Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 120 /Wednesday, June 23, 1999 /Proposed Rules 33431

annuitant must repay any allotments

paid after the date annuity payments

should have ceased.

(2) If annuity payments are made after

the annuitant's death, OPM will recover

from-

(i) His or her estate; or,

(ii) In an appropriate case, from any

survivor benefits payable based on the

annuitant's service; or

(iii) If there is neither an estate nor a

survivor annuity payable, from the

allottee.

(I) Allotments, except allotments to

large organizations under agreements

established prior to the effective date of

these regulations, may only be made to

a valid electronic-funds-transfer address

established under part 210 of title 31,

Code of Federal Regulations.

[FR Doc. 99-15686 Filed 6-22-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-012-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 432

[Docket Number EE-TP-98-550]

Energy Conservation Program: Test

Procedures for Distribution

Transformers

AGENCY : Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, DOE.

ACTION : Notice of availability of

documents and limited reopening of the

record and opportunity for public

comment

regarding the proposed rule and this Department of Energy (DOE or the

reopening notice no later than July 23, Department) proposed in a Notice of

1999. Proposed Rulemaking ("NOPR" or

ADDRESSES : Please submit 10 copies (no "Notice") to adopt a new regulation, 10

faxes) to: Kathi Epping, U.S. Department CFR Part 432. 63 FR 63360 (November

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 12, 1998). The regulation (the "proposed

and Renewable Energy, "Energy

Conservation Program: Test Procedures

for Distribution Transformers, Docket

No. EE-RM-S-97-700", EE-43, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585-0121. In

addition, the Department requests that

an electronic copy (31/2" diskette) of the

comments on WordPerfectTM 6.1 be

provided.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR

1004.11, any person submitting

information which he or she believes to

be confidential and exempt by law from

public disclosure should submit one

complete copy of the document and ten

(10) copies, if possible, from which the

information believed to be confidential

has been deleted. The Department of

Energy will make its own determination

with regard to the confidential status of

the information and treat it according to

its determination.

Copies of the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association Standard TP

2-1998, "Guide for Determining Energy

Efficiencies for Distribution

Transformers" (NEMA TP 2), the

National Institute of Standards and

Technology Technical Note 1427, "An

Analysis of Efficiency Testing under the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act: A

Case Study with Application to

Distribution Transformers" (NIST TN

1427), and other correspondence related

to this rulemaking are available for

SUMMARY : The Department of Energy

previously published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking to adopt test

procedures for measuring the energy

efficiency of distribution transformers

under the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act, as amended, 42

U.S.C. 6317(a). Since the time that

Notice appeared, the Department has

received documents and comments

containing new information concerning

National Electrical Manufacturers

Association (NEMA) TP 2, the sampling

plan, and transformers to be covered by

the rulemaking. In addition, DOE has

concerns regarding the definition of a

basic model. The Department is

reopening the record of its rulemaking

to provide an opportunity for additional

public comment on the validity of this

new information and its implications

regarding the proposed test procedures

and the policy options now under

consideration by the Department.

DATES: The Department will accept

comments, data, and information

public inspection and copying at the

Freedom of Information Reading Room,

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1E-190, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-3142,

between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00

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, EE-43, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202)

586-7425, email:

Kathi.Epping@ee.doe.gov, or Edward

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

Office of General Counsel, GC-72, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

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

9507, email: Edward.Levy@hq.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : Pursuant

to section 346(a) of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act, as amended

(EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6317(a), the

rule") would include test procedures for

measuring the energy efficiency of

distribution transformers; several

definitions regarding the test procedure,

including the definition of a distribution

transformer and the definition of a basic

model; and a sampling plan for

minimizing test burden. DOE held a

public hearing on January 6, 1999, and

received 9 written comments on the

proposed rule. After reviewing the

hearing transcript and comments, DOE

concluded that a number of significant

issues had been raised that required

additional analysis. These issues

include: (1) the adequacy of stakeholder

opportunity to review NEMA TP 2; (2)

the suitability of NEMA TP 2 to be

adopted as the DOE test procedure; (3)

transformers covered under the

definition of "distribution transformer";

(4) the appropriateness of proposed

sampling plans for demonstrating

compliance; and (5) the suitability of the

definition of "basic model" for the

purpose of grouping transformers to

limit test burden.

1. Availability of Documents

In the Notice, DOE stated it was

proposing incorporation by reference

either ANSI/IEEE standards C57.12.90

and C57.12.91 or NEMA standard TP 2.

In the Notice, the Department stated its

concern over whether TP 2 had

undergone broad-based scrutiny, and

DOE stated that, in order to accept TP

2, DOE would need sufficient evidence

that all users and stakeholders have had

an opportunity to review TP 2. In

comments on the proposed rule, some

stakeholders expressed concern that

they had not been given the opportunity

to Review NEMA TP 2. (ERMCO, No. 13

at 1; Dynapower, No. 17 at 1; and

Howard Industries, No. 18 at 2.) 1

Because the DOE wants to ensure that

all stakeholders have an opportunity to

review TP 2, the Department has sent

copies of NEMA TP 2 to the parties on

its Distribution Transformer Stakeholder

mailing list. In addition, the National

Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) issued Technical Note 1427

entitled "An Analysis of Efficiency

Testing under the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act: A Case Study with

I Comments are identified by company name,

followed by comment number in the docket at page

number. For example, "ERMCO, No. 13 at 1" means

comment number 13, submitted by ERMCO, at page

1. Also note that comment number "11 DD" refers

to the hearing transcript.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 03TT
33432 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 120 /Wednesday, June 23, 1999 /Proposed Rules

Application to Distribution

Transformers." (NIST TN 1427) The

Department has also sent this report,

which analyzes the sampling plans

contained in proposed 10 CFR Part 432

and in NEMA TP 2 and compares them

to each other, to the parties on the

Department's distribution transformer

mailing list. Copies of both NIST TN

1427 and NEMA TP 2 are available for

inspection in the DOE Freedom of

Information Reading Room. For

information and copies of NEMA TP 2,

please contact Anthony Balducci of

NEMA at (703) 841-3245. For copies or

questions on NIST TN 1427, please

contact Ken Stricklett of NIST at (301)

975-3955.

2. NEMA TP 2

On the subject of whether NEMA TP

2 is ready to be adopted as the national

test procedure, the American Council

for an Energy Efficient Economy

(ACEEE) has indicated its support of

NEMA TP 2, provided that both NEMA

and non-NEMA industry representatives

have had sufficient opportunity to

review the standard, and there is wide

support for it among these

representatives. (ACEEE, No. 20 at 1.)

ACEEE and Dynapower, Inc. both

expressed concerns, however, that

NEMA TP 2 may not be appropriate for

all customers. For example, the loading

conditions may not be representative of

all applications. For these reasons,

Dynapower believes further evaluation

is necessary before the final rule is

issued, and ACEEE suggested that DOE

investigate whether a corollary test

procedure to address those transformers

that distribute power to industrial or

large commercial customers may be

necessary in addition to NEMA TP 2.

(Dynapower, No. 17 at 1 and ACEEE,

No. 20 at 1.)

Howard Industries believes having all

the requirements in a single standard is

NEMA TP 2's predominant advantage,

and therefore Howard Industries

tentatively supported the adoption of

NEMA TP 2, pending a more thorough

review. (Howard Industries, No. 18 at 1.)

At the January hearing, ERMCO stated

that it could not comment on NEMA TP

2 at that time, but that it did support the

American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) approval process. (ERMCO, No.

11 DD at 18-23.) At the same hearing,

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) indicated

its preference for ANSI standards. (EEI,

No. 11 DD at 31.)

In its comments on the NOPR, NEMA

indicated that NEMA TP 2 has been

submitted to ANSI's accreditation

standards committee C57 for approval.

NEMA further stated that it anticipated

receiving ballots by the end of March

1999 and resolution of comments

shortly thereafter, and that it should

take approximately sixty days for ANSI

to approve NEMA TP 2. (NEMA, No. 21

at 2.)

Because of the controversy over the

two options delineated in the proposed

rule, the Department invites further

comment on whether DOE should

choose Option 1 (ANSI/IEEE standards

C57.12.90 and C57.12.91) or Option 2

(NEMA TP 2), as described in the

NOPR, for the final rule for test

procedures. The Department also seeks

comment on the subsidiary issue of the

appropriateness of tying adoption of

NEMA TP 2 to ANSI approval.

In addition, the Department wants to

ensure that the test procedures that DOE

adopts are suitable for all distribution

transformers that are being regulated

under the statute. Because DOE is

concerned that the loading factor in the

test procedure may not be appropriate

for all distribution transformers, DOE

would consider the adoption of different

loading factors for different types of

distribution transformers in order to

capture the loadings they typically carry

and more accurately rate the efficiency

level of each. DOE solicits comments on

whether this course of action is

appropriate. If several loading factors

are selected, only the loading factors

used in the calculations would change;

the test procedure would remain the

same. DOE realizes that, in developing

the TP 2 loading factors, NEMA

considered this issue, and the

Department welcomes its comments as

well as those of stakeholders not

represented by NEMA.

3. Definition of Distribution

Transformer

Section 346 of EPCA directs the

Department to address the development

of energy efficiency requirements for

"distribution transformers." The statute

provides no definition for "distribution

transformer." As part of the Notice, the

Department proposed a definition, so as

to delineate the transformers that EPCA

requires to be evaluated for standards

and, therefore, initially subject to the

test procedures.

The definition in the proposed rule is

as follows: "a transformer with a

primary voltage of 480 V to 35 kV, a

secondary voltage of 120 V to 600 V, a

frequency of 55-65 Hz, and a capacity

of either 10 kVA to 2500 kVA for liquidimmersed transformers or 0.25 kVA to

2500 kVA for dry-type transformers,

except for (1) converter and rectifier

transformers with more than two

windings per phase, and (2)

transformers which are not designed to

be continuously connected to a power

distribution system as a distribution

transformer. This second exception

includes regulating transformers,

machine tool transformers, welding

transformers, grounding transformers,

testing transformers, and other

transformers which are not designed to

transfer electrical energy from a primary

distribution circuit, to a secondary

distribution circuit, or within a

secondary distribution circuit, or to a

consumer's service circuit." 63 FR at

63370.

The following are a list of areas of the

definition in which there is

disagreement among stakeholders:

a. Low Voltage Transformers

In oral, as well as written, comments

on the proposed rule, NEMA stated that

the definition of "distribution

transformer" in the proposed rule was

too broad and should not include low

voltage (600 Volts and below)

transformers. (NEMA, No. 21 at 2 and

No. 11 DD at 63.) In NEMA's view, these

low voltage transformers are considered

"general purpose transformers," which

NEMA says are defined as "specialty

transformers," not "distribution

transformers." NEMA quoted the ANSI/

IEEE C57.12.80 definition of

"distribution transformer" as "a

transformer for transferring electrical

energy from a primary distribution

circuit to a secondary distribution

circuit or consumer's service circuit.

NOTE: Distribution transformers are

usually rated in the order of 5-500

kVA." NEMA also noted that the IEEE

Dictionary defines "primary distribution

circuit" as "an alternating current

circuit that supplies the primary of a

distribution transformer from a

generator, a substation, or a distribution

bus." NEMA stated further that the IEEE

Power Engineering Society does not

consider low voltage transformers to be

distribution transformers. However,

NEMA acknowledged that in IEEE

standard 241, the Industry Application

Society (IAS) defines low voltage

transformers as indoor distribution

transformers, but went on to observe

that the IAS consists of transformer

installers, not manufacturers. (NEMA,

No. 21 at 2-4.) Naval Facilities

Engineering Command Atlantic Division

(NAVFAC LANTDIV) indicated support

of NEMA's comments regarding low

voltage transformers. (NAVFAC

LANTDIV, No. 22 at 1.)

Howard Industries commented that it

suspects the definition of distribution

transformer in the NOPR is too broad

and suggested DOE perform a further

review. (Howard Industries, No. 18 at 2-

3.)

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 03TT
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 120/Wednesday, June 23, 1999 /Proposed Rules 33433

Tony Dell' arciprete, an Electrical

Engineer for Electrical Design and

Construction Projects for GSA, stated

that indoor distribution transformers are

distribution transformers. He also sited

ANSI/IEEE Standard 241 the Gray

Book"). He stated that he considers a

480 volt primary and a 120 /208 volt

secondary to be a distribution level

voltage . Furthermore, he indicated that

excluding these transformers by calling

them "general purpose transformers" or

"specialty transformers " is a "play on

words." (Dell'arciprete, No. 23 at 1.)

In its comments on the proposed rule,

ACEEE noted that ANSI/IEEE Standard

241 defines " indoor distribution

transformer " as one for which "both

primaries and secondaries are 600 volts

and below (the most common ratio is

480-208Y/120V)," and that these

transformers offer the greatest potential

energy savings. ACEEE also

recommended that, given the ambiguity

of the definition of the term

"distribution transformer," the

Department should " err on the side of

a broader interpretation -particularly at

this stage of the process, before standard

setting has begun-to ensure energy

savings opportunities are not lost."

(ACEEE, No. 20 at 2.)

The Department is inclined to agree

with ACEEE. Furthermore, the

Department does not believe the

definition of "distribution transformer"

found in ANSI/IEEE standard C57.12.80

precludes the coverage of low voltage

transformers. The Department believes

an alternating current circuit that

supplies the primary of a distribution

transformer from a 277/480 volt

distribution bus would fall within the

definition of "primary distribution

circuit" that NEMA provided from the

IEEE dictionary. Consequently, the

Department believes that these low

voltages are covered under the ANSI/

IEEE definition of "distribution

transformers."

The Department also is inclined to

disagree with NEMA 's interpretation

that because low voltage and "indoor

distribution transformers " are also

referred to as "general purpose

transformers" or "specialty

transformers," they are not distribution

transformers. In fact, next to the terms

"general purpose transformers" and

"specialty transformers" in the IEEE

dictionary are the words "(power and

distribution transformers)." The

Department believes these words

indicate that the authors of the

dictionary consider these transformers

to be a subset of distribution

transformers. Hence, it appears to the

Department that the "indoor

distribution transformers " defined in

ANSI/IEEE standard 241, are merely a

subset of "distribution transformers."

The Department questions NEMA's

implication that the Industry

Application Society (IAS) IEEE standard

is less valid because the IAS consists of

installers of transformers, not

manufacturers. In addition, several

manufacturers, including Acme Electric

Corporation, Jefferson Electric, CutlerHammer, Falvo Electrical Supply, and

PowerSmiths International Corporation,

identified these low voltage

transformers as "distribution

transformers" in their product

literature/web pages. Web pages for

Delta Transformer and Hammond

Manufacturing Transformer Group used

the words "General Purpose

Transformers (distribution)" and

"General purpose distribution

transformers," respectively, indicating

that the terms "general purpose

transformer " and "distribution

transformer " are not exclusive . (Product

literature , No. 24.)

In the proposed rule's definition of

distribution transformer , as well as in

the notice announcing its determination

as to the distribution transformers for

which standards appear to be

warranted , 62 FR 54809 (October 27,

1997), ("Determination Notice"), the

Department construed the term

"distribution transformer " in EPCA as

including low voltage transformers. The

Department does not find persuasive the

comments discussed above that

advocate a contrary approach. Thus, the

Department intends to adopt, in the

final rule , the proposed rule's inclusion

of low voltage transformers in the

definition of distribution transformer,

unless it receives information that

justifies exclusion of these transformers.

b. Capacity/Power Ratings

NEMA commented that units with

fractional power ratings are not defined

as distribution transformers, and NEMA

recommended a capacity (power rating)

limit of 15 kVA for dry-type distribution

transformers. NEMA also provided a

comment noting that ANSI C57.12.50

identifies a range of 1-500 kVA for drytype distribution transformers . (NEMA,

No. 21 at 4.)

The Department is inclined to agree

with NEMA regarding fractional power

ratings. Consequently, DOE does not

intend to include transformers with

kVA ratings less than one in the

distribution transformer definition and

intends in the final rule to increase the

proposed rule's 0.25 kVA lower capacity

limit for distribution transformers.

However, the Department is undecided

as to whether this limit for dry-type

distribution transformers should be 1

kVA (consistent with ANSI C57.12.50),

5 kVA (consistent with ANSI

C57.12.80), 10 kVA (consistent with the

lower limit for liquid-filled

transformers), or 15 kVA (consistent

with NEMA TP 2). The Department

requests further comments on the

appropriate lower limit for the power

ratings of distribution transformers.

c. Liquid-filled Distribution

Transformers

Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

requested that liquid -filled transformers

be excluded from the rulemaking,

because the utility market already drives

these transformers to be efficient , within

the limits of cost effectiveness. EEI

stated that utilities already apply total

owning cost methodologies in its

purchasing decisions, and, therefore, it

is unnecessary and counterproductive

for the Department to mandate energy

efficiency standards for liquid-filled

transformers. However , EEI conceded

that it would not object to DOE

compiling and comparing test methods

approved by standards setting bodies

such as IEEE and ANSI. EEI also voiced

support for the EPA's voluntary Energy

Star program. (EEI, No . 19 at 1-5.)

In the Determination Notice, the

Department concluded that standards

are warranted for liquid-filled

distribution transformers. 62 FR 54816.

Thus, they were included in the

proposed rule. Because the final rule

addresses test procedures only, and not

whether efficiency standards are

warranted , the Department intends to

include liquid-filled transformers as

outlined in the proposed rule. During

the efficiency standards rulemaking, the

Department will reevaluate its

determination of the transformers for

which standards are warranted. 62 FR

54817.

d. Rectifier and Converter Transformers

NEMA, Mr. Kline, and Howard

Industries stated their belief that

rectifier and converter transformers are

not distribution transformers. (Kline,

No. 14 at 1-2; Howard Industries, No.

18 at 3 ; and NEMA, No. 15 at 1-2 and

No. 21 at 4-5.) As a result of these

comments and discussion at the public

hearing, the Department is inclined to

exclude from the "distribution

transformer " definition all rectifier and

converter transformers if they are built

and labeled as such.

e. Autotransformers and Transformers

with Tap Ranges Greater Than 15%

NEMA and Howard Industries

requested that transformers with tap

ranges greater than 15 percent and

autotransformers be excluded from the

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 03TT
33434 Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 120 /Wednesday, June 23, 1999 /Proposed Rules

rulemaking. (Howard Industries, No. 18

at 3 and NEMA, No. 15 at 2 and No. 21

at 5.) The Department is inclined to

believe few of these transformers exist

in the distribution system, little energy

would be saved by regulating them, and

excluding them would be unlikely to

create loopholes in the regulation.

Consequently, the Department is

inclined to exclude these transformers

from this rulemaking.

f Sealed/Non-Ventilated Transformers

and Special Impedance and Harmonic

Transformers

NEMA and Howard Industries

requested that sealed/non-ventilated

transformers and special impedance and

harmonic transformers be excluded

from the rulemaking. (Howard

Industries, No. 18 at 3 and NEMA, No.

15 at 2 and No. 21 at 5.) However,

NEMA's justification for their exclusion

is the inability of these transformers to

meet the TP 1 efficiency levels. NEMA

provided no other reasons why these

transformers should not be covered by

the test procedure.

These transformers were included in

the proposed rule's definition of

distribution transformer, 63 FR 63370,

as well as in the Determination Notice,

62 FR 54811. The Department does not

find persuasive the comments discussed

above that advocate exclusion of these

products. Thus, the Department intends

to include sealed/non-ventilated

transformers and special impedance and

harmonic transformers in the test

procedures final rule, unless it receives

information that justifies exclusion of

these transformers from the test

procedures. The appropriate efficiency

levels, if any, for these and other classes

of distribution transformers will be

evaluated during the efficiency

standards rulemaking.

g. Retrofit Transformers

NEMA and Howard Industries

indicated that while they do not

recommend excluding all retrofit

transformers, some currently operating

transformers fit tightly into their

locations or enclosures, making it

impossible to replace them with more

efficient transformers, which are

generally larger or configured

differently. (NEMA, No. 21 at 5 and

Howard Industries, No. 18 at 3.) The

Department is contemplating whether

this situation calls for exclusion of these

transformers from this rulemaking or for

consideration of a separate class in a

future standards rulemaking. In either

case, the Department needs further

information in order to define and treat

these transformers appropriately. The

Department is therefore soliciting

further comments on how to distinguish

these from other transformers and on

the dimensional restrictions imposed on

them.

4. Sampling Plans

In the NOPR, the Department

proposed a methodology-a sampling

plan-that a manufacturer would be

required to use to establish the

efficiency of a basic model of

distribution transformers based on tests

of sample units of that basic model. 63

FR at 63366-67, 63371. In its comments

on the proposed rule, Howard Industries

expressed concern that a large amount

of testing and record-keeping may add

unnecessary costs to its products. The

company believes that the statistical

approaches used in 10 CFR Part 430,

upon which the proposed rule was

based, are suitable for highly

standardized products, while

distribution transformers are very

specialized products often produced in

very low volumes. Howard Industries

stated that certain sizes may be

produced in quantities of less than five

per year, and some may not even be

produced at all for a whole year. The

company strongly recommended that

the approach adopted by DOE minimize

the number of units that must be tested

to satisfy both compliance and

enforcement, and it suggested that basic

models of which fewer than 5 units are

produced in a 180 day period be exempt

from the rule for this period of time and

no testing be performed. Howard

Industries believes the impact of energy

loss due to this small quantity of units

is so small it can be neglected. The

company also supports the eight percent

tolerance used in the NEMA sampling

plan. (Howard Industries, No. 18 at 4.)

Southern Transformer Company

commented that it will be difficult for

small companies to assemble, calibrate,

and certify test sets to comply with the

proposed rule's testing requirements.

Southern Transformer Company

suggested that DOE provide a grant to

NIST to assist small companies in this

effort. (Southern Transformer, No. 12 at

1.)

In its comments on the proposed rule,

NEMA urged the Department to use the

sampling plan for compliance found in

Section 7 of NEMA TP 2. (NEMA, No.

11 DD at 174, No. 15 at 3-4; and No. 21

at 6-8.) NEMA also stated that the 8

percent loss tolerance (throw-away

limit) in the TP 2 sampling plan

compels manufacturers to design their

products to at least the minimum

average efficiency standard. NEMA also

stated that it would consider adopting,

in Section 7 of NEMA TP 2,

subdivisions of its globalized

aggregation into the following possible

categories: Low Voltage Dry, Medium

Voltage Dry, Liquid-Filled 500 kVA and

below, and Liquid-Filled above 500

kVA. (NEMA, No. 21 at 7.)

ACEEE supports a sampling plan that

minimizes the testing burden, provided

that a small sample can provide a high

degree of confidence that efficiency

levels reported by manufacturers are

accurate. ACEEE believes the burden of

proof is on the industry to prove NEMA

TP 2 satisfies these conditions. ACEEE

believes the sampling plan in the NOPR

is satisfactory. (ACEEE, No. 20 at 3.)

The Department still has concerns

regarding the aggregation of basic

models used in NEMA TP 2.

Nonetheless, the Department recognizes

the aggregation and 100% testing

method in the NEMA TP 2 sampling

plan does have merit, particularly for

limited production models. However,

the Department doubts that any basic

models of which there are at least 50

units produced per 180 days would

need to be aggregated with other basic

models. The Department is inclined to

believe that 100% testing of smaller,

limited production models, coupled

with the assurance that any individual

unit that is 8% below a standard would

be eliminated, renders it likely that

these units would be designed to meet

any applicable minimum standard

efficiency.

For the final rule, the Department,

however, is considering adoption of one

or some combination of the following

sampling plan options:

(1) Variation on NEMA TP 2:

(a) Basic models for which all units

are tested because the manufacturer

chooses to do so, because of customer's

specifications, requirements to comply

with other standards, or other such

reasons: 2

• Demonstrate the compliance of

aggregations of basic models to the

aggregate standard as described in TP2 Section 7.2.1.

• Additionally, demonstrate the

compliance of each basic model for

which 50 or more units have been

manufactured during 180 calendar days.

• Discard all units whose losses

exceed 8% of the rated value for that

basic model, as required by TP 2.

2For basic models that have sufficiently large

numbers of units to minimize the statistical

likelihood of error, this approach provides

evidence, based on direct measurements, that each

basic model meets or exceeds the efficiency

standard. For basic models with limited production

(< 50 per 180 days), the aggregation of both large

and small production models reduces the risk of

rejecting the limited production models due to the

relatively high statistical possibility of erroneously

estimating the mean of a population from a small

sample.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 03TT
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 120/Wednesday, June 23, 1999 / Proposed Rules

(b) Basic models which consist of

units of identical design and are tested

on a sampling basis:

• Per NEMA TP 2 Section 7.2.2, take

a sample of at least five units of each

basic model per month over a 180

calendar day period and compute from

the test results the estimated mean of

each basic model from the sample.

• Demonstrate the compliance of the

aggregate as in TP 2.

• Additionally, demonstrate the

compliance of each basic model for

which 50 or more units have been

manufactured during 180 calendar days.

• Discard all units whose losses

exceed 8% of the rated value for the

basic model as required by TP 2.

For small population basic models of

fewer than 5 units, all units must be

tested.

(2) A sampling plan similar to that in

the NOPR, allowing some form of

aggregation for small production basic

models.

(3) The requirement of a certification

of compliance or compliance statement

only, in which the manufacturer would

provide a written explanation of how it

has demonstrated, verified, and certified

compliance. In the written material

accompanying the certificate, the

manufacturer must demonstrate the

basic premise for compliance.

A sampling plan would be included

in the final test procedures rule

primarily for the purpose of

demonstrating compliance with possible

future standards. The Department

acknowledges that a sampling plan is

not necessary for the test procedure

itself. However, the sampling plan

might be used in the evaluation of

possible future standards. The

Department also recognizes that

although some of the sampling plans

under consideration may be adequate to

demonstrate compliance with a

minimum efficiency standard, these

plans may not be adequate to address

the question of efficiency

representations. The Department is

deliberating over whether labeling of

particular efficiency values is

appropriate for this product. The issue

of representations will need to be

addressed at a future time.

5. Definition of "Basic Model"

ERMCO, Howard industries, ACEEE,

and NEMA supported the definition of

"basic model" in the proposed rule.

(ERMCO, No. 13 at 2; Howard

Industries, No. 18 at 3; ACEEE, No. 20

at 2-3; and NEMA, No. 21 at 6.) ACEEE

also suggested that industry sources

provide guidance for ensuring

manufacturers do not intentionally

design some high efficiency models to

counterbalance other low efficiency

models within the same basic model.

(ACEEE, No. 20 at 2-3.)

After further examination, the

Department believes the definition of

basic model in the proposed rule may be

problematic. As set forth in the NOPR,

a basic model is intended to be a group

of models, produced by a given

manufacturer, that have performance,

design, mechanical, functional, and

electrical characteristics that are

essentially identical, and do not have

refinements that affect energy

consumption. 63 FR 63365. The general

Part 430 definition of basic model was

modified for distribution transformers

in the proposed rule (Part 432). 63 FR

at 63365-66, 63369. However, the

proposed Part 432 definition of basic

model may need some further

modification.

All products within the same basic

model should be in the same product

class. (In its standards rulemakings, the

Department establishes a separate

"class" with its own efficiency standard

for a product when the record indicates

that the product includes a utility or

performance-related feature that affects

energy efficiency.) The following is an

example depicting how the proposed

basic model definition may be

problematic:

A special impedance distribution

transformer model, because of its

inherently inferior efficiency, would

likely be in a class separate from regular

distribution transformers. The proposed

basic model definition specifies that the

following characteristics must be used

to group different models of distribution

transformers in a basic model: output

power rating, voltage range, insulation

type, and number of phases. These

features of a special impedance

distribution transformer, however,

could be the same as for a regular

distribution transformer. Consequently,

under the proposed definition of basic

model, these two transformers could be

within the same basic model even

though they would have significantly

different efficiencies. This example

illustrates that the current definition of

basic model will likely categorize,

within the same basic model,

transformers that should be in different

classes.

The Department would appreciate

comments on how the Department

should deal with this problem. The

Department realizes that manufacturers

would prefer special classes of

distribution transformers to be

exempted from regulation. However, as

previously stated, the Department does

not find that solution to be appropriate

in this test procedures rulemaking.

33435

In grouping transformers into basic

models, we have to look at all the

features, and the ones that have widely

differing effects on efficiency should not

be grouped together. In the final rule,

the Department is considering adding

some other features that affect efficiency

(such as physical material of the

windings and core, physical size, and

impedance range) to the definition of

basic model. The Department is open to

suggestions as to what other features

should be considered for the basic

model definition, so that we do not have

the problem outlined above. The

Department also is considering adding

the words "and the other features of

which have comparable effect on

efficiency" to the proposed definition of

"basic model" to alleviate this problem.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on June 17,

1999.

Dan W. Reicher,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. 99-16020 Filed 6-22-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99-NE-26-AD]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce

plc Tay 620-15, Tay 650-15, and Tay

651-54 Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY : Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY : This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

Rolls-Royce plc Tay 620-15, Tay 650-

15, and Tay 651-54 series turbofan

engines. This proposal would require

initial and repetitive visual inspections

of the emergency fuel shutoff cable for

broken strands or failed cables, and, if

necessary, replacement with serviceable

parts. This proposal is prompted by

reports of broken strands and failed

emergency fuel shutoff cables. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to prevent emergency fuel

shutoff cable failure, which could result

in the non-operation of the emergency

fuel shut-off system in the event of a

low pressure shaft failure.

DATES : Comments must be received by

August 23, 1999.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 03TT