
conducted a comparative analysis and
evaluated potential sources for the
apparent discrepancies between the
DOE and NEMA data sets: The
reduction factor NEMA applied to its
average BLE values, sample size, lab
accreditation, the calculation of BLE,
and the arc powers reported for NEMA’s
results.
After considering all of the potential
sources, discussed in the following
sections, DOE preliminarily concludes
that, after removing NEMA’s reduction
factor as discussed in section III.A., the
remaining differences between the two
data sets arise primarily from normal
measurement variation. This remaining
variation generally falls within the
expected measurement variation of ± 2.5
percent of the mean efficiency,
suggested by NEMA. Additional testing
has increased sample size such that it is
consistent with compliance certification
requirements. DOE has also confirmed
that its testing was conducted in
accordance with the active mode test
procedure and that its calculations of
BLE are accurate.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
A. NEMA Reduction Factor
As stated earlier, the ballast
efficiencies presented by NEMA at the
May 2011 public meeting represent the
mean of four or five samples decreased
by 0.8 percent. To calculate this 0.8
reduction factor, NEMA referred DOE to
an analysis NEMA conducted and
submitted as a comment. In that
analysis, NEMA calculated the 0.8
percent reduction factor based on an
application of the certification equation
described in 10 CFR 429.26. NEMA
assumed that each sample set’s three
standard deviation spread was equal to
five percent of the mean efficiency (2.5
percent for design variation and 2.5
percent for measurement variation).
NEMA then calculated a mean
efficiency adjustment factor (for sample
sizes of four and five) by inserting this
standard deviation into the certification
equation. This adjustment factor
represented an estimate of the percent
difference between the sample mean
and the value NEMA anticipated
reporting to DOE for certification.
To understand potential discrepancies
between NEMA and DOE’s test data, it
is necessary to ensure that similar
calculation methodologies have been
undertaken for the two data sets.
Therefore, for the purpose of comparing
the efficiency data, DOE removes the 0.8
percent reduction from NEMA’s
presented ballast efficiencies, resulting
in values that represent mean tested
efficiencies. These efficiency values are
analogous to DOE’s mean tested
efficiencies presented in the NOPR.
However, DOE recognizes the
importance of accounting for
measurement variation and certification
requirements in establishing efficiency
levels. Additional discussion of these
issues and how DOE is considering
addressing them is provided in section
IV.
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Sample Size
NEMA noted that less than 40 percent
of DOE’s test data for the April 2011
NOPR represented ballast models with
four or more tested samples. They stated
that the large standard deviation in
efficiency among DOE’s samples, as
well as the discrepancy in tested values
versus catalog reported values, indicates
that DOE potentially did not use a
sufficient number of samples to
calculate the mean efficiencies of the
ballast models analyzed. The California
Utilities (CA Utilities) stated that if
possible, DOE should conduct testing of
four or more samples per ballast model
to more accurately reflect the testing
process that must be completed by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
manufacturers for certification
purposes.
Since the publication of the April
2011 NOPR, DOE has conducted
additional testing to increase the sample
size of selected ballast models. Over 90
percent of tested ballast models now
have a minimum of four samples. Only
in those cases where models have been
discontinued or were unavailable for
purchase was DOE unable to test a
minimum of four samples.
C. Lab Accreditation
NEMA also commented that the
difference between the data it collected
and DOE’s results may be due to DOE’s
labs not having proper accreditation.
DOE notes that 10 CFR 430.25 requires
testing of fluorescent lamp ballasts to be
performed in accordance with
Appendix Q1 of 10 CFR part 430
subpart B by test laboratories accredited
by National Volunteer Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or a
NVLAP-recognized organization,
Underwriter Laboratories, or Council of
Canada in accordance with ISO 17025.
76 FR 25211, 25219 (May 4, 2011). ISO
17025 is an international standard that
outlines general requirements for the
competence of testing and calibration
laboratories. NVLAP operates an
accreditation system that requires
applicant laboratories to be assessed
against all ISO 17025 requirements.
DOE has contacted both test
laboratories utilized for DOE testing and
verified each is properly accredited and
that all testing was conducted in
accordance with the active mode test
procedure in Appendix Q1. However,
DOE recognizes that lab-to-lab variation
can still be present among NVLAPaccredited test labs following the
prescribed test procedure. DOE accounts
for lab-to-lab variation in the
establishment of efficiency levels as
described in section IV.B.
D. Measured Versus Calculated BLE
NEMA identified several samples in
DOE’s test data for which the measured
BLE reported in appendix 5C of the
NOPR TSD was not consistent with the
BLE calculated by NEMA. Though some
of the differences were small, NEMA
provided examples of four ballast
models with differences up to 8 percent.
To address the small discrepancies,
DOE notes that the information
provided by NEMA is consistent with
calculating the BLE values by dividing
the average arc power of all samples by
the average input power of all samples.
NEMA’s method is not consistent with
the active mode test procedure. In
contrast, DOE’s measured BLE reported
in appendix 5C of the TSD was
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52895
determined, as required in the test
procedure, by averaging the BLE of each
individual sample. Based on DOE’s
analysis, this difference in methodology
accounts for the small discrepancies
observed between the values reported in
appendix 5C and those calculated by
NEMA.
DOE also worked to resolve the larger
differences cited by NEMA in their
presentation at the May 2011 meeting.
DOE identified six samples with
measured-versus-calculated BLE
differences ranging from 7.8 to 8.0
percentage points, which included the
specific examples cited by NEMA.
These six samples were all magnetic
ballasts; in accordance with active mode
test procedure (see Table A, Appendix
Q1 of 10 CFR part 430 subpart B), DOE
calculated BLE by reducing the
measured ballast efficiency (lamp arc
power divided by ballast input power)
by a frequency adjustment factor (1.00
for high-frequency ballasts and values
ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 for lowfrequency ballasts). These larger
discrepancies are consistent with NEMA
not including this adjustment factor in
its calculation of BLE. Thus, DOE
believes its measured BLE values are
correctly calculated and consistent with
the active mode test procedure.
E. Total Lamp Arc Power
Approximations
Due to the relationship between total
lamp arc power and ballast efficiency,
in the NOPR, DOE proposed
establishing efficiency levels as
logarithmic equations dependent on
measured total lamp arc power. When
NEMA plotted their test data against the
DOE proposed efficiency levels,
however, NEMA paired their ballast
efficiency test data with approximated
total lamp arc powers rather than
measured arc powers. DOE found these
approximations to be higher than
typical test results for similar ballast
types in DOE’s data set, with differences
as high as 27.6 percent overall. As this
discrepancy could potentially cause
NEMA’s test data to appear to have
artificially lower efficiencies relative to
DOE’s efficiency levels, DOE has revised
NEMA’s approximate lamp arc powers
using American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) rated high frequency
lamp arc powers to calculate total
expected lamp arc power. These lamp
arc powers better align with expected
total lamp arc powers for similar ballast
types.
