Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16183 

Date Document ADAMS Accession No./Web link/Federal 

Register citation 

January 28, 1971 ..................... SECY–R–143, ‘‘Amendment to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50—General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants’’.ML072420278. 

July 11, 1967 ............................ General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant Construction Permits.32 FR 10213. 

May 1980 ................................. NUREG–75/087, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety 

Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition.

ML042080088. 

May 2010 ................................. NUREG–0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety 

Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition, Section 

8.2, ‘‘Offsite Power System’’.

ML100740246. 

October 1975 ........................... WASH–1400 (NUREG–75/014), Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.ML072350618. 

June 1988 ................................ NUREG–1032, ‘‘Evaluation of Station Blackout Accidents at Nuclear 

Power Plants, Technical Findings Related to Unresolved Safety 

Issue A–44’’.

Accessible from U. S. Department of Energy’s Information Bridge at http:// 

www.osti.gov/bridge/ 

purl.cover.jsp?purl=/5122568-gvK0cy/ 

5122568.pdf. 

March 21, 1986 ........................ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Station Blackout (10 CFR 50.63) .. 51 FR 9829. 

June 21, 1988, Sept. 22, 1998 Station Blackout (10 CFR 50.63) ........................................................ 53 FR 23203, 63 FR 50480. 

March 27, 2009 ........................ 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) ........................................................................... 74 FR 13969. 

March 23, 2011 ........................ Tasking Memorandum from Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko to the Executive Director for Operations (COMGBJ–11–0002): NRC Actions Following the Events in Japan.ML110950110. 

November 2011 ........................ INPO–11–005, ‘‘Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the 

Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station’’.

ML11347A454. 

March 15, 2011 ........................ PRM–50–96 ........................................................................................ http://www.regulations.gov by searching 

on Docket ID NRC–2011–0069. 

76 FR 26223. 

February 20, 1971 .................... Amendment to 10 CFR Part 50—General Design Criteria For Nuclear Power Plants.36 FR 3256. 

July 6, 1970 .............................. Status Report On General Design Criteria ......................................... ML003726549. 

August 28, 2007 ....................... Appendix A to Part 50—General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power 

Plants.

72 FR 49505. 

April 1, 2002 ............................. Staff Guidance on Scoping of Equipment Relied on to Meet the Requirements of the Station Blackout (SBO) Rule (10 CFR 50.63) 

for License Renewal (10 CFR 54.4(a)(3)).

ML020920464. 

August 28, 2007 ....................... Final Rule: Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear 

Power Plants.

72 FR 49352. 

December 16, 2011 ................. NEI Submittal of An Integrated, Safety-Focused Approach to Expediting Implementation of Fukushima Daiichi Lessons Learned.ML11353A008. 

October 13, 2011 ..................... Initial ACRS Review of: (1) the NRC Near-Term Task Force Report 

on Fukushima and (2) Staff’s Recommended Actions to be Taken 

Without Delay.

ML11284A136. 

August 1988 ............................. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.155, ‘‘Station Blackout’’ ............................. ML003740034. 

November 1987 ........................ ‘‘Guidelines and Technical Bases for NUMARC Initiatives Addressing Station Blackout at Light Water Reactors,’’ NUMARC 8700.ML12074A007. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day 

of March 2012. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

R.W. Borchardt, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6665 Filed 3–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–NOA–0013] 

Energy Conservation Program: Data 

Collection and Comparison With 

Forecasted Unit Sales of Five Lamp 

Types 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is informing the public of 

its collection of shipment data and 

creation of spreadsheet models to 

provide comparisons between actual 

and benchmark estimate unit sales of 

five lamp types (i.e., rough service 

lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way 

incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen 

general service incandescent lamps, and 

shatter-resistant lamps), which are 

currently exempt from energy 

conservation standards. As the actual 

sales do not exceed the forecasted 

estimate by 100 percent for any lamp 

type (i.e., the threshold triggering a 

rulemaking for an energy conservation 

standard for that lamp type has not been 

exceeded), DOE has determined that no 

regulatory action is necessary at this 

time. However, DOE will continue to 

track sales data for these exempted 

lamps. Relating to this activity, DOE has 

prepared, and is making available on its 

Web site, a spreadsheet showing the 

comparisons of anticipated versus 

actual sales, as well as the model used 

to generate the original sales estimates. 

The spreadsheet is available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

five_lamp_types.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email: 

Lucy.Debutts@ee.doe.gov. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16184 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1The Report on the 2008 analysis is available on 

the DOE Web site at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

five_lamp_types_report.pdf. 

