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 

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 

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 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52893 

1The spreadsheets developed for this rulemaking 

proceeding are available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

fluorescent_lamp_ballasts.html. 

2Comments 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. 

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: http:// 

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 http://www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http:// 

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: http://www.regulations.gov. 

The http://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 http:// 

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

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 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52894 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3Under 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. 

4The 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. 

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 

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 

(http://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: http:// 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 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 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52896 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52897 

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. 

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: 

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: http:// 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP24AU11.001</GPH>
52898 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 http://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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov. The http:// 

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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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 http://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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0725; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–065–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Model 767–200, –300, and 

–300F Series Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

model 767–200, –300, and –300F series 

airplanes. This proposed AD would 

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 

http://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. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

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, 

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 http:// 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS