7431

Proposed Rules

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

comment period for an additional 30

days. The comment period now ends on

March 31, 1996.

DATES: The comment period has been

extended and now expires March 31,

1996. Comments received after this date

will be considered if it is practical to do

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 20

RIN 3150-AF44

Reporting Requirements for

Unauthorized Use of Licensed

Radioactive Material : Extension of

Comment Period

AGENCY : Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: On January 31, 1996, (61 FR

3334), the NRC published for public

comment a proposed rule to add a new

requirement for licensees to notify the

NRC Operations Center within 24 hours

of discovering an intentional or

allegedly intentional diversion of

licensed radioactive material from its

intended or authorized use. The

proposed rule would also require

licensees to notify the NRC when they

are unable, within 48 hours of discovery

of the event, to rule out that the use was

intentional. The proposed rule would

require reporting of events that cause, or

have the potential to cause, an exposure

of individuals whether or not the

exposure exceeds the regulatory limits.

The comment period for the proposed

rule was to have expired on March 1,

1996. The American College of Nuclear

Physicians/Society of Nuclear Medicine

(ACNP/SNM) has requested a 60-day

extension of the comment period. In

addition, a second comment letter from

an individual was received requesting

that the NRC extend the comment

period. The second letter pointed out

the one-week after publication time lag

involved with obtaining the Federal

Register and the additional time lag

involved with mailing a comment letter

to the NRC. In view of the importance

of the proposed rule and the desire to

provide an adequate opportunity for

public comment while developing a

final rule as soon as practicable, the

NRC has decided to extend the

so, but the Commission is able to assure

consideration only for comments

received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES : Send written comments or

suggestions to the Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch. Copies of

comments received may be examined on

the NRC Rulemaking Bulletin Board at

FedWorld and the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.

(Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary L. Thomas, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington DC

20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6230,

e-mail MLT1@NRC.GOV.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of February 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James M. Taylor,

Executive Director for Operations.

[FR Doc. 96-4485 Filed 2-27-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

Federal Register

Vol. 61, No. 40

Wednesday, February 28, 1996

Based on the public responses, the

Department is considering certain

revisions of the interim final rule and

proposed rule and seeks public

comment on options it is considering.

The options involve the following

topics: determining the wattage of a

fluorescent lamp for purposes deciding

whether the energy conservation

standards and test procedures apply to

it; the confidence limit, "derating

factor" and statistical test used in the

test procedure sampling plan; definition

of colored lamps; determining the rated

voltage or rated voltage range of an

incandescent lamp for purposes of

deciding whether the energy

conservation standards and test

procedures apply to it; defining rated

voltage for testing incandescent lamps;

and defining the bulb shapes for

elliptical reflector (ER) and bulged

reflector (BR) incandescent lamps.

DATES : Written comments in response to

this notice must be received by the

Department by April 15, 1996. The

Department requests 10 copies of the

written comments and, if possible, a

computer disk. (The Department uses

WordPerfect.)

There will be a public meeting to

gather input on these issues in

Washington, D.C., on March 5, 1996.

The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and

will be held at the U.S. Department of

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM-94-220-IF]

RIN 1904-AA61 ; RIN 1904-AA70

Energy Conservation Standards

Program for Consumer Products: Test

Procedures for Fluorescent and

Incandescent Lamps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice reopening comment

period.

SUMMARY : On September 28, 1994, the

Department of Energy (Department or

DOE) published an interim final rule

and a proposed rule regarding energy

conservation test procedures for

fluorescent and incandescent lamps.

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 2E069, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C.

ADDRESSES : Written comments are to be

submitted to: U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Ms. Sandy Beall,

"Energy Conservation Standards

Program for Fluorescent and

Incandescent Lamps, Docket No. EERM-94-220-IF," EE-431, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.

Telephone: (202) 586-7574; Telefax:

(202) 586-4617.

Copies of the transcript of the July 19,

1995 lamp workshop and of the public

comments on the interim final rule may

be read at the Department of Energy

Freedom of Information Reading Room,

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room lE-190, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

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

6020, between the hours of 9:00 a.m.

and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

EE-RM-94-220-IF COMMENT 27A
7432 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terrence L. Logee, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Mail Station

EE-43 1, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202)

586-1689

Edward Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC-72, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington, DC 20585-0103,

(202) 586-2928

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163,

as amended (EPCA) or the Act, created

the Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products other than

Automobiles (Program). The products

currently subject to this Program

include certain fluorescent and

incandescent lamps and medium based

compact fluorescent lamps. EPCA sets

minimum energy conservation

standards for general service fluorescent

and incandescent reflector lamps and

requires the Department to develop test

procedures.