2These 2010 spreadsheet models are also 

available on the DOE Web site at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/docs/ 

five_lamp_types_2010_shipment_comparison.xlsx. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Definitions 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

III. Comparison Methodology 

IV. Comparison Results 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

V. Conclusion 

I. Background 

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. 

L. 110–140) was enacted on December 

19, 2007. Among the requirements of 

subtitle B (Lighting Energy Efficiency) of 

title III of EISA 2007 were provisions 

directing DOE to collect, analyze, and 

monitor unit sales of five lamp types 

(i.e., rough service lamps, vibration 

service lamps, 3-way incandescent 

lamps, 2,601–3,300 lumen general 

service incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps). In relevant part, 

section 321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 325(l) of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 

(EPCA) by adding paragraph (4)(B), 

which generally directs DOE, in 

consultation with the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA), to: 

(1) collect unit sales data for each of the 

five lamp types for calendar years 1990 

through 2006 in order to determine the 

historical growth rate for each lamp 

type; and (2) construct a model for each 

of the five lamp types based on 

coincident economic indicators that 

closely match the historical annual 

growth rates of each lamp type to 

provide a neutral comparison 

benchmark estimate of future unit sales. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(B)) Section 

321(a)(3)(B) of EISA 2007 also amends 

section 325(l) of EPCA by adding 

paragraph (4)(C), which, in relevant 

part, directs DOE to collect unit sales 

data for calendar years 2010 through 

2025, in consultation with NEMA, for 

each of the five lamp types. DOE must 

then compare the actual lamp sales in 

that year with the benchmark estimate, 

determine if the unit sales projection 

has been exceeded, and issue the 

findings within 90 days after the end of 

the analyzed calendar year. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(4)(C)). 

On December 18, 2008, DOE issued a 

notice of data availability (NODA) for 

the Report on Data Collection and 

Estimated Future Unit Sales of Five 

Lamp Types (hereafter the ‘‘2008 

analysis’’),1 which was published in the 

Federal Register on December 24, 2008. 

73 FR 79072. The 2008 analysis 

presented the 1990 through 2006 

shipment data collected in consultation 

with NEMA, the spreadsheet model 

DOE constructed for each lamp type, 

and the benchmark unit sales estimates 

for 2010 through 2025. On April 4, 

2011, DOE published a NODA in the 

Federal Register (hereafter the ‘‘2010 

comparison’’) announcing the 

availability of updated spreadsheet 

models presenting the benchmark 

estimates from the 2008 analysis and the 

collected sales data from 2010 for the 

first annual comparison.2 76 FR 18425. 

Today’s NODA presents the second 

annual comparison; specifically, section 

IV of this report compares the actual 

unit sales against benchmark unit sales 

estimates for 2011. 

EISA 2007 also amends section 325(l) 

of EPCA by adding paragraphs (4)(D) 

through (4)(H) which state that if DOE 

finds that the unit sales for a given lamp 

type in any year between 2010 and 2025 

exceed the benchmark estimate of unit 

sales by at least 100 percent (i.e., more 

than double the anticipated sales), then 

DOE must take regulatory action to 

establish an energy conservation 

standard for such lamps. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(4)(D)—(H)) For 2,601–3,300 

lumen general service incandescent 

lamps, DOE must adopt a statutorilyprescribed energy conservation 

standard, and for the other four types of 

lamps, the statute requires DOE to 

initiate an accelerated rulemaking to 

establish energy conservation standards. 

If the Secretary does not complete the 

accelerated rulemakings within one year 

of the end of the previous calendar year, 

there is a ‘‘backstop requirement’’ for 

each lamp type, which would establish 

energy conservation standard levels and 

related requirements by statute. Id. 

As in the 2008 analysis and 2010 

comparison, DOE uses manufacturer 

shipments as a surrogate for unit sales 

in this NODA because manufacturer 

shipment data is tracked and aggregated 

by the trade organization, NEMA. DOE 

believes that annual shipments track 

closely with actual unit sales of these 

five lamp types, as DOE presumes that 

retailer inventories remain constant 

from year to year. DOE believes this is 

a reasonable assumption because the 

markets for these five lamp types have 

existed for many years, thereby enabling 

manufacturers and retailers to establish 

appropriate inventory levels that reflect 

market demand. Furthermore, in the 

long-run, unit sales could not increase 

in any one year without manufacturer 

shipments increasing either that year or 

the following one. In either case, 

increasing unit sales must eventually 

result in increasing manufacturer 

shipments. This is the same 

methodology presented in DOE’s 2008 

analysis and 2010 comparison, and the 

Department did not receive any 

comments challenging this assumption 

or the general approach. 

