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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

54809

Vol. 62, No. 204

Wednesday, October 22, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 966 and 980

[Docket No. FV97–966–1 PR]

Tomatoes Grown in Florida and

Imported Tomatoes; Reopening of

Comment Period on Changing

Minimum Size and Size Designation

Requirements

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Reopening of the comment

period.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the comment period on proposed

changes in the minimum size and size

designation requirements for Florida

and imported tomatoes is reopened

until November 5, 1997.

DATES: Comments must be received by

November 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this proposal. Comments

must be sent in triplicate to the Docket

Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, room 2525–S, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456,

Fax: (202) 720–5698. All comments

should reference the docket number and

the date and page number of this issue

of the Federal Register and will be

available for public inspection in the

Office of the Docket Clerk during regular

business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Kelhart, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, F&V, AMS,

USDA, room 2525–S, P.O. Box 96456,

Washington, DC 20090–6456;

Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

720–5698. Small businesses may request

information on compliance with this

proposed regulation by contacting: Jay

Guerber, Marketing Order Information

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

Telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

720–5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposed rule was issued on October 2,

1997, and published in the Federal

Register (62 FR 52047; October 6, 1997).

The proposed rule would increase the

minimum diameter size requirement for

Florida and imported tomatoes from

28⁄32 inches to 29⁄32 inches. For Florida

tomatoes alone, the rule would change

the size designations from Medium,

Large, Extra Large to numeric size

designations of 6 × 7, 6 × 6, and 5 × 6.

The proposal also would slightly

increase the diameter size ranges for the

designated sizes. The comment period

ended October 16, 1997.

The Secretaria de Comericio Y

Fomento Industrial (SECOFI) of Mexico

requested that additional time be

provided for interested persons to

comment on the proposed rule. SECOFI

stated that U.S. tomato imports from

Mexico have accounted for over 30

percent of U.S. consumption during the

marketing order season, on average, over

the past 10 years, and that the proposed

measures would have a direct and

important impact on Mexican producers

and exporters. SECOFI further stated

that it first became aware of the

proposal only after it was published in

the Federal Register, and that Mexican

producers were not given advance

notice and allowed to prepare for the

possible change. The request indicated

that immediate implementation of the

proposal could seriously disrupt

Mexican exports.

SECOFI also pointed out that Article

1802 of the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA) requires that

proposed regulatory measures affecting

trade be published in advance, and that

interested persons and the NAFTA

country governments be provided a

‘‘reasonable opportunity’’ to comment

on those proposed measures. SECOFI

indicated that the 10-day time limit did

not give a ‘‘reasonable opportunity’’ for

comments, and requested that the

comment period be extended for 60

additional days.

Providing an additional 60 days for

comments would delay the final

decision on these proposed measures

until January of 1998. This is not

acceptable because these measures, if

adopted, should apply to as much of the

1997–98 domestic and import shipping

seasons as possible. The Florida tomato

industry has just begun harvesting,

packing, and shipping 1997–98 season

tomatoes, while Mexico exports to the

U.S. each month of the year, with the

most significant shipping period starting

in mid-December.

Article 909.1(a) of NAFTA generally

requires at least a 60-day notice period

prior to the adoption or modification of

a technical regulation, but, for a

technical regulation relating to

perishable goods, a 30-day notice prior

to adoption of a regulation can be used.

After reviewing the situation, and in

accordance with NAFTA, the

Department is reopening the comment

period for 20 additional days or until

November 5, 1997. This will provide

interested persons a total of 30 days to

review the proposed rule, perform a

more complete analysis, and submit any

written comments.

This delay should not substantially

add to the time required to complete

this rulemaking action. Accordingly, the

period in which to file written

comments is reopened until November

5, 1997. This notice is issued pursuant

to the Agricultural Marketing

Agreement Act of 1937.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

Dated: October 17, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable

Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–28020 Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE–DET–97–550]

RIN 1904–AA85

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Determination

Concerning the Potential for Energy

Conservation Standards for Electric

Distribution Transformers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of Determination.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE or the Department) has
54810 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

determined, based on the best

information currently available, that

energy conservation standards for

electric distribution transformers are

technologically feasible, economically

justified and would result in significant

energy savings. This determination

initiates the process of establishing, by

notice and comment rulemaking, test

procedures and energy conservation

standards for this product.

ADDRESSES: Copies of ‘‘Guide for

Determining Energy Efficiency for

Distribution Transformers’’ (NEMA

Standards Publication TP 1–1996),

‘‘Determination Analysis of Energy

Conservation Standards for Distribution

Transformers, ORNL–6847,’’ and

‘‘Supplement to the Determination

Analysis (ORNL–6847) and Analysis of

the NEMA Efficiency Standard for

Distribution Transformers, ORNL–

6925,’’ are available in the DOE

Freedom of Information Reading Room,

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1E–190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC, 20585, (202) 586–6020,

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathi Epping, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, Mail Station

EE–43, Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202)

586–7425, FAX: (202) 586–4617,

email: kathi.epping@hq.doe.gov.

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

Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Mail Station GC–72, Forrestal

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585–3410,

(202) 586–9507, email:

edward.levy@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Rulemaking Procedures

C. Background

II. Discussion of ORNL Reports

A. Purpose and Content

B. Methodology

C. Conservation Cases

1. Base Case

2. Lowest Total Owning Cost (TOC) Case

3. Median Total Owning Cost (TOC) Case

4. Average Losses Case

5. High-Efficiency Case

D. Voluntary Programs

1. NEMA–TP–1 Guide

2. National Business Awareness Campaign

III. Conclusion

A. Determination

B. Future Proceedings

I. Introduction

A. Authority

The National Energy Conservation

Policy Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95–619,

amended the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act (EPCA) to add a Part

C to Title III, which established an

energy conservation program for certain

industrial equipment. The most recent

amendments to EPCA, in the Energy

Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102–486,

(EPACT) included amendments that

expanded Title III of EPCA to include

certain commercial water heaters and

heating and air-conditioning equipment,

incandescent and fluorescent lamps,

electric motors and electric distribution

transformers.

Among these amendments is section

124(a) of EPACT, which amended

section 346 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6317, to

provide that the Secretary of Energy

must prescribe testing requirements and

energy conservation standards for those

distribution transformers for which the

Secretary determines that standards

‘‘would be technologically feasible and

economically justified, and would result

in significant energy savings.’’ 42 U.S.C.

6317(a). Section 346 was also amended

to require the Secretary, within six

months after prescribing energy

conservation standards for distribution

transformers, to prescribe labeling

requirements for such transformers.

Section 346 requires the Department

to make a determination that standards

for transformers are technologically

feasible and economically justified, and

would save significant amounts of

energy, before the Department initiates

the process for promulgating test

procedures and specific standards. The

section could be read as providing that

once this initial determination is made,

there is no further consideration of

technological feasibility, economic

justification, or energy savings, and that

the Department must proceed to adopt

standards. Such an interpretation,

however, would be inconsistent with

the approach in other provisions of

EPCA, and would be impractical. It is

inconsistent, for example, with section

325(o) of EPCA, under which economic

justification is addressed after specific

standards have been proposed, based on

a detailed evaluation with respect to one

or more specific standards. It is

impractical because, even if one or more

design options has the potential for

achieving energy savings, a

determination that such savings could

in fact be achieved cannot be made

without first having developed test

procedures to measure the energy

efficiency of transformer designs, and

then conducting an in-depth analysis of

each design option. Such analysis might

show that no standard meets all three of

the prescribed criteria: i.e.,

technologically feasible, economically

justified and significant energy savings.

For these reasons, the Department

construes section 346 as requiring it to:

(1) Determine based upon the best

information available whether standards

for transformers would be

‘‘technologically feasible and

economically justified, and would result

in significant energy savings,’’ and (2) if

energy conservation standards appear to

be warranted under these criteria, to

prescribe test procedures and conduct a

rulemaking concerning such standards.

During the standards rulemaking, the

Department would describe whether

and at what level(s) to promulgate

standards. This decision would be based

on in-depth consideration, with public

participation, of the technological

feasibility, economic justification, and

energy savings of potential standard

levels. Thus, the initial determination

made today that standards are

warranted under the criteria specified in

section 346(a) would in effect be

reviewed during the rulemaking

process, based on more complete

information than is currently available

as to whether those criteria are met.

B. Rulemaking Procedures

EPCA, which provides rulemaking

procedures for the promulgation of test

procedures and standards for appliances

and commercial equipment, is

ambiguous as to whether these

procedures apply to rulemakings on test

procedures and standards for

transformers. For the reasons discussed

below, the Department will nonetheless

use these procedures in conducting the

test procedure and standards

rulemakings for transformers.

In conducting rulemakings on all

subjects, the Department must, at a

minimum, adhere to the procedures

required by the Administrative

Procedure Act and section 501 of the

Department of Energy Organization Act

(DOE Organization Act), 42 U.S.C. 7191.

Section 501 in essence requires the

following: (1) Issuance of a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NOPR), (2) an

opportunity for comment, (3) an

opportunity for presentation of oral

comments, if there exists ‘‘a substantial

issue of fact or law’’ or if the rule will

have a ‘‘substantial impact,’’ and (4)

publication of the final rule

accompanied by appropriate

explanation. Pursuant to E.O. 12662, the

comment period must be at least 75

days.

With respect to test procedures for

transformers, the Department has
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54811

decided to use the same rulemaking

procedures it uses under Part B of

EPCA, and for other equipment covered

under Part C. Thus, in addition to the

generic procedural requirements

described above, the Department will

provide an opportunity for oral

comment (i.e., hold a hearing) on all

proposed test procedures, regardless of

the ‘‘substantial issue’’ or ‘‘substantial

impact’’ criteria, as is done in other

EPCA test procedure rulemakings. See,

e.g., EPCA section 323(b)(2), 42 U.S.C.

6293(b)(2). Hearings have been useful in

promulgating test procedures in the

appliance program, and a hearing can

help to identify issues that should be

addressed and points that should be

amplified in the written comments. In

addition, permitting oral as well as

written comments will maximize the

opportunity for interested parties to

express their views on the proposed

rule. This should give greater assurance

of the validity and feasibility of the final

test procedure that the Department

adopts.

As to energy conservation standards,

for most other products covered by

EPCA, EPCA requires the Department to

take supplemental steps in

promulgating standards, including the

following, that are not required by the

Administrative Procedural Act or the

DOE Organization Act:

1. An advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANOPR) must be issued,

followed by a 60-day comment period;

2. The notice of proposed rulemaking

(NOPR) must set forth the maximum

efficiency improvement that is

technologically feasible and, if the proposed

standard does not achieve this level, an

explanation of why; and

3. A hearing must be held following

issuance of the NOPR, regardless of the

‘‘substantial issue’’ or ‘‘substantial impact’’

criteria.

EPCA sections 325(p), 336(a), and

345(a), 42 U.S.C. 6295(p), 6306(a), and

6317(a). The Department also has a

policy, in conducting rulemakings on

appliance standards, to allow 75 days

for comment on the ANOPR (rather than

the 60 days required by EPCA), with at

least one public hearing or workshop

during this period. Procedures for

Consideration of New or Revised Energy

Conservation Standards for Consumer

Products, 61 FR 36974, (July 15, 1996)

(the ‘‘Interpretive Rule’’).

The first sentence of section 345(a)

could be interpreted as requiring the

Department to employ these EPCA

procedures in developing standards on

transformers. In any case, the

Department has decided it will employ

the foregoing procedures set forth in

EPCA and the Interpretive Rule. It will

do so in part for the same reasons it will

use EPCA procedures to promulgate

transformer test procedures. These

reasons include: (1) EPCA procedures

have worked well in the appliance

program, and (2) they will provide

enhanced the opportunity for public

comment, thereby helping to improve

the quality of the final rules. In

addition, the Department has never

developed efficiency standards for a

product such as distribution

transformers. Therefore, the Department

believes that the development of

transformer standards will benefit from

enhanced opportunities for public

participation during the standards

development process. Such

participation can best be achieved if the

Department employs the full range of

procedures used in its program to set

efficiency standards.

C. Background

After the passage of EPACT, the

Department contracted with the Oak

Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to

conduct a study to obtain data and assist

the Department in making a

determination as to whether standards

for distribution transformers are

warranted. ORNL developed and

published a report, entitled

‘‘Determination Analysis of Energy

Conservation Standards for Distribution

Transformer, ORNL–6847’’ which was

based on information from annual sales

data, average load data, and surveys of

existing and potential transformer

efficiencies that were obtained from

several organizations.

In the ORNL analysis, transformers

with a primary voltage of 480 V to 35

kV and a secondary voltage of 120 to

480 V are defined as distribution

transformers. This definition is

consistent with ANSI/IEEE C57.12.80–

1978 (subsection 2.3.1.1), which defines

a distribution transformer as ‘‘a

transformer for transferring electrical

energy from a primary distribution

circuit to a secondary distribution

circuit or consumer’s service circuit.’’

Typical utility primary distribution

voltages in the U.S. range from 5 kV to

35 kV medium-voltage classes, and

typical primary consumers’ services are

480 V or higher; thus the total primary

voltage range is 480 V to 35 kV. Typical

secondary voltages in the U.S. range

from 120 to 480 V. ANSI/IEEE

C57.12.80–1978 indicates that

distribution transformers usually have a

rated capacity in the order of 5 –500

kVA. However, ANSI/IEEE C57.12.26–

1993 defines pad-mounted distribution

transformers as transformers with a

rated capacity 2500 kVA or lower, with

primary voltages of 34,500 V (35 kV

class) or lower and secondary voltages

of 480 V or lower. The ORNL analysis

considered rated capacities ranging from

of 10 to 2500 kVA for liquid-immersed

transformers, because most

manufacturers no longer produce units

smaller than 10 kVA. For dry-type

transformers a rated capacity range of

0.25 to 2500 kVA was considered;

comments from manufacturers indicate

that this range covers nearly all the U.S.

dry-type transformer market, although

the bulk of that market is in the range

of 10 to 2500 kVA. The ORNL analysis

did not consider transformers which are

not continuously connected to a power

distribution system as a distribution

transformer. For example, transformers

that are part of machinery which are

switched off from electrical power were

considered by the study as a component

of the machinery’s circuit and not part

of the power distribution circuit. Also,

special-purpose control and signal

transformers, as well as bulk power

transformers, were excluded from

consideration because they are not

classified as distribution transformers.

In the Department’s view, the term

‘‘distribution transformer’’ in section

346 of EPCA means all transformers

with a primary voltage of 480 V to 35

kV, a secondary voltage of 120 V to 480

V, and a capacity of either 10 to 2500

kVA for liquid-immersed transformers

or 0.25 kVA to 2500 kVA for dry-type

transformers, except for transformers

described in the foregoing three

sentences. This definition encompasses

the transformers considered in the

ORNL analysis.

ORNL collected data from the

following organizations and sources:

The American National Standards

Institute (ANSI), Department of

Commerce (DOC), Department of Energy

(DOE), Edison Electric Institute (EEI),

Institute of Electrical and Electronics

Engineers (IEEE), National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA),

North American Electric Reliability

Council (NAERC), Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), various

books and phone conversations with

interested parties. In addition, the

ORNL report used data from a survey

developed by ORNL and circulated by

NEMA to NEMA and non-NEMA

manufacturers, to obtain no-load losses,

load losses and selling prices of various

sizes and types of distribution

transformers. Data from these surveys

and other relevant information were

used in the report to show the potential

energy savings of various conservation

case studies such as: (1) Lowest Total
54812 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Total Owning Cost is a capitalized value that

permits the first cost of the transformer to be

compared to the lifetime cost. The capitalized

values can be converted to the equivalent

discounted present values of the life-cycle costs by

multiplying by the ratio of the fixed charge rate over

the capital recovery factor. This information can be

used to more accurately assess the tradeoffs

between transformer first costs and operating costs,

and allow the purchaser to compare the total costs

of transformers with different energy efficiency

levels.

Owning Cost (TOC)1 Case, (2) Median

TOC Case, (3) Average Losses Case, (4)

High-Efficiency Case, and (5) Two-Year

Payback Case. The last of these, the

Two-Year Payback Case, was not

derived from the survey. Rather, a

manufacturer developed this case

during peer review of the report by

using a combination of price and design

losses, with the objective of achieving a

two-year payback based on typical

transformer operation and electricity

rates. The efficiency levels used to

define the conservation cases are based

on responses from surveys completed by

manufacturers.

Two peer reviews of the drafts of the

report were performed by ORNL. The

ORNL peer review consisted of 22

reviewers, including representatives of

distribution transformer manufacturers,

metal manufacturers, research

institutions/laboratories, private as well

as municipal electric utilities,

manufacturer associations, metal

associations, and energy conservation

groups. After the comments from

stakeholders were incorporated into the

draft, the report (ORNL–6847) was

published in July 1996. The information

contained in this report assisted the

Department in making this

determination on the feasibility and

significance of energy savings for

distribution transformers.

In September 1996, shortly after

publication of the ORNL report, the

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association (NEMA) developed and

published a voluntary guide entitled

‘‘Guide for Determining Energy

Efficiency for Distribution

Transformers’’ (NEMA Standards

Publication TP 1–1996, referred to

‘‘NEMA TP–1’’) to help purchasers

choose more efficient distribution

transformers. The NEMA TP–1 is

intended to give manufacturers a

vehicle to promote the use of high

efficiency transformers and to assist

purchasers/users in the selection of

energy efficient transformers. NEMA

TP–1 offers a simplified methodology to

help users of utility (liquid-immersed)

and commercial/industrial (dry-type)

transformers to understand and

calculate the equivalent first cost of core

and load losses. It also offers an

alternative method to users who would

rather use tables of minimum

efficiencies based on transformer kVA

size, voltage considerations, and type

(liquid-immersed or dry-type).