For example, NEMA associated the
efficiency of a ballast with a normal
ballast factor that operates two 4-foot
medium bipin (MBP) T8 lamps with an
arc power of 55 W. To correct the
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
52896
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
approximated arc power, DOE
calculated the typical arc power (51 W)
by multiplying the ANSI-specified high
frequency arc wattage for an F32T8
lamp (29 W) by the number of lamps
operated (2) and the most common
normal ballast factor (0.88). DOE used
this calculated arc power when
comparing its efficiency levels to the
manufacturer-provided data as
discussed in section V.
IV. Accounting for Variation and
Compliance Certification Procedures
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE
accounted for measurement variation
and certification requirements by
calculating reduction factors for each
and adjusting the efficiency levels
accordingly. DOE calculated a 0.6
percent reduction factor for
measurement variation by comparing
the data from the primary laboratory,
which conducted the majority of DOE’s
testing, with data from its secondary
laboratory, which tested a limited
number of identical samples. DOE
applied the 0.6 percent measurement
variation reduction to the efficiency
curves so that the standard level could,
on average, be met by ballasts tested at
the less efficient lab. To account for
certification requirements, DOE
calculated the difference between the
output of the compliance certification
equation in 10 CFR 429.26 and the
sample mean of DOE’s test data to be 0.2
percent. As DOE’s certification
requirements at 10 CFR 429.26 require
manufacturers to report the lower of
these two values, DOE reduced the
efficiency levels, based on average BLEs,
by this value. Using the data that DOE
made available immediately following
the May 2011 public meeting, both
NEMA and the CA Utilities submitted
analyses to determine how DOE’s data
should be adjusted to account for
certification requirements and
measurement variation.
NEMA’s analysis used an assumed
design variation and a calculated
measurement variation in the
compliance certification equation to
adjust each ballast efficiency data point.
NEMA then suggested that DOE base its
efficiency levels on these adjusted data
points rather than mean efficiency
values. Specifically, NEMA determined
the mean BLE for each ballast model by
averaging all tested values of that
particular model. NEMA then calculated
the maximum measurement variation
across labs for each category of
fluorescent lamp ballast (e.g., 4-foot
MBP, 4-foot miniature bipin (MiniBP),
or 8-foot recessed double contact (RDC)
high output (HO)). NEMA added this
highest calculated measurement
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
variation for each ballast type to a 2.5
percent assumed design tolerance to
characterize the total variation. NEMA
then entered these variations into the
compliance equation to calculate a
reduction factor based on sample size of
each tested model.
The CA Utilities also conducted an
analysis on the data DOE provided
following the May 2011 public meeting.
They agreed with NEMA that
compliance certification requirements
should be considered when assessing
whether products will meet each
standard level. However, they pointed
out that NEMA had employed methods
to characterize the reported value that
were not consistent with the
requirements specified in 10 CFR
429.26. Instead, the CA Utilities used
individual samples of DOE’s efficiency
data to calculate both the sample mean
and the value determined by the
compliance certification equation in 10
CFR 429.26. Then, as directed by the
compliance certification regulations,
they represented reported efficiency as
the lower of the two values. They
suggested that DOE base its efficiency
levels on these reported values.
Consistent with the April 2011 NOPR,
DOE recognizes the importance of
considering the variation present in the
test data when developing efficiency
levels. DOE acknowledges that due to
design variation, the reported value for
compliance certification may deviate
from the sample mean and must be
accounted for. As described in the
following sections, DOE is considering
modifying its approach to account for
variation and compliance certification
procedures based on the comments
provided.
A. Compliance Certification
Requirements and Design Variation
DOE agrees with both NEMA and the
CA Utilities that standard levels should
account for the procedures
manufacturers must follow to certify
compliance with standards. As stated
earlier, 10 CFR 429.26 requires
manufacturers to test a minimum of four
fluorescent lamp ballasts and report the
minimum of either the mean efficiency
of the samples or the output of a
compliance certification equation based
on the lower 99 percent confidence
limit of the sample. The lower 99
percent confidence limit equation
requires a calculation of the standard
deviation of the sample set to account
for design variation.
Both the NEMA and CA Utilities
approaches recommend that, in order to
develop efficiency levels, DOE should
adjust its mean efficiency data points to
represent values similar to those
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
manufacturers would report to DOE for
compliance certification. However, their
approaches differ in how they computed
the standard deviation to input into the
compliance certification equation. The
CA Utilities calculated the standard
deviation among all samples of a
particular ballast model tested at a
single lab. NEMA, however, calculated
the standard deviation by assuming a
2.5 percent design variation and then
adding an additional measurement
variation based on DOE’s lab-to-lab test
data for each ballast category.
DOE disagrees with NEMA’s method
of applying the compliance certification
requirements. Firstly, the test
procedure’s compliance requirements
direct manufacturers to calculate the
standard deviation of the tested sample,
rather than an assumed population
standard deviation. Secondly, this
calculation would likely not include
data from more than one lab unless
manufacturers chose to test their
samples of a single ballast model at
more than one location. DOE is
considering accounting for
measurement (specifically lab-to-lab)
variation as a separate adjustment to
efficiency levels as discussed below in
section IV.B.
The CA Utilities evaluated both the
sample mean and compliance equation
for each ballast model and compared the
lower of the two, the reported value, to
the standard level. DOE believes the CA
Utilities approach for accounting for
compliance certification requirements is
more consistent with the procedures
laid out in 10 CFR 429.26 and is
therefore considering using this
methodology in the final rule. To
facilitate this approach, as discussed
earlier, DOE conducted additional
testing since publication of the NOPR to
increase the sample size of several
ballast models in accordance with
compliance certification requirements.
To account for both certification
requirements, DOE has calculated a new
data set which represents the reported
value for all ballast models. DOE used
these reported values to develop the
efficiency levels described in section V
of today’s NODA.
B. Measurement Variation
DOE is also considering revising its
methodology to account for
measurement variation, specifically labto-lab variation. DOE received test data
from NEMA following the May 2011
public meeting and also received test
data from NEMA-member
manufacturers. The data from
manufacturers allowed DOE to match
NEMA test data with the same ballast
models tested at DOE’s primary and
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
V. Efficiency Levels
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Equation
In the NOPR, DOE proposed
establishing efficiency levels as
logarithmic equations dependent on
total lamp arc power. DOE developed
this logarithmic relationship by
empirically fitting curves to
manufacturer product lines present in
DOE’s test data. DOE is considering
changing the contour of the efficiency
levels for the final rule to better fit all
of the available data. Upon analysis,
NEMA’s test data show a larger
efficiency decrease at lower powers than
DOE’s data indicate. Although DOE and
NEMA generally tested the same types
of ballasts, NEMA tested more
permutations of ballast factor and
number of lamps for each product line,
particularly at lower wattages. For
example, NEMA’s data contained BLE
values for 1-lamp 4-foot MBP ballasts
with both low and high ballast factors,
whereas DOE’s data included 1-lamp 4foot MBP ballasts with only normal
ballast factors. Therefore, based on an
application of several equation forms of
efficiency levels, DOE concluded that a
power law equation fits both the NEMA
data and DOE’s data better than the
logarithmic relationship proposed in the
April 2011 NOPR. A power law
equation takes the form:
Where: Power = total measured lamp arc
power
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
Because the NEMA data represents
the most complete product lines and
thus may represent a more accurate
depiction of a BLE-lamp arc power
relationship than DOE’s initial test data,
DOE fit power law regressions to the
NEMA test data to calculate the
exponent ‘‘C.’’ For the instant start and
rapid start (IS/RS) ballasts, DOE found
the exponent ‘‘C’’ to be 0.25. The
exponent 0.25 is also a quantity used in
relating power to relative losses (analog
of efficiency) for distribution
transformers, and fluorescent lamp
ballasts similarly employ transformers
and inductors. The programmed start
(PS) NEMA data, however, suggested a
different exponent for ballasts that use
the PS starting method. DOE believes
that this alternate shape is attributable
to the PS ballasts’ higher fixed losses
due to internal control circuitry and
heating of lamp electrodes (cathode
heating). As these losses are a larger
proportion of total losses at lower
powers, the PS product classes have a
steeper slope across the range of
wattages. Using NEMA’s data for PS
ballasts, DOE found the exponent ‘‘C’’ to
be 0.37.
With exponents set for the two
starting method categories, DOE fit the
power law equation to the reported
value data (calculated in accordance
with 10 CFR 429.26 as discussed in
section IV.A) by adjusting the
coefficient ‘‘B’’ to delineate among
criteria such as different product lines,
ballasts that operate different lamp
types, and other clusters in efficiency
data. The most efficient (maximum
technologically feasible) efficiency
levels closely approximate the NOPR
proposals for the highest wattages, but
better follow product line efficiency
trends at lower wattages.
B. Preliminary Efficiency Levels
Using the methodology described in
the previous section, DOE developed a
complete set of efficiency levels for this
NODA, which are being considered for
the final rule. DOE developed power
law curve-fits based on the DOE test
data. Then to develop efficiency levels,
DOE applied a lab-to-lab adjustment
factor (derived from all available test
data) to these curve-fits (as discussed in
section IV.B). In addition, DOE
compared the resulting efficiency levels
against the NEMA data to confirm the
impacts of the efficiency levels on
product availability indicated by the
analysis of the DOE data. The following
sections describe the efficiency levels
considered for each representative
product class. An Excel spreadsheet
summarizing these levels is available on
DOE’s Web site: https://
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/residential/
fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html. The
final rule and accompanying TSD will
include the complete downstream
analyses on these levels and results.
1. IS and RS Ballasts
DOE developed three efficiency levels
for the IS/RS product class. EL1 was
designed to eliminate 4-foot MBP T12
ballasts while allowing 4-foot MBP T8
ballast and 8-foot slimline ballasts to
comply with energy conservation
standards. EL2 corresponds to a level
which allows the highest-efficiency
product lines from each of the four
major ballast manufacturers to comply.
DOE defines a full product line as
spanning a sufficient diversity of
products (spanning several ballast
factors, numbers of lamps per ballast,
and types of lamps operated). EL3 is the
maximum technologically feasible (max
tech) level which DOE defines for
fluorescent lamp ballasts as the highest
level, regardless of manufacturer, that is
technologically feasible for a sufficient
diversity of commercially available
products. Use of those criteria results in
an EL3 with which nearly two
manufacturer product lines comply.
2. PS Ballasts
DOE developed three efficiency levels
for the PS product class. The least
efficient level (EL1) was designed to
eliminate the lowest efficiency 4-foot
MBP, 4-foot T5 high output, and 4-foot
T5 standard output PS ballasts. This
also corresponds to a level at which
each of the four major fluorescent lamp
ballast manufacturers maintain a
diversity of products. EL2 allows full
product lines from two major
manufacturers. Finally, EL3, the
maximum technologically feasible level,
was designed to represent the most
efficient PS ballasts tested by DOE. EL3
is the highest level that allows one full
line of products, regardless of
manufacturer.
3. Eight-Foot HO Ballasts
For the 8-foot HO IS/RS product class,
DOE developed three efficiency levels.
For this product class, DOE tested
ballasts that operate two lamps, the
most common lamp-and-ballast
combination. EL1 was designed to just
allow the least efficient T12 electronic
ballasts, eliminating magnetic ballasts.
EL2 allows the least efficient T8 ballast
tested and eliminates the vast majority
of T12 electronic ballasts. Finally, EL3
was designed to just allow the most
efficient T8 ballast tested by DOE.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
EP24AU11.001</GPH>
secondary labs. Using the modelspecific test data supplied by several
manufacturers (representative of three
different manufacturer labs) and DOE’s
BLE data (representative of the two labs
used by DOE), DOE determined that on
average, the BLE test data from DOE’s
primary lab was 0.7 percent more
efficient than the average test lab. DOE
attributes this offset to systematic lab-tolab variation and therefore is
considering reducing the efficiency
levels by 0.7 percent so that they are
representative of ballasts tested at the
average test lab. This approach is
slightly different than that taken in the
April 2011 NOPR, which applied a 0.6
percent reduction to efficiency levels,
representing the average offset between
DOE’s primary lab and the least efficient
lab (in that case, DOE’s secondary lab).
DOE believes that adjusting efficiency
levels so that they represent the average
test lab better characterizes the mean
performance of products currently being
sold.
52897
52898
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
5. Residential Ballasts
included in your comment, nor in any
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE had
document attached to your comment.
proposed that both residential and
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
commercial ballasts could achieve
will see only first and last names,
similar levels of efficiency at the highest organization names, correspondence
levels analyzed. Based on the similarity containing comments, and any
in efficiency, DOE included both ballast documents submitted with the
types in the same product class.
comments.
However, for the final rule, after
Do not submit to https://
conducting additional testing which
www.regulations.gov information for
indicate that 4-lamp residential ballasts
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
may not be able to achieve the same
such as trade secrets and commercial or
levels as commercial ballasts, DOE is
financial information (hereinafter
considering a separate product class for
referred to as Confidential Business
residential ballasts. The additional data
Information (CBI)). Comments
for residential ballasts is also available
submitted through https://
at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
buildings/appliance_standards/
as CBI. Comments received through the
residential/fluorescent_ballasts_
Web site will waive any CBI claims for
nopr_public_meeting.html.
the information submitted. For
Consequently, DOE has derived and is
information on submitting CBI, see the
considering two separate efficiency
Confidential Business Information
levels for residential ballasts to
section below.
incorporate the new data. EL1 was
DOE processes submissions made
designed to just allow the least efficient through https://www.regulations.gov
T8 ballasts, eliminating T12 residential
before posting. Normally, comments
ballasts. EL2, the maximum technology
will be posted within a few days of
feasible level, is the highest level that
being submitted. However, if large
allows a full range of T8 products
volumes of comments are being
(including both two- and four-lamp
processed simultaneously, your
ballasts) to comply.
comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment
VI. Public Participation
tracking number that https://
A. Submission of Comments
www.regulations.gov provides after you
DOE will accept comments, data, and have successfully uploaded your
comment.
information regarding this NODA no
Submitting comments via e-mail,
later than the date provided in the DATES
hand delivery/courier, or mail.
section at the beginning of this notice.