II. Definitions 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 321(30) of EPCA by 

adding the definition of a ‘‘rough service 

lamp.’’ The statutory definition reads as 

follows: ‘‘The term ‘rough service lamp’ 

means a lamp that—(i) has a minimum 

of 5 supports with filament 

configurations that are C–7A, C–11, C– 

17, and C–22 as listed in Figure 6–12 of 

the 9th edition of the IESNA 

[Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America] Lighting handbook, or 

similar configurations where lead wires 

are not counted as supports; and (ii) is 

designated and marketed specifically for 

‘rough service’ applications, with—(I) 

the designation appearing on the lamp 

packaging; and (II) marketing materials 

that identify the lamp as being for rough 

service.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X)). 

As noted above, rough service 

incandescent lamps must have a 

minimum of five filament support wires 

(not counting the two connecting leads 

at the beginning and end of the 

filament), and must be designated and 

marketed for ‘‘rough service’’ 

applications. This type of incandescent 

lamp is typically used in applications 

where the lamp would be subject to 

mechanical shock or vibration while it 

is operating. Standard incandescent 

lamps have only two support wires 

(which also serve as conductors), one at 

each end of the filament coil. When 

operating (i.e., when the tungsten 

filament is glowing so hot that it emits 

light), a standard incandescent lamp’s 

filament is brittle, and rough service 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16185 

3 ‘‘General service incandescent lamp’’ is defined 

as a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp 

that—(I) Is intended for general service 

applications; (II) has a medium screw base; (III) has 

a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not 

more than 2,600 lumens; and (IV) is capable of 

being operated at a voltage range at least partially 

within 110 and 130 volts. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(D)). 

4The Federal Trade Commission issued the lamp 

labeling requirements in 1994 (see 59 FR 25176 

(May 13, 1994)). Further amendments were made to 

the lamp labeling requirements in 2007 (see 16 CFR 

305.15(b); 72 FR 49948, 49971–72 (August 29, 

2007)). The package must display the lamp’s light 

output (in lumens), energy use (in watts), and lamp 

life (in hours). 

5NSF/ANSI 51 applies specifically to materials 

and coatings used in the manufacturing of 

equipment and objects destined for contact with 

foodstuffs. 

applications could cause it to break 

prematurely. To address this problem, 

lamp manufacturers developed lamp 

designs that incorporate additional 

support wires along the length of the 

filament to ensure that it has support 

not just at each end, but at several other 

points as well. The additional support 

protects the filament during operation 

and enables longer operating life for 

incandescent lamps in rough service 

applications. Typical applications for 

these rough service lamps might include 

commercial hallways and stairwells, 

gyms, storage areas, and security areas. 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 321(30) of EPCA by 

adding the definition of a ‘‘vibration 

service lamp.’’ The statutory definition 

reads as follows: ‘‘The term ‘vibration 

service lamp’ means a lamp that—(i) 

Has filament configurations that are C– 

5, C–7A, or C–9, as listed in Figure 6– 

12 of the 9th Edition of the IESNA 

Lighting Handbook or similar 

configurations; (ii) has a maximum 

wattage of 60 watts; (iii) is sold at retail 

in packages of 2 lamps or less; and (iv) 

is designated and marketed specifically 

for vibration service or vibrationresistant applications, with—(I) the 

designation appearing on the lamp 

packaging; and (II) marketing materials 

that identify the lamp as being vibration 

service only.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA)) 

The statute mentions three examples 

of filament configurations for vibration 

service lamps in Figure 6–12 of the 

IESNA Lighting Handbook, one of 

which (i.e., C–7A) is also listed in the 

statutory definition of ‘‘rough service 

lamp.’’ The definition of ‘‘vibration 

service lamp’’ requires that such lamps 

have a maximum wattage of 60 watts 

and be sold at a retail level in packages 

of two lamps or fewer. Similar to rough 

service lamps, vibration service lamps 

must be designated and marketed for 

vibration service or vibration-resistant 

applications. As the name suggests, this 

type of incandescent lamp is generally 

used in applications where the 

incandescent lamp would be subject to 

a continuous low level of vibration, 

such as in a ceiling fan light kit. In such 

applications, standard incandescent 

lamps without additional filament 

support wires may not achieve the full 

rated life, because the filament wire is 

brittle and would be subject to breakage 

at typical operating temperature. To 

address this problem, lamp 

manufacturers typically use a more 

malleable tungsten filament to avoid 

damage and short circuits between coils. 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 321(30) of EPCA by 