Subsequently, the Department

determined that the initial estimate,

reflected in the initial ORNL report, of

the market size for dry-type

transformers was too high. In addition,

it was determined that the effective

annual loads for liquid-immersed

transformers were also too high.

Consequently, ORNL re-analyzed the

energy savings using a more accurate

disaggregated model including data for

all types and sizes of transformers. This

data had not been available for the

original ORNL study. Furthermore, the

manufacturer that developed the twoyear payback case advised ORNL that

the actual payback will likely be

substantially longer than 2 years due to

higher than anticipated manufacturing

costs. The two-year payback case was

eliminated from the analysis because of

this misestimation of cost and because

this case is no longer necessary due to

the addition of the TP–1 case. A

description of the new data and model,

ORNL’s re-analysis, and an analysis of

NEMA TP–1 are set forth in a second

report, entitled ‘‘Supplement to the

‘Determination Analysis’ (ORNL–6847)

and Analysis of the NEMA Efficiency

Standard for Distribution Transformers,

ORNL–6925’’. The purpose of this

report is to assess NEMA TP–1 along

with the options considered in the

determination study, using the more

accurate analysis model and transformer

market and loading data developed

subsequent to the publication of the

original ORNL report.

Data and comments received from

stakeholders during the peer review of

the initial ORNL report have been

considered in preparing this

determination and will be more fully

considered during all actions taken by

the Department when proceeding with

the rulemaking process to consider

conservation standards for distribution

transformers. Results of the energy

savings analyses of the ORNL reports

will be discussed in detail in the

following sections of this determination

notice.

II. Discussion of ORNL Reports

A. Purpose and Content

ORNL assisted the Department by

studying the feasibility of achieving

potential energy savings that could

result from energy conservation

standards for distribution transformers.

The potential energy savings presented

in the ORNL reports are preliminary

estimates. Subsequent analyses will be

performed after test procedures are

established. These analyses will involve

more exact, detailed information which

will be developed during the standards

rulemaking process, and will cover the

effects of energy conservation standards

for distribution transformers.

B. Methodology

The study methodology consisted of

four major elements: (1) Development of

a database, (2) development of

conservation options, (3) assessments of

the energy conservation options, and (4)

incorporation of feedback from

stakeholders. The following is a brief

description of each element:

• Database development. Collecting

and processing data was a major part of

the study. Data on transformer designs,

losses, and sales were provided by

NEMA and individual manufacturers.

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the

American Public Power Association

(APPA), and selected utilities provided

utility user information. The database

includes the results of a survey

circulated by EEI and APPA to their

member utilities. User information on

dry-type transformers was provided by

the American Institute of Plant

Engineers. In addition, the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission’s Form

1, Energy Information Administration

data and trade journals were used. The

basic information included historical

information on user purchases, and

costs and losses of new transformers for

the various options considered in the

study. Information on transformer

loading factors was obtained from

discussions with transformer

manufacturers, utilities, and surveys of

commercial and industrial users.

• Development of energy

conservation options. Technically

feasible energy conservation cases for

distribution transformers were based on

results of a survey circulated by NEMA,

and other information provided by nonNEMA transformer manufacturers.

• Assessments. The technical analysis

provided estimates of appropriate

transformer loading factors, losses, and

energy savings for the energy

conservation cases.

• Stakeholders input. A distribution

transformer review group consisting of

manufacturers, users, material

suppliers, and public interest groups

was formed to provide data, and to

review the study (see Appendix A of the

initial ORNL report). Input from these

stakeholders was incorporated in the

report.

Much of the data on losses associated

with cost-effective transformer designs

used in this study are from a survey of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54813

transformers, called the NEMA-ORNL

survey, developed by ORNL and

circulated by NEMA to its members and

several non-NEMA manufacturers.

Utilities usually request that

manufacturers submit bids for the

lowest TOC transformer that they can

design by specifying the transformer

features and their A and B factors. The

NEMA-ORNL survey took this

approach. It included what were

believed to be the most common

features that would be requested for

each size and price for the lowest TOC

transformer they could design. The

survey requested that manufacturers

reveal the transformer design that had

the lowest TOC in terms of core losses

or no load losses (A factor), coil losses

or load losses (B factor), and transformer

price. While both A and B factors reflect

the capitalized cost of losses, they differ

in their cost per watt rates for two

reasons. First, a watt of core loss

represents a continuous loss that occurs

whenever a transformer is energized,

which is normally 100 percent of the

time for most distribution transformers.

This continuous loss of energy increases

the cost per rated watt of core loss

compared with the rated watt of coil

loss, which occurs only while power is

drawn through the transformer. The

second reason for the difference in rate

for A and B factors is the cost of energy

associated with the losses. Load losses

are proportionally higher during peak

periods when the per unit cost of

producing electricity is relatively high.

Three combinations of A and B factors

were requested in the survey. The

combinations of A/B factors requested

were as follows:

1. A/B=$0/$0, which represents nonevaluated transformers. In the $0/$0

design, only the first cost is considered,

and the price of the transformer is used

as the TOC value (i.e., the value of

losses is not included in the purchase

decision). This design was requested in

the survey to establish a baseline

efficiency for non-evaluated distribution

transformers.

2. A/B=$3.50/$2.25, with the B factor

of $2.25 per watt representing a

transformer with a relatively high

average load.

3. A/B=$3.50/$0.75, with the B factor

of $0.75 per watt representing a

transformer with a normal to low

average load while the A factor remains

fixed at $3.50 per watt.

Twelve transformer sizes—six liquidimmersed and six dry-type—were

surveyed:

Liquid-immersed transformers

1. Single-phase 25-kVA pole-mounted

2. Single-phase 50-kVA pole-mounted

3. Single-phase 50-kVA pad-mounted

4. Three-phase 150-kVA pad-mounted

5. Three-phase 750-kVA pad-mounted

6. Three-phase 2000-kVA padmounted

Dry-type transformers

7. Single-phase 1-kVA

8. Single-phase 10-kVA

9. Three-phase 45-kVA

10. Three-phase 1500-kVA

11. Three-phase 2000-kVA

12. Three-phase 2500-kVA

There were 216 transformer designs

submitted for the 12 different types of

transformers. Each type had at least

three designs for each of the three A and

B combinations. Eight designs for each

of the three A and B combinations were

submitted for the liquid-immersed 25-

kVA pole, 50-kVA pole, and 50-kVA

pad-mounted transformers.