Comments and documents submitted
Interested parties may submit
via e-mail, hand delivery, or mail also
comments, data, and other information
will be posted to https://
using any of the methods described in
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
your personal contact information to be
of this notice.
publicly viewable, do not include it in
Submitting comments via https://
your comment or any accompanying
www.regulations.gov. The https://
documents. Instead, provide your
www.regulations.gov Web page will
contact information in a cover letter.
require you to provide your name and
Include your first and last names, e-mail
contact information. Your contact
address, telephone number, and
information will be viewable to DOE
optional mailing address. The cover
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
viewable except for your first and last
comments.
names, organization name (if any), and
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Sign Ballasts
The sign ballast market comprises
primarily magnetic and electronic
ballasts that operate T12 HO lamps.
DOE tested sign ballasts that operate up
to one, two, three, four, or six 8-foot T12
HO lamps. The test data showed that
sign ballasts exist at two levels of
efficiency. Therefore, DOE analyzed a
baseline and one efficiency level above
that baseline. EL1 was designed to allow
a full line of electronic sign ballasts,
including ballasts that operate one
through six lamps.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. E-mail
submissions are preferred. If you submit
via mail or hand delivery/courier,
please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case, it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential business information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via e-mail, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ that includes all
the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the
document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’
with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these
documents via e-mail or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include: (1)
A description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure; (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time; and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this notice, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) The conclusion that after removing
0.8 percent NEMA’s reduction factor
and recalculating lamp arc powers, the
remaining differences between DOE and
NEMA-provided data are likely due to
normal measurement variation;
(2) The methodology used to account
for compliance certification
requirements and measurement
variation in developing efficiency
levels;
(3) The appropriateness of using a
power law equation to develop
efficiency levels and the chosen values
for the exponent ‘‘C’’; and
(4) The efficiency levels considered.
VII. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of data
availability.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18,
2011.
Timothy Unruh,
Program Manager, Federal Energy
Management Program, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011–21636 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
Examining the AD Docket
[Docket No. FAA–2011–0725; Directorate
Identifier 2011–NM–065–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Model 767–200, –300, and
–300F Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
model 767–200, –300, and –300F series
airplanes. This proposed AD would
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Aug 23, 2011
require doing certain wiring changes,
installing a new relay and necessary
wiring in the cabin air conditioning and
temperature control system (CACTCS),
and performing an operational test of
the cooling pack fire suppression
system. This AD results from reports of
loss of avionics cooling due to an
unserviceable relay installed on a panel
as part of the CACTCS. We are
proposing this AD to prevent loss of
electrical equipment bay cooling and
the overheating of flight deck
instruments, which would result in the
eventual loss of primary flight displays,
an unusually high pilot workload, and
depressurization of the cabin.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by October 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data
& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707,
MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–
2207; telephone 206–544–5000,
extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; e-mail
me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 425–227–
1221.
Jkt 223001
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ana
Martinez Hueto, Aerospace Engineer,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52899
Cabin Safety and Environmental
Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6592; fax:
425–917–6590; e-mail:
ana.m.hueto@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposal. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2011–0725; Directorate Identifier 2011–
NM–065–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
We received reports of loss of avionics
cooling due to an unserviceable relay.
This relay was one of six relays installed
on a panel as part of the CACTCS. The
failure of this relay caused a smoke
mode solenoid to energize, causing the
air conditioning system to go into a
Class E fire suppression mode, the right
side of the relay pack to turn off, and the
left-side relay pack to go into low-flow
mode. Over time, this caused
insufficient equipment cooling and the
slow depressurization of the cabin. This
condition, if not corrected, could result
in loss of electrical equipment bay
cooling and the overheating of flight
deck instruments, which would result
in the eventual loss of all primary flight
displays, an unusually high pilot
workload, and depressurization of the
cabin.
Relevant Service Information
We reviewed Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletins 767–21–
0246, dated January 7, 2011 (for Model
767–200 and 767–300 series airplanes);
and 767–21–0234, dated August 6, 2009
(for Model 767–300F series airplanes).
These service bulletins describe
procedures for changing the wire bundle
route and wiring, installing a new relay
and applicable wiring in the CACTCS,
and doing an operational test of the
cooling pack fire suppression system.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52892-52899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21636]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016]
RIN 1904-AB50
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 11, 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing new and
amended standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts (ballasts) pursuant to
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA). During the
subsequent public meeting and in written comments, stakeholders
provided additional data and raised concerns regarding the test data
DOE used in support of the NOPR and DOE's approach to accounting for
measurement variation and compliance certification requirements. In
response to several of those comments, DOE conducted additional testing
and is publishing this notice to: announce the availability of
additional data provided by the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) and additional DOE test data; address the
differences between the DOE test data and the data submitted by NEMA;
describe the methodological changes DOE is considering based on the
additional data and present efficiency levels developed using the
revised methodology and all available test data; and request public
comment on the updated analyses, as
[[Page 52893]]
well as the submission of data and other relevant information.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
notice of data availability submitted no later than September 14, 2011.
See section VI, ``Public Participation,'' of this notice for details.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the notice of data
availability (NODA) for fluorescent lamp ballasts and provide the
docket number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 and/or Regulatory Information
Number (RIN) 1904-AB50. Comments may be submitted using any of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: ballasts.rulemaking@ee.doe.gov. Include the Docket
Number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016 and/or RIN number 1904-AB50 in the subject
line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all
items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section VI of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, comments, and
other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are
listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However, not all
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov Web page contains a
link to the docket for this notice, along with simple instructions on
how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
See section VI.A for further information on how to submit comments
through https://www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586-2945 or by e-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Tina Kaarsberg, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1393. E-mail:
Tina.Kaarsberg@ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7796. E-mail:
Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact
Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. E-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Additional Data
III. Comparison of NEMA-Provided Data and DOE Data
A. NEMA Reduction Factor
B. Sample Size
C. Lab Accreditation
D. Measured Versus Calculated BLE
E. Total Lamp Arc Power Approximations
IV. Accounting for Variation and Compliance Certification Procedures
A. Compliance Certification Requirements and Design Variation
B. Measurement Variation
V. Efficiency Levels
A. Functional Form
B. Preliminary Efficiency Levels
1. IS and RS Ballasts
2. PS Ballasts
3. Eight-Foot HO Ballasts
4. Sign Ballasts
5. Residential Ballasts
VI. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
The EPCA establishes energy conservation standards for certain
ballasts and requires that DOE conduct two cycles of rulemaking to
determine whether to amend the standards for ballasts, including
whether to adopt standards for additional ballasts. (42 U.S.C.
6295(g)(5)-(8)) To complete the first of these rulemakings, DOE
published the 2000 Ballast Rule. 65 FR 56740 (Sept. 19, 2000). To
complete the second rulemaking, DOE is considering amendments to the
existing standards for ballasts and evaluating standards for additional
ballasts.
In April 2011, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)
that proposed new and amended energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts (hereafter the April 2011 NOPR). 76 FR 20090.
In conjunction with the NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the
complete technical support document (TSD) for the proposed rule, which
described the analyses DOE conducted and included technical
documentation for each analysis. The TSD also included the engineering
analysis spreadsheets, the life cycle cost (LCC) spreadsheet, the
national impact analysis spreadsheet, and the manufacturer impact
analysis (MIA) spreadsheet.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The spreadsheets developed for this rulemaking proceeding
are available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE held a public meeting on May 10, 2011, to hear oral comments on
and solicit information relevant to the proposed rule (hereafter the
May 2011 public meeting). At this meeting, NEMA presented test data
that they found inconsistent with the data collected by DOE and that
could affect the standards established in the final rule. In general,
NEMA's ballast luminous efficiency (BLE) values appeared to be lower
than those obtained by DOE. These observations caused NEMA to question
the validity of the data collected by DOE for the April 2011 NOPR. NEMA
specifically cited lab accreditation, sample size, and calculations of
BLE as potential sources of the discrepancies they observed. Other
stakeholders agreed that there were discrepancies between the two data
sets and emphasized the importance of identifying the source of the
differences. In addition, DOE received comments on the methodology used
to account for compliance certification requirements, design variation,
and measurement variation. DOE also received comments on the
appropriate shape of DOE's proposed efficiency level curves.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Comments referenced here are available in the docket for
this rulemaking, which can be found at regulations.gov under docket
number EERE-2007-BT-STD-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the publication of the NOPR, DOE has analyzed NEMA's data and
conducted additional testing to enhance
[[Page 52894]]
its analysis. In order to incorporate these additional results, DOE has
modified slightly its approach to the engineering analysis and thus is
considering efficiency levels that differ from those presented in the
April 2011 NOPR.
DOE is publishing today's NODA to: (1) Announce the availability of
the additional NEMA test data and the additional test data developed by
DOE; (2) address the differences between test data obtained by DOE and
test data submitted by NEMA; (3) describe the methodological changes
DOE is considering based on the additional data and present efficiency
levels developed using the revised methodology and all available test
data; and (4) request public comment on these analyses, as well as the
submission of other relevant information. The following sections
describe the additional data and revised methodology in more detail.
After considering the comments received, DOE will publish a final rule
by October 28, 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Under the consolidated Consent Decree in New York v. Bodman,
No. 05 Civ. 7807 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 7, 2005) and Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Bodman, No. 05 Civ. 7808 (S.D.N.Y.
filed Sept. 7, 2005), the U.S. Department of Energy was required to
publish a final rule amending energy conservation standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts no later than June 30, 2011. The consent
decree was later modified, requiring DOE to publish a final rule no
later than October 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Additional Data
For the April 2011 NOPR, DOE tested more than 450 ballasts to
develop proposed energy conservation standards. At the time the NOPR
was published, DOE posted test data to its public Web site in Appendix
5C of the TSD. Appendix 5C contained a listing of all ballast models
tested at DOE's primary lab for the April 2011 NOPR, including
identifying characteristics such as lamp type operated, number of lamps
operated, starting method, ballast factor, input voltage, and catalog
performance value. For each ballast model, DOE also reported average
\4\ tested values for input power, total lamp arc power, and BLE.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The average across several samples for each model number.
\5\ DOE obtained these values in accordance with the active mode
test procedure in Appendix Q1 of 10 CFR part 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the May 2011 public meeting, NEMA presented data collected from
several manufacturers. These test results were contained in a power
point presentation that was subsequently posted to the public meeting
Web site (https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_ballasts_nopr_public_meeting.html). NEMA's
data included average BLE values from three manufacturers that were
reduced by 0.8 percent to account for compliance certification
requirements. Attendees of the public meeting noted that the BLE values
of the most efficient ballast models tested by NEMA appeared to be less
than the most efficient ballast models tested by DOE. These
stakeholders emphasized the importance of identifying the reasons for
the differences between the two data sets. In addition, several
stakeholders requested that DOE provide more information, including
data for individual ballast samples and test results from other labs at
which testing was conducted. NEMA also noted that about 60 percent of
DOE's test data represented ballast models with less than four tested
samples, which is not consistent with the minimum number of samples
required to demonstrate compliance with DOE's standards. The California
Utilities (CA Utilities) stated that if possible, DOE should conduct
testing of four or more samples to more accurately reflect the testing
process that must be completed by manufacturers for certification
purposes.
Following the May 2011 public meeting, DOE posted to the public
meeting Web site a more comprehensive set of test data used to develop
the April 2011 NOPR, which specified ballasts by serial numbers, added
round robin test results, and included results for each sample tested,
rather than the average across several samples for each model number.
DOE also purchased and tested additional ballasts to increase tested
models' sample size to a minimum of four samples consistent with
compliance certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.26. DOE also tested
additional ballast models, particularly for sign ballasts and
residential ballasts, to gain more market information about these
ballasts. This NODA announces the availability of all available test
data--the NEMA-provided data, the data utilized for the April 2011
NOPR, and the results of additional testing conducted after publication
of the April 2011 NOPR--on DOE's Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html.
III. Comparison of NEMA-Provided Data and DOE Data
At the May 2011 public meeting, NEMA presented test results for its
highest efficiency NEMA Premium products. NEMA explained that the data
contained in the presentation represented the mean of four or five
samples that was then decreased by 0.8 percent to account for
compliance requirements. NEMA stated that this reduction, consistent
with DOE's proposed reduction to efficiency levels in the April 2011
NOPR, was calculated using the same methods that are required to
certify with new standards.
In addition to their observation that the manufacturer-provided
data was lower in efficiency than DOE's data, NEMA expressed concern
regarding DOE's data collection methods. NEMA commented that the number
of samples DOE tested for several ballast models was too small,
potentially resulting in test data not representative of the mean
efficiencies of the ballast model's population. They pointed out that
for the majority of ballast models included in the analysis, DOE tested
fewer than four samples, which is not consistent with the minimum
number of samples required to demonstrate compliance with DOE's
standards. NEMA also commented that the difference between the data it
collected and DOE's results may be due to DOE's labs not having proper
accreditation. Furthermore, NEMA stated that the measured BLEs reported
in appendix 5C of the NOPR TSD were not consistent with the BLEs
calculated by NEMA (using data from the same appendix).