2. Background

On September 28, 1994, the

Department published an interim final

rule establishing test procedures for

general service fluorescent and

incandescent lamps and for medium

based compact fluorescent lamps, 59 FR

49468, and a Notice of Proposed Rule

for definitions of rough and vibration

service incandescent reflector lamps

and colored fluorescent and

incandescent lamps, 59 FR 49478. In

addition DOE held a hearing on the

proposed rule on November 15, 1994

and a workshop on these issues on July

19, 1995. The Department received

many comments on the interim final

rule and on the proposed rule including

comments from manufacturers, a

national trade association, a

professional society, a utility, and a

Federal agency. The comments included

requests that the Department: (1) modify

its test procedure sampling plan to

change the confidence limit, "derating

factor," and statistical test used to

determine compliance of certain lamps

with the energy conservation standards;

(2) permit testing and compliance for

incandescent lamps at a lamp's design

voltage, and expand the voltage range

from the statutory requirement of 115

through 130 volts to 100 through 150

volts; (3) define the exemption for the

bulged reflector (BR) and elliptical

reflector (ER) incandescent reflector

lamp by reference to the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI)

C79.1-1994; (4) determine that a new

product coming on the market, a

fluorescent lamp rated at 25 watts,

which is below the 28 watt threshold for

coverage under EPCA, is actually a 40

watt fluorescent that is covered by the

statutory standards and test procedures;

and (5) revise its proposed definition of

colored fluorescent and incandescent

lamps.

In response to the foregoing

suggestions, the Department is

considering various options to alter the

Interim Final and Proposed Rules.

Because the issues raised by these

options were not expressly considered

in either the preamble to the Interim

Final or Proposed Rules, the Department

is now seeking comment from interested

parties on these options. In particular,

the Department seeks any new factual

information and data that will assist it

in addressing these issues.

3. Discussion

a. Revision of the Sampling Plan.

DOE's Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products has been developed

and refined since its inception in 1978.

Compliance with energy efficiency

standards has been assured in part by

having each manufacturer certify that its

covered products comply with the

applicable energy efficiency standard.

The certification must be based on tests

of the product in accordance with test

procedures prescribed by DOE.

In promulgating test procedures

applicable to certification, one of the

major goals has been to provide a

statistically valid approach so that there

is a high probability that products

which have been tested and certified as

being in compliance with the applicable

efficiency standards actually comply

with those standards. Each DOE test

procedure incorporates a sampling plan,

and that sampling plan is designed to

give reasonable assurance that the true

mean performance of the product being

manufactured and sold meets or exceeds

the DOE energy efficiency standard.

DOE recognizes that units of a

product may vary in energy efficiency

for a number of valid reasons, including

differences in component parts,

production and testing. The risk to the

public of purchasing a non-complying

product, the risk to manufacturers of

selling such a product, and the burdens

of performing representative testing, are

reduced through the application of a

statistically meaningful sampling plan

and basing the certification decision on

the mean energy performance of the

sample units.

There are several critical elements of

a sampling plan. One is the selection of

units for testing. Units must be

representative of the product, and be

selected randomly from a batch. Sample

size is also a critical element of a

sampling plan. The results yielded by

energy efficiency testing of a product,

consisting of tests conducted on a

sample of units, will be increasingly

more reliable as the size of the test

sample increases. This, however,

increases the testing burden on the

manufacturers. Also, as the variability

in performance increases among

individual tested units of a product, the

reliability of the test results decreases.

As a result, DOE's test procedures

require sampling plans based on a

confidence limit approach. This

approach is designed to minimize the

manufacturers' testing burden while

ensuring accurate determination of

compliance within a specified level of

confidence.

The interim final rule prescribing test

procedures for lamps requires a

minimum sample size of 20 units for

each model, which must be randomly

selected during seven out of 12 months

of production. The rule further provides

in essence that the lamp efficacy for a

given model of lamp shall be the

average efficacy for the tested lamps of

that model, and "shall be no greater

than the lower of (i) the mean of the

sample or (ii) the lower 99 percent

confidence limit of the true mean

divided by 0.99." DOE views the latter

calculation as being a one-sided

confidence interval using the t-statistic,

with the 0.99 divisor constituting a

"derating" factor. The confidence limit

would be calculated using generally

accepted methods found in statistics

textbooks, based on the sample mean

and sample standard deviation.