Conservation cases were developed to

determine if efficiency standards are

warranted for distribution transformers.

These cases were based on an economic

methodology that is widely used by

electric utilities in their purchase of

distribution transformers: the TOC (total

owning cost) methodology which

considers the life cycle cost of owning

a transformer. It finds the economically

optimal tradeoff between the

transformer’s capital cost and its

operating cost. The TOC methodology is

neutral with respect to the technology

and materials utilized in the

transformer. It is a different approach

from conservation based standards that

are developed through explicitly

considering energy efficient

technologies.

For transformers, the technologies

applied to alter the losses, and hence

efficiencies, are very interactive and

involve multiple variables, such as

operating current density, flux density,

geometric ratios and electrical

insulation. For example, reducing noload losses by using lower loss core

materials generally requires an

alteration of flux density and core/coil

dimensions, which may or may not

lower load losses. Hence, the ORNL

reports used the TOC approach to allow

for this interaction of design parameters

in an optimal manner.

The TOC approach allows a utility to

purchase the optimum distribution

transformer for the particular set of

energy costs and operating

characteristics that are anticipated over

the transformer’s life. The TOC

approach has led to significant increases

in utility transformer efficiencies since

it became widespread in the mid-1970’s.

Because the methodology is neutral

with respect to transformer technologies

and materials, it leads to choosing

transformers that take advantage of any

opportunities to economically improve

transformer efficiencies.

The TOC approach was used in

developing the conservation cases

discussed in the ORNL reports. The first

step in developing these conservation

cases was selection of parameters that

define the value of energy losses over a

transformer’s life. As previously

explained, the TOC methodology hinges

on the development of the A and B

factors which represent the expected

lifetime value per watt of a transformer’s

rated full load losses using the following

formula:

TOC=price+(no-load losses × A)+(load

losses × B)

A second key for developing these

cases was selection of the low-TOC

designs for the selected A and B values.

During a typical transformer bid

process, a buyer submits its required

technical specifications and A and B

values to a manufacturer. The

manufacturer considers many

transformer designs that meet the

buyer’s technical specifications with

various load losses, no-load losses, and

prices. From this large number of

designs and costs, the manufacturer

submits a selection of very low TOC

designs for the buyer’s consideration.

The survey of manufacturers requested

information on their lowest TOC

designs for the selected A and B factors.

The losses and prices for each

transformer manufacturer’s lowest TOC

design were used along with the utility

surveys to develop the database. The

database was used to develop the

conservation cases for the determination

study: The base case, the lowest TOC

case, the median TOC case, the average

losses case, and the high-efficiency case.

The base case consisted of data on nonevaluated dry-type transformers and

recent utility purchases of liquidimmersed transformers. The average

losses case was developed by averaging

losses from the three lowest TOC

designs for each transformer size and

type. A description of the conservation

cases and their weighted efficiencies are

presented in Table 1.

Amorphous-core transformer designs

were excluded from two of the

conservation cases, the lowest TOC case

and the median TOC case. This

exclusion does not imply that

amorphous-core transformers are not

economical for the A and B factors used

in the study. Rather the rationale for

excluding the amorphous-core

transformers was to develop moderately

high-efficiency cases that do not depend

on a particular technology.
54814 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1.—THE CONSERVATION CASES, PLUS THE NEMA TP–1 CASE, LISTED IN ORDER OF WEIGHTED EFFICIENCIES

Case Description

Case efficiency weighted by sales a

(%)

Base ........................... Existing mix of transformers ........................................................................................................................ 98.40

NEMA TP–1 ............... A voluntary efficiency guide ........................................................................................................................ 98.59

Median TOC .............. Efficiency of the transformer with the median TOC design according to a survey of manufacturers b ...... 98.68

Average losses .......... Efficiency corresponding to the average full-load and no-load losses for the three most cost-effective

transformers according to a survey of manufacturers b.

98.81

Lowest TOC ............... Efficiency of the most cost-effective transformer according to a survey of manufacturers b ...................... 98.88

High-efficiency ........... Efficiency corresponding to highest efficiency according to a survey of manufacturers b .......................... 99.21

aThe case efficiencies were recalculated by ORNL for this notice and are also set forth in the supplemental ORNL report.

b Distribution transformer manufacturers were asked to submit their lowest TOC designs corresponding to economic parameters developed to

represent the nation.

Three of the conservation cases were

based on the transformer manufacturers’

minimum TOC designs. Use of different

criteria to select from among the

submitted designs provides a range of

cost-effective transformer designs with

different efficiencies. Estimates of the

potential energy that could be saved if

distribution transformers were more

energy-efficient were developed for the

conservation cases. Each conservation

case is based on maximum load and noload losses for the 12 sizes and types

that were used to represent all new

transformers by allocating each design

to a range of transformer sizes. This

approach was used because NEMA

reports transformer sales in categories

that include a range of transformer sizes.

To estimate total annual losses for each

conservation case, the average

transformer losses per kilovolt-ampere

were multiplied by the projected

kilovolt-amperage of transformer sales.

The energy losses (i.e., energy

consumed by the transformer) for each

conservation case were subtracted from

the energy losses for the base case to

provide an estimate of annual savings.

The base case defines energy use for

existing transformer purchasing

practices. Table 2 represents the

possible energy savings results based on

the surveys circulated by NEMA to

several NEMA and non-NEMA

transformer manufacturers.

TABLE 2.—CUMULATIVE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSERVATION CASES

AND NEMA TP–1 a

Conservation case by transformer type

Cumulative

savings,

2004–2034

(quads)

NEMA TP–1:

Liquid ..................................... 0.39

Dry ......................................... 2.12

Total ...................................... 2.51

Median total owning cost

(TOC):

TABLE 2.—CUMULATIVE ENERGY SAVINGS FOR CONSERVATION CASES

AND NEMA TP–1 a—Continued

Conservation case by transformer type

Cumulative

savings,

2004–2034

(quads)

Liquid ..................................... 0.95

Dry ......................................... 2.75

Total ...................................... 3.70

Average losses:

Liquid ..................................... 1.84

Dry ......................................... 3.58

Total ...................................... 5.42

Lowest TOC:

Liquid ..................................... 1.26

Dry ......................................... 5.04

Total ...................................... 6.30

High-efficiency:

Liquid ..................................... 5.52

Dry ......................................... 5.18

Total ...................................... 10.70

aThe energy savings were re-calculated by

ORNL for this notice and are also set forth in

the supplemental ORNL report; these savings

have been revised downward from those estimated in the initial ORNL report.

The savings per kilovolt-ampere and

the projections of estimated megavoltamperage of transformer sales have been

used to estimate the rate of savings in

the first year and cumulative savings

over 30 years if a conservation standard

were enacted. Table 2 assumes that both

utility and non-utility purchases of

transformer capacity will grow by 1.2

percent annually, which is consistent

with low-to-moderate growth energy

scenarios. Sales of liquid-immersed

utility distribution transformers depend

primarily on new housing starts, while

gross private domestic investments

provide a good indicator for the growth

rate of the non-utility (dry-type)

transformer market. Several comments

during the peer review of the initial

ORNL report indicated that higher

growth rates used in the report, such as

2.5% for the dry-type transformer

market, were not realistic for the

distribution transformer industry. The

re-analysis on which Tables 1 and 2 are

based essentially accepts these

comments.

C. Conservation Cases

1. Base Case

Losses for the base case were

estimated from the survey of electric

utilities for evaluated liquid-immersed

transformers (i.e., A and B factors = $0),

and from the survey of manufacturers

for the non-evaluated liquid-immersed

and dry-type transformers (i.e., A factor

= $3.50, and B factor = $2.75 or $0.75).

The percentage of evaluated

transformers was developed from

information provided by transformer

manufacturers. The base case nonevaluated transformers were assumed to

have the average losses that were

reported for the three lowest-priced

transformers for the $0/$0 evaluation in

the NEMA–ORNL survey. It was

assumed that the evaluated transformers

for the base case have the same losses

as transformers that have been recently

purchased by utilities. These losses

were calculated from the average noload and load loss ratings reported in

the EEI–ORNL survey. The weighted

average transformer efficiency for the

base case was calculated at 98.40

percent.

2. Lowest Total Owning Cost (TOC)

Case

The lowest TOC case measures

savings resulting from the use of the

lowest TOC non-amorphous transformer

design for each of the 12 types of

transformers surveyed in the NEMA–

ORNL survey. The potential energy

savings for this conservation case is 6.30

quads over a period of 30 years. Liquidimmersed transformers have a potential

to achieve 1.26 quads in energy savings

and dry-type transformers 5.04 quads.

The weighted average transformer

efficiency for this case was calculated to

be 98.88 percent. The annual energy

savings of this case is equivalent to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54815

constructing a large coal-fired power

plant every four years. Although the

technology required to meet this

conservation case is feasible, some

retooling might be required for

manufacturers of dry-type transformers

to achieve 5.05 quads of savings over a

30 year period. The actual amount and

expenses required of retooling, if any,

will be determined by performing a

manufacturer impact analysis during the

standards rulemaking process.

3. Median Total Owning Cost (TOC)

Case

The median TOC case measures

savings from the design that represents

the median TOC of all submitted

designs for each of the 12 types of

transformers surveyed. The potential

energy savings of this conservation case

is 3.7 quads over a 30 year period.

Liquid-immersed transformers have a

potential to achieve 0.95 quads in

energy savings and dry-type 2.75 quads.

The weighted average transformer

efficiency estimated for this case is

98.68 percent. The technology required

to achieve savings at this level is

feasible and is currently utilized by

manufacturers of liquid and dry-type

transformers. Some retooling might be

required of dry-type manufacturers to

meet this particular conservation case.

Further analysis will examine this issue.

4. Average Losses Case

The average losses case measures the

average losses for the designs with the

three lowest TOC’s for each of the 12

types of transformers that were

evaluated. If high-efficiency amorphouscore designs qualified as one of the

three lowest TOC’s, they were included

in these averages. Because this case

incorporates the losses from several

designs that were averaged, it better

represents the diversity in cost-effective

designs than the other cases. It is more

representative of the transformer market

than the cases that are based on

selecting a single design. It should be

reiterated that the transformer losses

used to represent the average losses case

do not represent the losses of a specific

transformer design. Rather, this case

represents an average of the losses of the

three lowest TOC’s for transformers

submitted for each category in the

survey.

The potential energy savings for this

conservation case is 5.42 quads over a

30 year period. Liquid-immersed

transformers have a potential energy

savings of 1.84 quads and dry-type

transformers 3.58 quads. The weighted

average efficiency level of this

conservation case is 98.81 percent.

Although the technology required to

meet this conservation case is feasible,

retooling might be required for

manufacturers of dry-type transformers

to meet 3.58 quads of energy savings

over a 30 year period. The actual

amount and expense required of

retooling, if any, will be determined by

performing a manufacturer impact

analysis during the standards

rulemaking process.

5. High-Efficiency Case

This case included both amorphous

and non-amorphous core transformer

designs and is represented by the

highest-efficiency design that was

submitted for each of the 12 transformer

types surveyed, regardless of the

technology used to achieve that

efficiency and independent of any

economic evaluation criteria such as

TOC. The weighted average transformer

efficiency for this case is 99.21 percent.

For transformer categories where no

amorphous-core designs were

submitted, the most efficient of the nonamorphous designs was selected.

Although production of amorphouscore transformers may be less processintensive (i.e., manufacturing involves a

smaller number of steps) than that of

oriented silicon steel transformers, it is

very labor-and materials-intensive. The

lack of cost-effective access to this

technology by all manufacturers may

present an economic hardship to both

the transformer manufacturers and end

users.

Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI), General Electric (GE), and Allied

Signal Amorphous Metals hold most of

the U.S. patents for amorphous metal

and amorphous technology. The EPRI

patents are available under licensing

terms and conditions to U.S.

manufacturers. An important patent on

amorphous ribbon manufacturing held

solely by Allied Signal Amorphous

Metals will expire this year. However, a

critical patent on magnetic field

annealing used during transformer core

manufacturing is held by GE and will

not expire until early in the next

century. At present, GE has licensed

Allied Signal Amorphous Metals to

sublicense transformer manufacturers to

use this patent.

If a standard were set at this

conservation case level, the impacts on

existing liquid-immersed transformer

manufacturers that do not produce

amorphous core transformers would

depend on (1) the ease of access to the

technology, (2) the availability of

amorphous core material, (3) the level of

necessary investments, and (4) the

higher transformer selling price.

Because the quantity as well as the cost

of raw materials in this case is higher

than that of oriented silicon steel, the

price of these transformers is typically

20 to 40 percent higher than the price

of silicon steel transformers. The cost of

raw material for amorphous core

transformers is twice that of oriented

silicon steel. These higher costs are due

to the use of ferro-boron, most of which

is imported from Japan, China, and the

United Kingdom. The cost of this

material has decreased during the past

two decades from $140 per pound in

1978 to about $1.50 per pound now. By

comparison, however, the cost of

materials for a non-amorphous core

transformer is considerably lower,

ranging from $0.70 to $1.15 per pound,

depending on the grade of the silicon

steel. Although this conservation case is

technologically feasible, the increased

costs of retooling and of purchasing

amorphous core material as opposed to

less expensive silicon steel appear to be

a potential burden to most

manufacturers. Further analysis during

the rulemaking process will be

performed to determine the potential

costs for manufacturers to meet this

energy conservation level.

This conservation case includes

proprietary amorphous-core technology.

Some comments received during the

peer review expressed concern

regarding the limited access to

amorphous core technology. The

Department recognizes that standards

which effectively limit transformer

designs to a particular technology,

especially if that particular technology

is proprietary, may have adverse

competitive and consumer impacts, and

that such impacts must be carefully

considered in assessing economic

justification.

D. Voluntary Programs

1. NEMA TP–1 Guide

In September 1996, NEMA published

voluntary guidelines, ‘‘Guide for

Determining Energy Efficiency for

Distribution Transformers’’ (NEMA TP–

1), to help purchasers choose energy

efficient distribution transformers.

Developed by NEMA’s Transformer

Committee and approved by

participating manufacturers as a means

to promote the purchase of high

efficiency transformers, the guide

recommends the use of the TOC

methodology to select the most

desirable transformer designs and

provides a table of recommended

efficiency levels for buyers that do not

wish to use the TOC methodology.

NEMA TP–1 is a significant purchase

decision tool. It offers utility

transformer and commercial/industrial

transformer users a simplified method
54816 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules

for determining the equivalent first cost

of transformers with different efficiency

characteristics. This information can be

used by prospective purchasers to more

accurately assess the tradeoffs between

transformer first costs and operating

costs. For those who choose not to use

this method for analyzing the total

operating costs of transformers, NEMA

TP–1 also provides tables of minimum

efficiencies based on transformer kVA

size and voltage.

NEMA TP–1’s impact on energy

savings will depend largely on two

variables: (1) Manufacturer participation

and (2) actual buyer/user purchase

decisions. In the supplemental ORNL

report, the possible energy impacts of

NEMA TP–1 program were analyzed.

ORNL has advised the Department that

the upper bound of energy savings, with

full manufacturer participation and

universal acceptance by transformer

purchasers of the minimum efficiency

levels recommended in the NEMA TP–

1 tables, would approach 2.51 quads

over a 30-year period.

The ORNL analysis concluded that

the efficiency levels recommended in

the NEMA TP–1 tables would produce

roughly a three year payback. The

Department believes that such efficiency

levels would capture the most costeffective energy savings, but may not

capture substantial energy savings that

appear to be economically justified and

technologically feasible.

2. National Business Awareness

Campaign

The National Business Awareness

Campaign was developed by NEMA to

increase awareness of the benefits of

more energy efficient electrical

products, and to promote purchases of

such products. This $1.5 million

campaign, which has been under

development for three years, will be

directed at chief executive officers and

chief financial officers of companies

that purchase or make electrical

products. NEMA is seeking support for

the campaign from energy interest

groups, distributors, energy service

companies, and utilities. NEMA is also

seeking partnerships with governmental

agencies, such as the Environmental

Protection Agency and the Department

of Energy. NEMA plans to launch its

campaign in the June/July time frame of

1997.

The Department seeks to support

NEMA’s campaign and intends to

monitor its effectiveness in increasing

the manufacture and purchase of more

energy efficient electrical products.

III. Conclusion

A. Determination

Based on its analysis of the

information now available, the

Department has determined that energy

efficiency standards for transformers

appear to be technologically feasible

and economically justified, and are

likely to result in significant savings.

Consequently, the Department will

initiate the development of energy

efficiency test procedures and standards

for electric distribution transformers.

All energy conservation cases

discussed in today’s determination

notice are technologically feasible. Data

from the ORNL reports clearly show that

current technologies used in the

transformer market are available to all

manufacturers. These technologies

include increased use of higher grade

silicon steels, copper, aluminum, and

amorphous core materials. The

machinery and tools used to produce

more energy efficient transformers also

appear to be generally available to

manufacturers.

The cases analyzed in the

determination report show that there is

a large potential for energy savings,

especially over a 30-year period: the

Lowest TOC case has the potential to

save 6.30 quads over a 30-year period;

the Median TOC case could save 3.70

quads; and the High-Efficiency case

could save 10.70 quads. The Lowest and

Median TOC cases also demonstrate that

increased efficiency could reduce

significantly the total operating costs

incurred by users of transformers, which

is a strong indication that such

efficiency levels would be economically

justified. It also appears that these

efficiency levels can be achieved

without imposing substantial costs on

manufacturers, thus providing further

indication that they are economically

justified.

Although all of the cases analyzed are

technologically feasible and have

significant energy savings, and at least

two of these cases appear to be

economically justified, it is still

uncertain whether further analyses will

reconfirm these findings. For example,

the Department has not assessed the

potential adverse impacts of a national

standard on manufacturers or individual

categories of users. During the course of

the standards rulemaking process, the

Department will perform an analysis of

the impact of possible standards on

manufacturers, as well as a more

disaggregated assessment of their

possible impacts on users.

The Department supports and

commends NEMA’s initiative to develop

voluntary programs that will promote

the manufacture and purchase of energy

efficient distribution transformers.

Industry-wide support for voluntary

programs, such as NEMA’s TP–1 guide

and the National Business Awareness

Campaign, could result in significant

energy savings that might obviate the

need for Federal regulatory intervention.

Based on the results of the analyses

that have been completed, however, the

Department believes it would be

inappropriate to conclude now that

either NEMA TP–1 or the National

Business Awareness Campaign are

likely to result in savings sufficient to

eliminate the potential of

technologically-feasible and

economically-justified national

standards to achieve significant

additional energy savings. At this time,

the Department does not share NEMA’s

view that the NEMA TP–1 program will

result in efficiency levels that approach

the maximum technologically feasible

and economically justified levels. The

supplemental ORNL report indicated

that the potential energy savings of

NEMA’s TP–1 program is 2.51 quads

over a 30-year period, while the

potential savings from a higher

efficiency level that appears to be both

technologically feasible and

economically justified exceeds 6 quads

over 30 years. Furthermore, based on

ORNL’s analysis of NEMA TP–1, it

appears that many buyers of electric

distribution transformers, especially in

the commercial market (dry-type

transformers), are not likely to

participate in NEMA’s voluntary TP–1

program, so the actual savings are likely

to be below the 2.51 quads estimated.

The Department will reassess the impact

of these voluntary programs during the

rulemaking on standards.

B. Future Proceedings

The Department will begin, therefore,

the process of establishing testing

requirements for distribution

transformers, which it expects will

result in the publication of a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in 1998. During

this rulemaking process, the Department

will consider the draft test procedure

currently being developed through a

joint effort of NEMA and the National

Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST). The Department will schedule a

public hearing and may also hold

workshops to receive comments in

reference to the test procedures.

Publication of a Final Rule containing

test procedures is anticipated during

1999.

The Department will also begin a

proceeding to consider establishment of

conservation standards for distribution

transformers. Throughout the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 1997 / Proposed Rules 54817

rulemaking process, the Department

intends to adhere to the provisions of

the Interpretive Rule, where applicable.

The Department will continue its review

and analysis of the likely effects of

NEMA TP–1 and National Business

Awareness Campaign programs during

the standards rulemaking. There will be

workshops early in the standards

development process to obtain the

views of interested parties on design

options, the conduct of the engineering

and life-cycle cost analyses, and the

expertise needed by the Department to

perform such analyses. During the

rulemaking process, the Department

also intends to reevaluate its

determination that mandatory standards

are technologically feasible and

economically justified, and are likely to

result in significant energy savings. For

example, the Department anticipates

that NEMA will strengthen its efforts to

promote voluntary standards for

distribution transformers and will

submit additional data for the

Department’s review and analysis. The

Department welcomes data

demonstrating the successful market

penetration of NEMA TP–1 and/or the

National Business Campaign. If further

analyses reveal that standards are not

warranted, DOE will revise this

determination and will not proceed to

promulgate standards.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on September

5, 1997.

Joseph J. Romm,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 97–27948 Filed 10–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 52 and 64

[CC Docket No. 92–237; FCC 97–364]

Administration of the North American

Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification

Codes (CICs)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On October 9, 1997, the

Commission released a Further Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM)

addressing carrier identification codes

(CICs). The FNPRM is intended to

obtain comment on issues related to CIC

use and assignment. This FNPRM

contains proposed information

collections subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has

been submitted to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for

review under the PRA. OMB, the

general public, and other Federal

agencies are invited to comment on the

proposed information collections

contained in this proceeding. The

Commission concurrently released a

Order in the same docket.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 24, 1997, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

December 22, 1997. Written comments

by the public on the proposed

information collections are due on

November 24, 1997. Written comments

must be submitted by OMB on the

proposed information collections on or

before December 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Secretary, Room 222, 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554.

In addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the proposed information collections

contained herein should be submitted to

Judy Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the

Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fain—t@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Nightingale, Attorney,

Network Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–2352. For

additional information concerning the

information collections contained in

this FNPRM contact Judy Boley at 202–

418–0214, or via the Internet at

dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

summarizes the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the

matter of Administration of the North

American Numbering Plan, Carrier

Identification Codes (CICs), CC Docket

92–237, adopted October 8, 1997, and

released October 9, 1997. The file is

available for inspection and copying

during the weekday hours of 9 a.m. to

4:30 p.m. in the Commission’s

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M

St., N.W., Washington D.C., or copies

may be purchased from the

Commission’s duplicating contractor,

ITS, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036, phone (202)

857–3800.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This FNPRM contains a proposed

information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites the general public and the OMB

to comment on the information

collections contained in this FNPRM, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Public

and agency comments are due at the

same time as other comments on this

FNPRM; OMB notification of action is

due 60 days from date of publication of

this FNPRM in the Federal Register.

Comments should address: (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Title: Administration of the North

American Numbering Plan, Carrier

Identification Codes (CICs), CC Docket

92–237 (Semi-Annual Access and Usage

Reporting Requirements), adopted

October 8, 1997, and released October 9,

1997.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Title No. of respondents

Est. time per

response

Total annual

burden

1. Incumbent LEC and CIC Assignees Semi-Annual Access and Usage Reporting ........................ 2600 4x2 20,800

2. NANP Administrator Semi-Annual Access and Usage Reporting ................................................. 1 16x2 32

Total Annual Burden: 20,832 hours.

Frequency of Response: Semi-annual.

Estimated costs per respondent: $0.

Needs and Uses: Proposal 1: that

semi-annual access and usage reporting

requirements for Feature Group D CICs

be imposed on all incumbent local

exchange carriers (LECs) and CIC

assignees and that this information be