Following the May 2011 public meeting, several manufacturers
provided the model numbers and corresponding efficiencies for the
ballasts included in NEMA's data set. Upon receiving this information,
DOE conducted a comparative analysis and evaluated potential sources
for the apparent discrepancies between the DOE and NEMA data sets: The
reduction factor NEMA applied to its average BLE values, sample size,
lab accreditation, the calculation of BLE, and the arc powers reported
for NEMA's results.
After considering all of the potential sources, discussed in the
following sections, DOE preliminarily concludes that, after removing
NEMA's reduction factor as discussed in section III.A., the remaining
differences between the two data sets arise primarily from normal
measurement variation. This remaining variation generally falls within
the expected measurement variation of 2.5 percent of the
mean efficiency, suggested by NEMA. Additional testing has increased
sample size such that it is consistent with compliance certification
requirements. DOE has also confirmed that its testing was conducted in
accordance with the active mode test procedure and that its
calculations of BLE are accurate.
[[Page 52895]]
A. NEMA Reduction Factor
As stated earlier, the ballast efficiencies presented by NEMA at
the May 2011 public meeting represent the mean of four or five samples
decreased by 0.8 percent. To calculate this 0.8 reduction factor, NEMA
referred DOE to an analysis NEMA conducted and submitted as a comment.
In that analysis, NEMA calculated the 0.8 percent reduction factor
based on an application of the certification equation described in 10
CFR 429.26. NEMA assumed that each sample set's three standard
deviation spread was equal to five percent of the mean efficiency (2.5
percent for design variation and 2.5 percent for measurement
variation). NEMA then calculated a mean efficiency adjustment factor
(for sample sizes of four and five) by inserting this standard
deviation into the certification equation. This adjustment factor
represented an estimate of the percent difference between the sample
mean and the value NEMA anticipated reporting to DOE for certification.
To understand potential discrepancies between NEMA and DOE's test
data, it is necessary to ensure that similar calculation methodologies
have been undertaken for the two data sets. Therefore, for the purpose
of comparing the efficiency data, DOE removes the 0.8 percent reduction
from NEMA's presented ballast efficiencies, resulting in values that
represent mean tested efficiencies. These efficiency values are
analogous to DOE's mean tested efficiencies presented in the NOPR.
However, DOE recognizes the importance of accounting for measurement
variation and certification requirements in establishing efficiency
levels. Additional discussion of these issues and how DOE is
considering addressing them is provided in section IV.
B. Sample Size
NEMA noted that less than 40 percent of DOE's test data for the
April 2011 NOPR represented ballast models with four or more tested
samples. They stated that the large standard deviation in efficiency
among DOE's samples, as well as the discrepancy in tested values versus
catalog reported values, indicates that DOE potentially did not use a
sufficient number of samples to calculate the mean efficiencies of the
ballast models analyzed. The California Utilities (CA Utilities) stated
that if possible, DOE should conduct testing of four or more samples
per ballast model to more accurately reflect the testing process that
must be completed by manufacturers for certification purposes.
Since the publication of the April 2011 NOPR, DOE has conducted
additional testing to increase the sample size of selected ballast
models. Over 90 percent of tested ballast models now have a minimum of
four samples. Only in those cases where models have been discontinued
or were unavailable for purchase was DOE unable to test a minimum of
four samples.
C. Lab Accreditation
NEMA also commented that the difference between the data it
collected and DOE's results may be due to DOE's labs not having proper
accreditation. DOE notes that 10 CFR 430.25 requires testing of
fluorescent lamp ballasts to be performed in accordance with Appendix
Q1 of 10 CFR part 430 subpart B by test laboratories accredited by
National Volunteer Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) or a NVLAP-
recognized organization, Underwriter Laboratories, or Council of Canada
in accordance with ISO 17025. 76 FR 25211, 25219 (May 4, 2011). ISO
17025 is an international standard that outlines general requirements
for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. NVLAP
operates an accreditation system that requires applicant laboratories
to be assessed against all ISO 17025 requirements.
DOE has contacted both test laboratories utilized for DOE testing
and verified each is properly accredited and that all testing was
conducted in accordance with the active mode test procedure in Appendix
Q1. However, DOE recognizes that lab-to-lab variation can still be
present among NVLAP-accredited test labs following the prescribed test
procedure. DOE accounts for lab-to-lab variation in the establishment
of efficiency levels as described in section IV.B.
D. Measured Versus Calculated BLE
NEMA identified several samples in DOE's test data for which the
measured BLE reported in appendix 5C of the NOPR TSD was not consistent
with the BLE calculated by NEMA. Though some of the differences were
small, NEMA provided examples of four ballast models with differences
up to 8 percent.
To address the small discrepancies, DOE notes that the information
provided by NEMA is consistent with calculating the BLE values by
dividing the average arc power of all samples by the average input
power of all samples. NEMA's method is not consistent with the active
mode test procedure. In contrast, DOE's measured BLE reported in
appendix 5C of the TSD was determined, as required in the test
procedure, by averaging the BLE of each individual sample. Based on
DOE's analysis, this difference in methodology accounts for the small
discrepancies observed between the values reported in appendix 5C and
those calculated by NEMA.
DOE also worked to resolve the larger differences cited by NEMA in
their presentation at the May 2011 meeting. DOE identified six samples
with measured-versus-calculated BLE differences ranging from 7.8 to 8.0
percentage points, which included the specific examples cited by NEMA.
These six samples were all magnetic ballasts; in accordance with active
mode test procedure (see Table A, Appendix Q1 of 10 CFR part 430
subpart B), DOE calculated BLE by reducing the measured ballast
efficiency (lamp arc power divided by ballast input power) by a
frequency adjustment factor (1.00 for high-frequency ballasts and
values ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 for low-frequency ballasts). These
larger discrepancies are consistent with NEMA not including this
adjustment factor in its calculation of BLE. Thus, DOE believes its
measured BLE values are correctly calculated and consistent with the
active mode test procedure.
E. Total Lamp Arc Power Approximations
Due to the relationship between total lamp arc power and ballast
efficiency, in the NOPR, DOE proposed establishing efficiency levels as
logarithmic equations dependent on measured total lamp arc power. When
NEMA plotted their test data against the DOE proposed efficiency
levels, however, NEMA paired their ballast efficiency test data with
approximated total lamp arc powers rather than measured arc powers. DOE
found these approximations to be higher than typical test results for
similar ballast types in DOE's data set, with differences as high as
27.6 percent overall. As this discrepancy could potentially cause
NEMA's test data to appear to have artificially lower efficiencies
relative to DOE's efficiency levels, DOE has revised NEMA's approximate
lamp arc powers using American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
rated high frequency lamp arc powers to calculate total expected lamp
arc power. These lamp arc powers better align with expected total lamp
arc powers for similar ballast types.
For example, NEMA associated the efficiency of a ballast with a
normal ballast factor that operates two 4-foot medium bipin (MBP) T8
lamps with an arc power of 55 W. To correct the
[[Page 52896]]
approximated arc power, DOE calculated the typical arc power (51 W) by
multiplying the ANSI-specified high frequency arc wattage for an F32T8
lamp (29 W) by the number of lamps operated (2) and the most common
normal ballast factor (0.88). DOE used this calculated arc power when
comparing its efficiency levels to the manufacturer-provided data as
discussed in section V.
IV. Accounting for Variation and Compliance Certification Procedures
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE accounted for measurement variation and
certification requirements by calculating reduction factors for each
and adjusting the efficiency levels accordingly. DOE calculated a 0.6
percent reduction factor for measurement variation by comparing the
data from the primary laboratory, which conducted the majority of DOE's
testing, with data from its secondary laboratory, which tested a
limited number of identical samples. DOE applied the 0.6 percent
measurement variation reduction to the efficiency curves so that the
standard level could, on average, be met by ballasts tested at the less
efficient lab. To account for certification requirements, DOE
calculated the difference between the output of the compliance
certification equation in 10 CFR 429.26 and the sample mean of DOE's
test data to be 0.2 percent. As DOE's certification requirements at 10
CFR 429.26 require manufacturers to report the lower of these two
values, DOE reduced the efficiency levels, based on average BLEs, by
this value. Using the data that DOE made available immediately
following the May 2011 public meeting, both NEMA and the CA Utilities
submitted analyses to determine how DOE's data should be adjusted to
account for certification requirements and measurement variation.
NEMA's analysis used an assumed design variation and a calculated
measurement variation in the compliance certification equation to
adjust each ballast efficiency data point. NEMA then suggested that DOE
base its efficiency levels on these adjusted data points rather than
mean efficiency values. Specifically, NEMA determined the mean BLE for
each ballast model by averaging all tested values of that particular
model. NEMA then calculated the maximum measurement variation across
labs for each category of fluorescent lamp ballast (e.g., 4-foot MBP,
4-foot miniature bipin (MiniBP), or 8-foot recessed double contact
(RDC) high output (HO)). NEMA added this highest calculated measurement
variation for each ballast type to a 2.5 percent assumed design
tolerance to characterize the total variation. NEMA then entered these
variations into the compliance equation to calculate a reduction factor
based on sample size of each tested model.
The CA Utilities also conducted an analysis on the data DOE
provided following the May 2011 public meeting. They agreed with NEMA
that compliance certification requirements should be considered when
assessing whether products will meet each standard level. However, they
pointed out that NEMA had employed methods to characterize the reported
value that were not consistent with the requirements specified in 10
CFR 429.26. Instead, the CA Utilities used individual samples of DOE's
efficiency data to calculate both the sample mean and the value
determined by the compliance certification equation in 10 CFR 429.26.
Then, as directed by the compliance certification regulations, they
represented reported efficiency as the lower of the two values. They
suggested that DOE base its efficiency levels on these reported values.
Consistent with the April 2011 NOPR, DOE recognizes the importance
of considering the variation present in the test data when developing
efficiency levels. DOE acknowledges that due to design variation, the
reported value for compliance certification may deviate from the sample
mean and must be accounted for. As described in the following sections,
DOE is considering modifying its approach to account for variation and
compliance certification procedures based on the comments provided.
A. Compliance Certification Requirements and Design Variation
DOE agrees with both NEMA and the CA Utilities that standard levels
should account for the procedures manufacturers must follow to certify
compliance with standards. As stated earlier, 10 CFR 429.26 requires
manufacturers to test a minimum of four fluorescent lamp ballasts and
report the minimum of either the mean efficiency of the samples or the
output of a compliance certification equation based on the lower 99
percent confidence limit of the sample. The lower 99 percent confidence
limit equation requires a calculation of the standard deviation of the
sample set to account for design variation.
Both the NEMA and CA Utilities approaches recommend that, in order
to develop efficiency levels, DOE should adjust its mean efficiency
data points to represent values similar to those manufacturers would
report to DOE for compliance certification. However, their approaches
differ in how they computed the standard deviation to input into the
compliance certification equation. The CA Utilities calculated the
standard deviation among all samples of a particular ballast model
tested at a single lab. NEMA, however, calculated the standard
deviation by assuming a 2.5 percent design variation and then adding an
additional measurement variation based on DOE's lab-to-lab test data
for each ballast category.
DOE disagrees with NEMA's method of applying the compliance
certification requirements. Firstly, the test procedure's compliance
requirements direct manufacturers to calculate the standard deviation
of the tested sample, rather than an assumed population standard
deviation. Secondly, this calculation would likely not include data
from more than one lab unless manufacturers chose to test their samples
of a single ballast model at more than one location. DOE is considering
accounting for measurement (specifically lab-to-lab) variation as a
separate adjustment to efficiency levels as discussed below in section
IV.B.
The CA Utilities evaluated both the sample mean and compliance
equation for each ballast model and compared the lower of the two, the
reported value, to the standard level. DOE believes the CA Utilities
approach for accounting for compliance certification requirements is
more consistent with the procedures laid out in 10 CFR 429.26 and is
therefore considering using this methodology in the final rule. To
facilitate this approach, as discussed earlier, DOE conducted
additional testing since publication of the NOPR to increase the sample
size of several ballast models in accordance with compliance
certification requirements. To account for both certification
requirements, DOE has calculated a new data set which represents the
reported value for all ballast models. DOE used these reported values
to develop the efficiency levels described in section V of today's
NODA.
B. Measurement Variation
DOE is also considering revising its methodology to account for
measurement variation, specifically lab-to-lab variation. DOE received
test data from NEMA following the May 2011 public meeting and also
received test data from NEMA-member manufacturers. The data from
manufacturers allowed DOE to match NEMA test data with the same ballast
models tested at DOE's primary and
[[Page 52897]]
secondary labs. Using the model-specific test data supplied by several
manufacturers (representative of three different manufacturer labs) and
DOE's BLE data (representative of the two labs used by DOE), DOE
determined that on average, the BLE test data from DOE's primary lab
was 0.7 percent more efficient than the average test lab. DOE
attributes this offset to systematic lab-to-lab variation and therefore
is considering reducing the efficiency levels by 0.7 percent so that
they are representative of ballasts tested at the average test lab.
This approach is slightly different than that taken in the April 2011
NOPR, which applied a 0.6 percent reduction to efficiency levels,
representing the average offset between DOE's primary lab and the least
efficient lab (in that case, DOE's secondary lab). DOE believes that
adjusting efficiency levels so that they represent the average test lab
better characterizes the mean performance of products currently being
sold.
V. Efficiency Levels
A. Equation
In the NOPR, DOE proposed establishing efficiency levels as
logarithmic equations dependent on total lamp arc power. DOE developed
this logarithmic relationship by empirically fitting curves to
manufacturer product lines present in DOE's test data. DOE is
considering changing the contour of the efficiency levels for the final
rule to better fit all of the available data. Upon analysis, NEMA's
test data show a larger efficiency decrease at lower powers than DOE's
data indicate. Although DOE and NEMA generally tested the same types of
ballasts, NEMA tested more permutations of ballast factor and number of
lamps for each product line, particularly at lower wattages. For
example, NEMA's data contained BLE values for 1-lamp 4-foot MBP
ballasts with both low and high ballast factors, whereas DOE's data
included 1-lamp 4-foot MBP ballasts with only normal ballast factors.
Therefore, based on an application of several equation forms of
efficiency levels, DOE concluded that a power law equation fits both
the NEMA data and DOE's data better than the logarithmic relationship
proposed in the April 2011 NOPR. A power law equation takes the form:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24AU11.001
Where: Power = total measured lamp arc power
Because the NEMA data represents the most complete product lines
and thus may represent a more accurate depiction of a BLE-lamp arc
power relationship than DOE's initial test data, DOE fit power law
regressions to the NEMA test data to calculate the exponent ``C.'' For
the instant start and rapid start (IS/RS) ballasts, DOE found the
exponent ``C'' to be 0.25. The exponent 0.25 is also a quantity used in
relating power to relative losses (analog of efficiency) for
distribution transformers, and fluorescent lamp ballasts similarly
employ transformers and inductors. The programmed start (PS) NEMA data,
however, suggested a different exponent for ballasts that use the PS
starting method. DOE believes that this alternate shape is attributable
to the PS ballasts' higher fixed losses due to internal control
circuitry and heating of lamp electrodes (cathode heating). As these
losses are a larger proportion of total losses at lower powers, the PS
product classes have a steeper slope across the range of wattages.
Using NEMA's data for PS ballasts, DOE found the exponent ``C'' to be
0.37.
With exponents set for the two starting method categories, DOE fit
the power law equation to the reported value data (calculated in
accordance with 10 CFR 429.26 as discussed in section IV.A) by
adjusting the coefficient ``B'' to delineate among criteria such as
different product lines, ballasts that operate different lamp types,
and other clusters in efficiency data. The most efficient (maximum
technologically feasible) efficiency levels closely approximate the
NOPR proposals for the highest wattages, but better follow product line
efficiency trends at lower wattages.
B. Preliminary Efficiency Levels
Using the methodology described in the previous section, DOE
developed a complete set of efficiency levels for this NODA, which are
being considered for the final rule. DOE developed power law curve-fits
based on the DOE test data. Then to develop efficiency levels, DOE
applied a lab-to-lab adjustment factor (derived from all available test
data) to these curve-fits (as discussed in section IV.B). In addition,
DOE compared the resulting efficiency levels against the NEMA data to
confirm the impacts of the efficiency levels on product availability
indicated by the analysis of the DOE data. The following sections
describe the efficiency levels considered for each representative
product class. An Excel spreadsheet summarizing these levels is
available on DOE's Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html. The
final rule and accompanying TSD will include the complete downstream
analyses on these levels and results.
1. IS and RS Ballasts
DOE developed three efficiency levels for the IS/RS product class.
EL1 was designed to eliminate 4-foot MBP T12 ballasts while allowing 4-
foot MBP T8 ballast and 8-foot slimline ballasts to comply with energy
conservation standards. EL2 corresponds to a level which allows the
highest-efficiency product lines from each of the four major ballast
manufacturers to comply. DOE defines a full product line as spanning a
sufficient diversity of products (spanning several ballast factors,
numbers of lamps per ballast, and types of lamps operated). EL3 is the
maximum technologically feasible (max tech) level which DOE defines for
fluorescent lamp ballasts as the highest level, regardless of
manufacturer, that is technologically feasible for a sufficient
diversity of commercially available products. Use of those criteria
results in an EL3 with which nearly two manufacturer product lines
comply.
2. PS Ballasts
DOE developed three efficiency levels for the PS product class. The
least efficient level (EL1) was designed to eliminate the lowest
efficiency 4-foot MBP, 4-foot T5 high output, and 4-foot T5 standard
output PS ballasts. This also corresponds to a level at which each of
the four major fluorescent lamp ballast manufacturers maintain a
diversity of products. EL2 allows full product lines from two major
manufacturers. Finally, EL3, the maximum technologically feasible
level, was designed to represent the most efficient PS ballasts tested
by DOE. EL3 is the highest level that allows one full line of products,
regardless of manufacturer.
3. Eight-Foot HO Ballasts
For the 8-foot HO IS/RS product class, DOE developed three
efficiency levels. For this product class, DOE tested ballasts that
operate two lamps, the most common lamp-and-ballast combination. EL1
was designed to just allow the least efficient T12 electronic ballasts,
eliminating magnetic ballasts. EL2 allows the least efficient T8
ballast tested and eliminates the vast majority of T12 electronic
ballasts. Finally, EL3 was designed to just allow the most efficient T8
ballast tested by DOE.
[[Page 52898]]
4. Sign Ballasts
The sign ballast market comprises primarily magnetic and electronic
ballasts that operate T12 HO lamps. DOE tested sign ballasts that
operate up to one, two, three, four, or six 8-foot T12 HO lamps. The
test data showed that sign ballasts exist at two levels of efficiency.
Therefore, DOE analyzed a baseline and one efficiency level above that
baseline. EL1 was designed to allow a full line of electronic sign
ballasts, including ballasts that operate one through six lamps.
5. Residential Ballasts
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE had proposed that both residential and
commercial ballasts could achieve similar levels of efficiency at the
highest levels analyzed. Based on the similarity in efficiency, DOE
included both ballast types in the same product class. However, for the
final rule, after conducting additional testing which indicate that 4-
lamp residential ballasts may not be able to achieve the same levels as
commercial ballasts, DOE is considering a separate product class for
residential ballasts. The additional data for residential ballasts is
also available at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/fluorescent_ballasts_nopr_public_meeting.html. Consequently, DOE has derived and is considering two
separate efficiency levels for residential ballasts to incorporate the
new data. EL1 was designed to just allow the least efficient T8
ballasts, eliminating T12 residential ballasts. EL2, the maximum
technology feasible level, is the highest level that allows a full
range of T8 products (including both two- and four-lamp ballasts) to
comply.
VI. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NODA
no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning
of this notice. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this notice.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via e-mail, hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted via e-mail, hand delivery, or mail
also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, e-mail address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. E-mail submissions are
preferred. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please
provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case, it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential business information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
e-mail, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
one copy of the document marked ``confidential'' that includes all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via e-mail or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
[[Page 52899]]
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this notice, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) The conclusion that after removing 0.8 percent NEMA's reduction
factor and recalculating lamp arc powers, the remaining differences
between DOE and NEMA-provided data are likely due to normal measurement
variation;
(2) The methodology used to account for compliance certification
requirements and measurement variation in developing efficiency levels;
(3) The appropriateness of using a power law equation to develop
efficiency levels and the chosen values for the exponent ``C''; and
(4) The efficiency levels considered.
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
data availability.
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2011.
Timothy Unruh,
Program Manager, Federal Energy Management Program, Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011-21636 Filed 8-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