DOE included the derating factor to

take into account variability in the

efficiency of products due to many

factors, including manufacturing

variability, variations in the material

(e.g., phosphors), and testing errors,

including reference lamp calibration

errors. Furthermore, this format

(confidence limit divided by a derating

factor) is similar to the format required

for other appliance products for which

DOE has authority to require testing.

The National Electrical Manufacturers

Association (NEMA) has proposed

loosening the confidence interval to 95

percent, and changing the derating

factor to 0.97, which increases its

derating effect. It justifies this proposal

on the basis of typical production

variations and measurement

uncertainties, including calibration

issues. NEMA submitted estimates of

EE-RM-94-220-IF COMMENT 27A
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules 7433

the magnitude of these variations and

their effect on compliance

determinations. They estimated an

uncertainty of 2 percent due to the

reference lamps used in the

measurement process, with additional

variability among different laboratories.

NEMA has also proposed substituting

the z-statistic procedure for the tstatistic procedure. The z-statistic

procedure is similar to the t-statistic

procedure, except that, for each model

of a product, it uses the standard

deviation, a, that applies to the entire

population of manufactured units for

that model. That standard deviation is

assumed to be known from previous

measurements. The t-statistic procedure,

by contrast, uses the standard deviation,

s, of the sample units tested. The z-test

also replaces the factor t with another

factor z, both of which are found in

standard tables.

The effect of going to a 95 percent

confidence limit will be to make it

slightly easier to demonstrate

compliance, while also slightly

increasing the chance that a

noncompliant product will be judged to

be in compliance. In other words, when

testing demonstrates compliance at the

95 percent confidence level, there

would be a one in twenty chance that

a non-tested unit of the product may not

meet the standards instead of a one in

one hundred chance under the

procedure promulgated by the interim

final rule.

The effect of using the z procedure

instead of the t procedure will be to

produce lower confidence limit values

which are more favorable to the

manufacturers, because the value of the

z factor from the tables is less than the

value of the t factor, unless the number

of sample units, n, is very large.

However, the z procedure is more

representative than the t procedure

because the standard deviation in the z

method is determined from a larger

population than the standard deviation

in the t method. Use of the z procedure

requires an accurate measurement of the

population standard deviation for each

model. Accurate measurement would

appear to require, for example, prior

tests of a large number of units of that

model selected at random, conduct of

the prior testing in accredited

laboratories, and prior testing conducted

under conditions and using test

procedures that are comparable to

current conditions and procedures.

The Department is considering the

option of permitting a manufacturer to

use the "z" statistic as an alternative to

the "t" statistic, for tests of any product

for which the following criteria are met:

(1) the standard deviation used in the

test procedure was derived from a

minimum sample of 60 or more

randomly selected lamps of the same

basic model; (2) the statistical data was

measured by accredited laboratories; (3)

the prior testing was conducted under

conditions and using test procedures

comparable to current conditions and

procedures. When these criteria are not

met, a manufacturer would be required

to use the "t-statistic." The Department

specifically seeks input on whether

lamp manufacturers can derive standard

deviations for their products from

historic test experience. The Department

is seeking comment on this approach or

other possible uses of the "z" statistic.

The Department is also considering, and

seeks comments on, modification of the

derating factor and confidence interval,

as suggested by NEMA.

b. Definition of Rated Voltage,

Determination of Test Voltage and

Determination of Voltage Range. When

the Department considered test

procedures for incandescent lamps in

the interim final rule, it noted that

neither the definition of incandescent

lamp in Section 321(30) (C) of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C), nor Illumination

Engineering Society LM-20, "Approved

Method for Photometric Testing of

Reflector-Type Lamps" defined the test

voltage. Therefore, in the interim final

rule, the Department requires testing of

all incandescent lamps at 120 volts to be

consistent with the statutory

requirements for labeling. 10 CFR Part

430, Subpart B, Appendix R, Section

4.2.1.

In its comments, NEMA requested

that the Department allow testing of

incandescent lamps at their design

voltage. Otherwise, NEMA claimed that

certain 125 and 130 volt lamps would

be banned from the market by failing to

meet the standards if tested at 120 volts.

The industry and NEMA also claim that

125 and 130 volt lamps serve two

market niches: regions in the country

where power line voltage is greater than

the nominal 120 volts and applications

requiring long life lamps. Manufacturers

claim that they would be forced to sell

lamps with decidedly shorter lives than

the 125 and 130 volt lamps currently in

the marketplace if DOE requires

compliance with the standards at 120

volts.

In response to queries by NIST,

Philips proposed that the Department

consider requiring testing of

incandescent lamps at the rated voltage

marked on the lamp. Furthermore, when

a lamp is marked with a voltage range,

Philips proposed that the rated voltage

should be taken as the mean of the

voltage range. This wording is based on

text taken from the International

Electrochemical Commission Standard

432-1.

The Department believes that

requiring compliance for incandescent

lamps at 120 volts will reduce lamp life

for some consumers and may also

remove most 125 and 130 volt lamps

from the marketplace. However, none of

the manufacturers define what is meant

by design voltage. Therefore, since the

statute uses rated voltage, the

Department is considering adopting the

definition of rated voltage from the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers Standard Dictionary of Terms

which defines rated voltage as "the

voltage to which operating and

performance characteristics are

referred." Furthermore, the Department

is considering a requirement to test

incandescent lamps at the rated voltage,

as marked on the lamp, or at the mean

of rated voltage range, as marked on the

lamp. This approach would provide for

testing incandescent lamps at a known

reference voltage for certification to the

energy efficiency standards while

agreeing with the Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) requirements for

labeling. The Department is also

considering the option of requiring that

lamps not marked with a voltage will be

tested at 120 volts.

With respect to the issue of "rated

voltage range" the definition of

"incandescent reflector lamp" in the

Act, refers to a "rated voltage or rated

voltage range at least partially within

115 to 130 volts." Section 321(30) (C) (ii),

42 U.S.C. 6291(30) (C) (ii). NEMA

recommended expansion of the voltage

range in the statute to 100 to 150 volts,

asserting that the statutory limit could

unintentionally allow evasion of the

standards requirements for certain

products. Under the language in the

statute, for example, a product could be

rated at 131 volts, thereby removing it

from the standard. Yet this product

would perform acceptably in a 130 volt

environment and could be sold for such

applications.

The interim final rule incorporates the

statutory definition of incandescent

lamp including the voltage range. The

Department will continue to use this

definition. The Department notes that

only one manufacturer currently

markets lamps with design voltages

greater than 130 volts. However, in

response to queries by NIST, several

manufacturers agreed that the nominal

tolerance for incandescent lamp voltage

is ±10 percent. The Department believes

that the statutory range of 115 to 130

volts may also be subject to this

tolerance. Therefore, the Department is

considering the option of treating lamps

with voltages greater than 103.5 volts

EE-RM-94-220-IF COMMENT 27A
7434 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

and less than 143.0 volts as being "at

least partially within a rated voltage

range of 115 to 130 volts," and subject

to the energy efficiency standards.

The Department is seeking comments

on the acceptability and workability of

these options for rated voltage, test

voltage and rated voltage range.

Alternative proposals are welcome but

the Department requests that these

proposals be supported by references to

existing or draft industry standards or

that the proposals be supported by data.

c. ER and BR Reflector Lamp

Definitions. The Act contains

exemptions for several types of

incandescent reflector lamps including

those for ER (elliptical reflector) and BR

(bulged reflector) bulb shapes. Section

321(30) (C) (ii), 42 U.S.C. 6291(30) (C) (ii).

However, these lamps are not defined in

the statute or the interim final rule and

DOE is concerned that the exemption

may be abused without a clear

definition of what constitutes an ER or

BR bulb.

One commenter provided copies of

ANSI Standard C79.1-1994 which

contain descriptions of the ER and BR

bulb shapes. Another commented that if

the ANSI definition was different than

what some manufacturers have been

using, there would be tooling costs to

conform the lamp envelope to the new

shape definition and DOE should

provide time for manufacturers to

implement the new ANSI requirements.

In its comments to the workshop,

NEMA claimed that there was a

consensus to define ER and BR lamps by

reference to ANSI Standard C79.1-1994.

An Osram-Sylvania Inc. (OSI)

comment claims that: ( 1) the BR lamp is

not marketed for recessed applications;

(2) BR lamps are more efficient than

rough/vibration service R lamps; (3) the

BR lamp is less costly for the residential

market than the halogen PAR lamp; (4)

OSI has introduced a 65 watt BR lamp

which meets the efficiency standards;

and (5) the ANSI C79. 1-1994 bulb shape

standard is a result of the mandatory

ANSI 5-year revision cycle and it is

fundamental to all lamp/fixture

interchangeability. The Department

notes, however, that the previous ANSI

revision to the bulb shape standard was

published in 1984.

During the workshop , the American

Council for an Energy Efficient

Economy (ACEEE) commented that this

exemption was placed in the statute to

protect one small manufacturer and that

the drafters of the Energy Policy Act of

1992 (EPACT) believed that these

products were not sold in large

quantities and were expected to

disappear from the market.

Furthermore , ACEEE comments

suggested that the exemption was meant

to apply to lamps that are rated with

lower wattage than their reflector (R) or

parabolic aluminized reflector (PAR)

counterparts. In its written comments,

ACEEE requested that DOE define ER

and BR lamps in a way that would limit

exemptions for these lamps as originally

intended in EPACT.

The Department believes the

definitions of ER and BR bulb shapes in

ANSI Standard C79.1-1994 (Figure 1 on

page 7) are new definitions of the ER

and BR bulb shapes because earlier

versions of ANSI Standard C79.1 did

not include definitions for either ER or

BR bulb shapes in their current form.

ANSI C79.1-1984 discusses the bulged

(B) and elliptical (E) shape designations

as basic bulb shapes of general service

incandescent lamps. The "RE" elliptical

reflector shape in the 1994 ANSI C79.1

standard could be described as cutting

off the top half of the basic "E" bulb

shape in the 1984 document since the

elliptical portion of the "E" bulb forms

that part of the "RE" bulb below the

major axis or lens of the reflector bulb.

However, the bulged reflector bulb

would represent a greatly diminished

"B" shaped bulb with a reflector bulb

connected to the top of this small "B"

shaped bulb. For these reasons, the

Department believes the 1994 ANSI

document represents a major

modification of elliptical and bulged

bulbs from the 1984 document.

ER and BR reflector bulb shapes

typically have a long neck, a

characteristic which is not addressed in

ANSI C79. 1. This is presumably to

extend the lens closer to the end of

recessed ceiling fixtures in the ER bulb.

Therefore, the Department believes the

ANSI C79.1-1994 definitions of the ER

and BR bulb shapes are subject to

interpretation, and questions whether

these definitions agree with the

commonly understood bulb shapes

being manufactured and which were

contemplated by exclusion of ER and

BR bulbs from EPCA coverage.

Although the Department believes the

ANSI Standard C79.1-1994 does not

fully prescribe the ER and BR bulb

shapes, the Department is considering

adopting ANSI Standard C79.1-1994 as

part of the definition of an ER or BR

bulb shape, subject to additional

criteria, to capture the characteristics of

ER and BR bulbs in the marketplace at

the time the exemptions were

established. One criterion being

considered is a longer neck than an R

or PAR lamp with either a specified

dimension or a dimension stated as a

comparison, such as 25 percent longer

than similar wattage R or PAR lamps.

An additional criterion under

consideration for the BR lamp is to

require that the bulged shape must be

reflectively coated and large enough to

redirect light emitted by the filament to

the side and rear of the lamp toward the

lens. The Department is also

considering a requirement for a reduced

wattage filament for both ER and BR

lamps. The Department is seeking

comment on whether to specify a

certain wattage reduction or to state this

reduction as a percentage comparison to

standard R or PAR lamps.

The Department invites comments on

the definitions for ER and BR lamps it

is considering. The Department also

requests copies of catalog listings and

other data to help it determine the

extent of reduced wattage ER and BR

lamps offered in the market.

d. Determination of Rated Wattage for

a Fluorescent Lamp. EPCA sets

standards for fluorescent lamps 48

inches long with rated wattages of 28

watts or more, 96 inches long with rated

wattages of 52 watts or more, and 2 foot

U-tube lamps with rated wattages of 28

watts or more. Sections 321(30) (A) and

325(i)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6291(30) (A) and

6295(i)(1). The standard levels have the

effect of prohibiting the sale, after

October 31, 1995, of certain lamps

previously on the market, including 4-

foot, 40 watt cool white fluorescent

lamps.

The 4-foot, 40 watt cool white

fluorescent lamp consumes 40 watts of

power when used with a conventional

high power factor ballast. High power

factor ballasts are used in over 85

percent of the fluorescent fixtures using

four foot lamps. Such high power factor

ballasts are typically used in

commercial applications. If a 40-watt

cool white lamp is used with the type

of low power factor ballast generally

used in residential applications, the

lamp will consume about 25 watts,

which is below the 28 watt threshold

that defines the lower limit of coverage

in the standards.

Neither the statute nor DOE's existing

regulations specify the type of ballast to

be used in determining the rated

wattage of lamps. In the absence of a

specification, some have argued that 4-

foot lamps could have their rated

wattage determined using a low power

factor ballast and if, using this testing

method, the rated wattage was less than

28 watts, the lamp would be exempt

from the standard.

DOE believes that it is unreasonable

to apply this statute so as to permit the

continued manufacture and sale of

lamps that when used with the most

common types of ballasts (i.e., high

power factor) would consume 28 or

more watts, but fail to meet the

EE-RM-94-220-IF COMMENT 27A
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

standards prescribed by the statute. In

an attempt to address this concern, DOE

sent a letter on August 30, 1995, to lamp

manufacturers indicating that it would

consider any lamp that was electrically

the same as the 40-watt cool white lamp

to be subject to the same statutory

standards. However, manufacturers

have since begun to introduce, or

indicated that they plan to introduce,

slight variations on the 40-watt cool

white lamp that would be rated at 25

watts based on use of low power factor

ballasts. Despite these modifications,

the lamps being marketed or developed

would still perform like 40-watt cool

white lamps when used in high power

factor ballasts.

The Department believes that

Congress intended the rated wattage of

fluorescent lamps, for purposes of

defining the universe of lamps covered

by the standards, to be determined by

using a high power factor ballast. The

wattages included in the table that now

appears in section 325(i) of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act appear to

assume the use of high power factor

ballasts. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i). In addition,

when Congress had previously set

efficiency standards for ballasts, those

standards were only applied to high

power factor ballasts.

The Department is now considering a

requirement that the rated wattage of a

fluorescent lamp, for purposes of

determining coverage by the standards,

is the measured wattage when the lamp

is used with a high power factor ballast.

The Department is soliciting public

comment on the possibility of requiring

the use of high power factor ballasts in

determining the rated wattage of

fluorescent lamps. Before making a final

determination on this matter, the

Department also intends to consider

other possible means to achieve

comparable objectives.

For example, the Department is

considering the approach used in the

Canadian lamp regulations issued in the

November 29, 1995 Canada Gazette, Part

II, Volume 129, No. 24, pg 3073. Under

this possible approach, the Department

would add an additional phrase to the

definition for general service fluorescent

lamp specifying that, "General service

fluorescent lamp means any fluorescent

lamp that is a physical and electrical

equivalent of a lamp described in

paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d)." However,

the Department believes that this

approach may suffer the same weakness

as DOE's attempt to elaborate on the

definition of basic model discussed in

the DOE letter of August 30, 1995.

The Department also will consider

determining whether a particular lamp

is covered by the standards by requiring

that its measured wattage be compared

to the measured wattage of a similar

covered lamp using the same ballast.

The wattage of the covered lamp

divided by the wattage of the lamp in

question would be multiplied by the

wattage marked on the covered lamp to

determine the rated wattage of the lamp

in question. However, this approach

may not work for new products.

The Department is concerned,

however, that if it requires rated wattage

to be determined using a high power

factor ballast, manufacturers might be

inhibited from producing certain

products designed and marketed for use

exclusively with low power factor

ballasts. Even though there are now

available a number of lamps that can be

safely used in low power factor ballasts,

and which would be unaffected by this

proposal, the Department does not want

to restrict unnecessarily the choices that

might be available to users of low power

factor ballasts in the future. For this

reason, the Department is soliciting

public comment and proposals on how

it might use its discretionary regulatory

authority or its authority to grant certain

waivers or exemptions to address this

possible problem. Specifically, DOE is

interested in identifying specific

technical features or performance or

other characteristics of lamps that

would provide reasonable assurance

that such lamps would be used

exclusively in low power factor ballasts.

At least one manufacturer has

indicated that it believes that a

substantially reduced lamp life (e.g.,

6,000 hours compared to the industry

norm of 20,000 hours) should restrict

the usage of such lamps to low power

factor ballasts in the residential sector.

But DOE is concerned that lamps with

useful lives of 6,000 hours may still be

widely used with high power factor

ballasts. DOE is also concerned that

accurately determining average lamp

life can be difficult and time consuming

and questions the utility to consumers

of a requirement that may discourage

manufacturers from increasing product

life.

The Department recognizes that one

of the motivations for introducing

modified 40 watt lamps is industry

concern that residential and other users

of low power factor ballasts might use

34 watt lamps in their fixtures, which

would increase the risk of overheating

and fires. While consumers have a range

of safe alternatives to the 34 watt lamp,

and 34 watt lamps are being labeled to

warn consumers against their use with

low power factor ballasts, DOE believes

that these industry concerns may be

valid. DOE solicits public comment on

these concerns and how DOE might best

7435

use its regulatory authorities to ensure

consumers are adequately protected.

Finally, in order to better assess these

issues, the Department is seeking more

information on the size and

characteristics of the market for lamps

used in low power factor ballasts.

e. Definition of Colored Fluorescent

and Incandescent Lamp. In the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking, the

Department defined colored fluorescent

and colored incandescent lamps

because Sections 321(30) (B) (iii),

321(30) (C) (ii), 42 U.S.C. 6291(30) (B) (iii)

and 42 U.S.C. 6291(30) (C) (ii) of the Act

contain exemptions for these lamps

without defining them. The Department

is seeking definitions of colored lamps

which can be determined by

measurement of certain characteristics.

Therefore, the Department proposed to

define colored incandescent and

fluorescent lamps by using suitable

minimum values of the Color Rendering

Index (CRI) or correlated color

temperatures (CCT). (59 FR 49478).

Several manufacturers suggested that

the upper limit for CRI for colored

fluorescent lamps be increased to 40.

Phillips Lighting states that a CRI of 40

will prevent the exclusion of gold

fluorescent lamps which are used in

printing applications. OSI also

recommends that the acceptable CRI for

amber and red incandescent lamps be

raised but DOE believes that this is not

necessary with the proposed revisions

to the colored incandescent lamp

definition because these lamps have a

low CCT.

In its comments to the July 19, 1995

lamp workshop, Durotest suggests that

CCT limits for colored fluorescent lamps

be less than 2,500° K or greater than

6,600° K or with a CRI less than 40. For

incandescent lamps, Durotest suggests

that the CCT parameters should be less

than 2,500° K or greater than 4,600° K

or CRI less than 50. NEMA also suggests

using the same CCT and CRI parameters

as Durotest. It asks DOE to clarify in the

preamble that a lamp is considered

colored if its CCT falls outside the range

above or if its CRI falls below the values

above.

The Department appreciates the

industry suggestions for revised limits

on CCT and CRI. DOE's original

proposal would have defined certain

green lamps as white lamps based on

their CRI. This problem is caused by the

difficulty of choosing a reference lamp

of equal CCT to the lamp in question

and because CRI was originally

intended to characterize non-colored

lamps.

As a result of industry suggestions

and comments, one option the

Department is considering is to revise

EE-RM-94-220-IF COMMENT 27A
7436 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules

its proposed definition of a colored

lamp by using a maximum value of CRI

or a suitable band of CCT. Therefore, the

Department is considering a definition

of colored fluorescent lamp as a lamp

with a CRI value less than 40 or a color

correlated temperature not above 2,500°

K for red and yellow colors or not below

6,600° K for blue and green colors. The

Department is also considering a

definition of colored incandescent lamp

as a lamp with CRI values below 50 or

a lamp color correlated temperature

either not above 2,500° K for red and

yellow colors or not below 4,600° K for

blue and green colors. The Department

believes that the measurements required

to determine if a lamp is colored by the

above definitions are minimal. The CRI

is a required measurement for

fluorescent lamps and manufacturers

would only have to make a CRI

measurement for lightly tinted

incandescent lamps. The color

temperature is derived from

spectroradiometric measurements and

this data already exists for most lamps.

However, at the July 19, 1995 lamp

workshop, NEMA proposed an

alternative definition of colored lamps

which depends on the excitation purity

of a colored source. Excitation purity is

defined as the ratio of two collinear

distances (NC/ND) on the Commission

Internationale de L'eclairage (CIE)

chromaticity diagram. NC is the

distance between the point representing

the sample lamp and a specified

reference point. ND is the distance

between the point locating the dominant

wavelength of the sample lamp and the

specified reference point. NEMA

suggests that a value of excitation purity

greater than 50 percent would be a

reasonable lower limiting value defining

a colored lamp. NEMA claims that a

single definition will suffice for all

colors. Plotting one number on the x,y

chromaticity diagram which shows the

50 percent excitation purity area marked

on it will quickly determine whether a

lamp is colored. Furthermore, NEMA

requested that the Department not

finalize the colored lamp definition

until they complete their specification

of chromaticity coordinate boundaries.

NEMA notes that the excitation purity

method proposed will not discriminate

between clear and colored lamps with

CCT's from slightly above 2,856°K and

lower. This is an inherent drawback of

the chromaticity diagram and redefining

the excitation purity limit will not

correct it. NEMA suggests that the

Department define a colored region

around the black body locus on the

chromaticity diagram as white. The area

within the 50 percent excitation purity

area is called pastel and lamps in this

area must be marked for a specific

application to be called colored.

Although the excitation purity method

fits DOE's criteria for a measurable

colored lamp definition, the Department

is not inclined to adopt this method

because it is complicated to describe

due to the use of three zones on the

chromaticity diagram.

As a second option, the Department is

considering a colored lamp definition

using x, y chromaticity coordinates

which lie outside of the area bounded

by the following points: (0.285,0.332);

(0.453,0.440); (0.500,0.440);

(0.500,0.382); (0.440,0.382);

(0.285,0.264). These boundaries are

taken from CIE Publication No. 2.2,

Colors of Light Signals.

The Department believes that defining

a colored lamp by using the

chromaticity coordinates above will

satisfy manufacturers' concerns that

lamps of low color temperature but near

the black body locus should be

considered white. Likewise, this method

satisfies a DOE concern that valid

orange and red colored lamps on or near

the black body locus would not be

considered colored.

Since an incandescent lamp creates

light by heating a filament "white hot,"

some lightly tinted incandescent lamps

lie very near the black body curve on

the x-y chromaticity diagram. The

Department believes that the x-y

chromaticity definition of colored lamps

will apply to nearly all colored lamps

with a few significant exceptions. Very

lightly tinted incandescent lamps, such

as jeweler's blue and plant grow lamps,

may not meet the colored lamp

definitions as they are currently

proposed. NEMA recommends an

exemption for colored incandescent

plant lamps because there is a filter in

these lamps which affects the yellow

and green parts of the spectrum. NEMA

also suggests that DOE require

manufacturers provide a generic

description of a plant lamp's features

and require that these lamps be

marketed and designated for plant

lighting applications. In addition to the

above, GE Lighting proposes to add that

colored lamps are not suitable for

general lighting applications. Therefore,

the Department is considering an

additional criteria in the definition of

colored incandescent lamps that would

require application specific

incandescent colored lamps to be

designated as such on the lamp and in

marketing materials.

Additionally, Durotest has urged the

Department to provide an explicit

exemption for neodymium lamps

because they claim that the color is

doped directly into the glass bulb.

Therefore, the Department is

considering specifying that

incandescent lamps with lens filters

containing 5 percent or more

neodymium are colored lamps. The

neodymium filter adjusts the light

spectrum for reptile lighting

applications.

4. Public Meeting Procedure

At the public meeting, DOE will seek

discussion of the points discussed in

this notice. Should any party wish to

raise any other matter addressed in the

Interim Final or Proposed Rules, they

should so notify DOE by February 29,

1996.

The meeting will be conducted in an

informal, conference style. A court

reporter will be present to record the

minutes of the meeting. There shall be

no discussion of proprietary

information, costs or prices, market

shares, or other commercial matters

regulated by antitrust law. After the

meeting and period for written

statements, the Department will

consider the views presented in

formulating a Final Rule regarding

fluorescent and incandescent lamp test

procedures.

Issued in Washington, DC, February 22,

1996.

Brian T. Castelli,

Chiefof Staff Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 96-4512 Filed 2-27-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 261

[Docket No. R-0917]

Rules Regarding Availability of

Information

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System (Board) is

proposing technical amendments to its

Rules Regarding Availability of

Information (Information Rules). The

Board's review of the Information Rules

has been conducted in accordance with

section 303 of the Riegle Community

Development and Regulatory

Improvement Act of 1994. The proposed

amendments clarify certain provisions

of the Rules and simplify the processing

of requests for access to information in

certain circumstances. More

specifically, the Board's proposed

changes would conform the language of

EE-RM-94-220-IF COMMENT 27A