adding the definition of a ‘‘3-way 

incandescent lamp.’’ The statutory 

definition reads as follows: ‘‘The term 

‘3-way incandescent lamp’ includes an 

incandescent lamp that—(i) employs 2 

filaments, operated separately and in 

combination, to provide 3 light levels; 

and (ii) is designated on the lamp 

packaging and marketing materials as 

being a 3-way incandescent lamp.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)(Y)). 

Three-way lamps are commonly 

found in wattage combinations such as 

50, 100, and 150 watts or 30, 70, and 

100 watts. These lamps use two 

filaments (e.g., a 30-watt and a 70-watt 

filament) and can be operated separately 

or together to produce three different 

lumen outputs (e.g., 305 lumens with 

one filament, 995 lumens with the 

other, or 1,300 lumens using the 

filaments together). When used in threeway sockets, these lamps allow users to 

control the light level. Three-way 

incandescent lamps are typically used 

in residential multi-purpose areas, 

where consumers may adjust the light 

level to be appropriate for the task they 

are performing. 

D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

The statute does not provide a 

definition of ‘‘2,601–3,300 Lumen 

General Service Incandescent Lamps’’; 

however, DOE is interpreting this term 

to be a general service incandescent 

lamp 3 that emits between 2,601 and 

3,300 lumens. In this lumen range, the 

wattages of covered general service 

incandescent lamps are between 140 

and 170 watts. Within that range, the 

only commonly made lamp that meets 

other general service incandescent lamp 

criteria is rated at 150 watts. Should 

other rated wattages enter the market 

that fall within this lumen range, they 

will be immediately recognizable 

because as required by the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102–486, 

all general service incandescent lamps 

must be labeled with lamp lumen 

output.4 These lamps are used in 

general service applications when high 

light output is needed. 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

Section 321(a)(1)(B) of EISA 2007 

amended section 321(30) of EPCA by 

adding the definition of a ‘‘shatterresistant lamp, shatter-proof lamp, or 

shatter-protected lamp.’’ The statutory 

definition reads as follows: ‘‘The terms 

‘shatter-resistant lamp,’ ‘shatter-proof 

lamp,’ and ‘shatter-protected lamp’ 

mean a lamp that—(i) has a coating or 

equivalent technology that is compliant 

with [National Sanitation Foundation/ 

American National Standards Institute] 

NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to contain 

the glass if the glass envelope of the 

lamp is broken; and (ii) is designated 

and marketed for the intended 

application, with—(I) the designation on 

the lamp packaging; and (II) marketing 

materials that identify the lamp as being 

shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or 

shatter-protected.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(30)(Z)) Although the definition 

provides three names commonly used to 

refer to these lamps, DOE simply refers 

to them collectively as ‘‘shatter-resistant 

lamps.’’ 

Shatter-resistant lamps incorporate a 

special coating designed to prevent glass 

shards from being strewn if a lamp’s 

glass envelope breaks. Shatter-resistant 

lamps incorporate a coating compliant 

with industry standard NSF/ANSI 51,5

‘‘Food Equipment Materials,’’ and are 

labeled and marketed as shatterresistant, shatter-proof, or shatterprotected. The coatings protect the lamp 

from breakage in applications subject to 

heat and thermal shock that may occur 

from water, sleet, snow, soldering, or 

welding. 

III. Comparison Methodology 

In the 2008 analysis, DOE reviewed 

each of the five sets of shipment data 

that were collected in consultation with 

NEMA and applied two curve fits to 

generate unit sales estimates for the five 

lamp types after calendar year 2006. 

One curve fit applied a linear regression 

to the historical data and extends that 

line into the future. The other curve fit 

applied an exponential growth function 

to the shipment data and projects unit 

sales into the future. For this 

calculation, linear regression treats the 

year as a dependent variable and 

shipments as the independent variable. 

The linear regression curve fit is 

modeled by minimizing the differences 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16186 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6The least squares function is an analytical tool 

that DOE uses to minimize the sum of the squared 

residual differences between the actual historical 

data points and the modeled value (i.e., the linear 

curve fit). In minimizing this value, the resulting 

curve fit will represent the best fit possible to the 

data provided. 

7This selection is consistent with the 2010 

comparison. See DOE’s 2008 forecast spreadsheet 

models of the lamp types for greater detail of the 

estimates. The spreadsheet models are available at: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/docs/ 

five_lamp_types_models.xls. 

among the data points and the best 

curve-fit linear line using the least 

squares function.6 The exponential 

curve fit is also a regression function 

and uses the same least squares function 

to find the best fit. For some data sets, 

an exponential curve provides a better 

characterization of the historical data, 

and, therefore, a better projection of the 

future data. 

For 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601– 

3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE found that the 

linear regression and exponential 

growth curve fits produced nearly the 

same estimates of unit sales (i.e., the 

difference between the two forecasted 

values was less than 1 or 2 percent). 

However, for rough service and 

vibration service lamps, the linear 

regression curve fit projects lamp unit 

sales would decline to zero for both 

lamp types by 2018. In contrast, the 

exponential growth curve fit projected a 

more gradual decline in unit sales, such 

that lamps will still be sold beyond 

2018, and it was, therefore, considered 

the more realistic forecast. While DOE 

would be satisfied that either the linear 

regression or exponential growth 

spreadsheet model would generate a 

reasonable benchmark unit sales 

estimate for 3-way incandescent lamps, 

2,601–3,300 lumen general service 

incandescent lamps, and shatterresistant lamps, DOE is selecting the 

exponential growth curve fit for these 

lamp types for consistency with the 

selection made for rough service and 

vibration service lamps.7 DOE examines 

the benchmark unit sales estimates and 

actual sales for each of the five lamp 

types in the following section and also 

makes the comparisons available in a 

spreadsheet online at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

five_lamp_types.html. 

IV. Comparison Results 

A. Rough Service Lamps 

For rough service lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 6,080,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 6,829,000 rough service 

lamps in 2011. As this finding exceeds 

the estimate by only 12.3 percent, DOE 

will continue to track rough service 

lamp sales data and will not initiate 

regulatory action for this lamp type at 

this time. 

B. Vibration Service Lamps 

For vibration service lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 3,176,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 914,000 vibration service 

lamps in 2011. As this finding is only 

28.8 percent of the estimate, DOE will 

continue to track vibration service lamp 

sales data and will not initiate 

regulatory action for this lamp type at 

this time. 

C. Three-Way Incandescent Lamps 

For 3-way incandescent lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 50,652,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 31,619,000 3-way 

incandescent lamps in 2011. As this 

finding is only 62.4 percent of the 

estimate, DOE will continue to track 3- 

way incandescent lamp sales data and 

will not initiate regulatory action for 

this lamp type at this time. 

D. 2,601–3,300 Lumen General Service 

Incandescent Lamps 

For 2,601–3,300 lumen general 

service incandescent lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 33,913,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 9,878,000 2,601–3,300 

lumen general service incandescent 

lamps in 2011. As this finding is 29.1 

percent of the estimate, DOE will 

continue to track 2,601–3,300 lumen 

general service incandescent lamp sales 

data and will not initiate regulatory 

action for this lamp type at this time. 

E. Shatter-Resistant Lamps 

For shatter-resistant lamps, the 

exponential growth forecast projected 

the benchmark unit sales estimate for 

2011 to be 1,659,000 units. The NEMAprovided shipment data reported 

shipments of 1,210,000 shatter-resistant 

lamps in 2011. As this finding is only 

72.9 percent of the estimate, DOE will 

continue to track shatter-resistant lamp 

sales data and will not initiate 

regulatory action for this lamp type at 

this time. 

V. Conclusion 

None of the shipments for the rough 

service lamps, vibration service lamps, 

3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601–3,300 

lumen general service incandescent 

lamps, or shatter-resistant lamps crossed 

the statutory threshold for a standard. 

DOE will monitor the situation for these 

five currently exempted lamp types and 

will reassess 2012 sales by March 31, 

2013, in order to determine whether 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking is required, consistent with 

42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4)(D)–(H). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 6, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6746 Filed 3–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0269; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–105–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault 

Aviation 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 

Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a report that a passenger 

oxygen pipe at frame 10 was chafing 

against the forward lavatory rear 

structure, raising the risk of the oxygen 

pipe developing a crack. This proposed 

AD would require modifying the routing 

of and, if necessary, replacing, the 

oxygen pipe. We are proposing this AD 

to prevent rupture of the oxygen pipe 

which, in case of a cabin 

depressurization, would impair 

operation of the passenger oxygen 

distribution system. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by May 4, 2012. 

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– 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS