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

44347 

Vol. 82, No. 183 

Friday, September 22, 2017 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy 

Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA 2015), 

Public Law 114–11 (April 30, 2015). 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–TP–0055] 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Distribution 

Transformers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is initiating a data 

collection process through this RFI to 

consider whether to amend DOE’s test 

procedure for distribution transformers. 

To inform interested parties and to 

facilitate this process, DOE has gathered 

data, identifying several issues 

associated with the currently applicable 

test procedure on which DOE is 

interested in receiving comment. The 

issues outlined in this document mainly 

concern the degree to which the perunit load (‘‘PUL’’) testing measurement 

accurately represents in-service 

distribution transformer performance, 

and provides test results that reflect 

energy efficiency, energy use, and 

estimated operating costs during a 

representative average use cycle of an 

in-service transformer; sampling; 

representations; alternative energy 

determination methods (‘‘AEDMs’’); and 

any additional topics that may inform 

DOE’s decisions in a future test 

procedure rulemaking, including 

methods to reduce regulatory burden 

while ensuring the procedure’s 

accuracy. DOE welcomes written 

comments from the public on any 

subject within the scope of this 

document (including topics not raised 

in this RFI). 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before October 23, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0055, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: DistributionTransformers

2017TP0055@ee.doe.gov. Include docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0055 in the 

subject line of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 

20024. Phone: (202) 287–1445. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD, in which case it is not necessary to 

include printed copies. 

No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section III of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at http://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket Web page can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0055. The 

docket Web page contains simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section III for 

information on how to submit 

comments through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9870. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Mary Greene, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–1817. Email: 

mary.greene@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

6636 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority and Background 

B. Rulemaking History 

II. Request for Information 

A. Scope and Definitions 

B. Test Procedure 

1. PUL Testing Requirements 

2. Temperature Correction 

C. Efficiency Metric 

D. Sampling, Representations, AEDMs 

E. Other Test Procedure Topics 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

DOE is authorized to establish and 

amend energy conservation standards 

and test procedures for certain 

industrial equipment, including 

distribution transformers. (42 U.S.C. 

6317(a)) DOE’s test procedures for 

distribution transformers are prescribed 

at 10 CFR 431.193 and appendix A to 

subpart K of part 431. The following 

sections discuss DOE’s authority to 

establish and amend test procedures for 

distribution transformers, as well as 

relevant background information 

regarding DOE’s consideration of test 

procedures for this equipment. 

A. Authority and Background 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’),1

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317, as codified), among other things, 

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy 

44348 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

2For editorial purposes, upon codification into 

the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated 

as Part A–1. 

3PUL is the same concept and quantity as the 

‘‘percent of nameplate-rated load’’ used in 10 CFR 

431.196 and ‘‘percent of the rated load’’ used in 

section 3.5 of 10 CFR part 431, subpart K, 

appendix A. 

efficiency of a number of covered 

consumer products and industrial 

equipment. Title III, Part C2 of EPCA, 

added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 

§ 441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

equipment includes distribution 

transformers, the subject of this RFI. (42 

U.S.C. 6317(a)) 

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program consists of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of the 

Act for distribution transformers 

include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291; 42 

U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 

6317), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 

42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316) 

DOE may, however, grant waivers of 

Federal preemption for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with 

the procedures and other provisions of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D)) 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)) Similarly, DOE uses these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered equipment. 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section must be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use and requires that test 

procedures not be unduly burdensome 

to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

If DOE determines that a test 

procedure amendment is warranted, it 

must publish proposed test procedures 

and offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written data, views and 

arguments on the proposed test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment, including distribution 

transformers, to determine whether 

amended test procedures would more 

accurately or fully comply with the 

requirements for the test procedures to 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct 

and to be reasonably designed to 

produce test results that reflect energy 

efficiency, energy use, and estimated 

operating costs during a representative 

average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)). 

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect 

data and information to inform DOE’s 

7-year review requirement specified in 

EPCA, which requires that DOE publish 

either an amendment to the test 

procedures or a determination that 

amended test procedures are not 

required. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) 

B. Rulemaking History 

DOE’s current test procedure for 

distribution transformers is prescribed 

at 10 CFR 431.193 and appendix A to 

subpart K of part 431. EPCA states that 

the testing requirements for distribution 

transformers shall be based on the 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Measuring 

the Energy Consumption of Distribution 

Transformers’’ prescribed by the 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA TP 2–1998). (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(10)(A)) 

Accordingly, DOE prescribed the test 

procedure for distribution transformers 

on April 27, 2006 (hereafter ‘‘April 2006 

DT TP final rule’’). 71 FR 24972. In an 

April 2013 final rule amending the 

standards for distribution transformers 

(hereafter ‘‘April 2013 DT ECS final 

rule’’), DOE determined that the test 

procedures did not require amendment 

at that time, concluding that the test 

procedure as established in the April 

2006 DT TP final rule was reasonably 

designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency and energy use, 

as required by 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). 78 

FR 23336, 23347 (April 18, 2013). 

However, in the April 2013 DT ECS 

final rule, DOE responded to 

stakeholder comments regarding the 

appropriateness of the test PUL 3

requirement in its test procedure, stating 

that it may examine the topic of 

potential loading points in a dedicated 

test procedure rulemaking in the future. 

78 FR 23336, 23350. Therefore, as part 

of this RFI DOE is giving further 

consideration to the appropriateness of 

the test PUL requirements, as discussed 

in the April 2013 DT ECS final rule. 

II. Request for Information 

In the following sections, DOE has 

identified a variety of issues on which 

it seeks input to aid in the development 

of the technical and economic analyses 

regarding whether amended test 

procedures for distribution transformers 

may be warranted. Specifically, DOE is 

requesting comment on any 

opportunities to streamline and simplify 

testing requirements for distribution 

transformers. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this process that may not 

specifically be identified in this 

document. In particular, DOE notes that 

under Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs,’’ Executive Branch 

agencies such as DOE are directed to 

manage the costs associated with the 

imposition of expenditures required to 

comply with Federal regulations. See 82 

FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Pursuant to that 

Executive Order, DOE encourages the 

public to provide input on measures 

DOE could take to lower the cost of its 

regulations applicable to distribution 

transformers consistent with the 

requirements of EPCA. 

A. Scope and Definitions 

A ‘‘transformer’’ is a device consisting 

of 2 or more coils of insulated wire that 

transfers alternating current by 

electromagnetic induction from 1 coil to 

another to change the original voltage or 

current value. 10 CFR 431.192. A 

‘‘distribution transformer’’ is a 

transformer that: (1) Has an input 

voltage of 34.5 kV or less; (2) has an 

output voltage of 600 V or less; (3) is 

rated for operation at a frequency of 60 

Hz; and (4) has a capacity of 10 kVA to 

2500 kVA for liquid-immersed units and 

15 kVA to 2500 kVA for dry-type units. 

Id. The term ‘‘distribution transformer’’ 

does not include a transformer that is an 

autotransformer; drive (isolation) 

transformer; grounding transformer; 

machine-tool (control) transformer; 

nonventilated transformer; rectifier 

transformer; regulating transformer; 

sealed transformer; special-impedance 

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44349 

4 Industry commonly uses the root mean square 

(‘‘RMS’’) PUL as an estimate of the ‘‘typical’’ or 

‘‘average’’ PUL experienced by a transformer in 

service. 

5The details of this analysis are documented in 

the final rule Technical Support Document: Energy 

Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment Distribution 

Transformers; chapter 7 and appendix 7A. 

(available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0048-0760). 

6 DOE estimated the average lifetime for 

distribution transformers to be 32 years. 78 FR 

23336, 23377. 

7The result of DOE’s transformer load analysis for 

medium-voltage liquid-immersed distribution 

transformers are contained in the Life-cycle Cost 

and Payback Period spreadsheet tools for design 

lines (DL) 1 through 5 on the Forecast Cells tab. 

(available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0048-0767). 

8The result of DOE’s transformer load analysis for 

low-voltage dry-type distribution transformers are 

contained in the Life-cycle Cost and Payback Period 

spreadsheet tools for DLs 6 through 8 on the 

Forecast Cells tab. (available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2011-BTSTD-0051-0085). 

9The result of DOE’s transformer load analysis for 

medium-voltage dry-type distribution transformers 

are contained in the Life-cycle Cost and Payback 

Period spreadsheet tools for DL 9 through 13B on 

the Forecast Cells tab. (available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2010-BTSTD-0048-0764). 

transformer; testing transformer; 

transformer with tap range of 20 percent 

or more; uninterruptible power supply 

transformer; or welding transformer. Id. 

A ‘‘liquid-immersed distribution 

transformer’’ is a distribution 

transformer in which the core and coil 

assembly is immersed in an insulating 

liquid. Id. A ‘‘low-voltage dry-type 

distribution transformer’’ is a 

distribution transformer that has an 

input voltage of 600 volts or less; is aircooled; and does not use oil as a 

coolant. Id. A ‘‘medium-voltage dry-type 

distribution transformer’’ means a 

distribution transformer in which the 

core and coil assembly is immersed in 

a gaseous or dry-compound insulating 

medium, and which has a rated primary 

voltage between 601 V and 34.5 kV. Id. 

B. Test Procedure 

1. PUL Testing Requirements 

PUL specification is a key component 

of the distribution transformer test 

procedure because the efficiency of the 

transformer varies based on PUL. The 

test procedure for distribution 

transformers must be reasonably 

designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs during a 

representative average use cycle, and to 

have a test procedure is not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. To this end, the 

test PUL is intended to represent the 

typical 4 PUL experienced by in-service 

distribution transformers. However, 

some complications exist, including: (1) 

A given customer may not operate the 

transformer at a single constant PUL, 

and (2) a transformer model may be 

used at different PULs by different 

customers. To further examine the test 

PUL specification, DOE reviewed the 

test PUL requirements in the current test 

procedure and the load analysis from 

the April 2013 DT ECS final rule. 

The current PUL specifications 

required for rating transformers are 

specified in 10 CFR 431.196 and section 

3.5 of 10 CFR part 431, subpart K, 

appendix A (hereafter ‘‘Appendix A’’). 

The current test procedure in Appendix 

A requires that both liquid-immersed 

transformers and medium-voltage, drytype (‘‘MVDT’’) transformers are rated at 

50 percent PUL, and that low-voltage, 

dry-type (‘‘LVDT’’) transformers are 

rated at 35 percent PUL. Specifically, in 

section 3.5(a) of Appendix A, the test 

procedure requires that the reference 

temperature at which winding 

resistance is measured is 55 °C for 

liquid-immersed transformers and 

MVDT transformers loaded at 50 

percent of the rated load, and is 75 °C 

for LVDT transformers loaded at 35 

percent of the rated load. In addition, 10 

CFR 431.196 notes that all efficiency 

values are at 35 percent of nameplaterated load for LVDT transformers, and at 

50 percent of nameplate-rated load for 

liquid-immersed and MVDT 

transformers, determined according to 

the DOE test procedure in Appendix A. 

These test PULs are consistent with 

NEMA TP 2–1998, the test method 

required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(10)) DOE is requesting input as 

to whether the test PUL values used in 

the test method reflect PULs 

experienced in practice. 

DOE’s research in support of its April 

2013 DT ECS final rule indicated that 

distribution transformers in service 

experience a large load diversity and, on 

average, are operated at a difference of 

a RMS PUL from those at which they are 

rated for some equipment classes. 78 FR 

23336, 23349–23350. DOE’s analysis 

produced a distribution of typical RMS 

PULs for the considered liquidimmersed and MVDT, and LVDT 

distribution transformers.5

DOE estimated that, on average, the 

initial (first year) RMS PUL for liquidimmersed transformers ranged from 34 

and 40 percent for single- and threephase equipment, respectively, with a 

one percent annual increase over the life 

of the transformer to account for 

connected load growth. This resulted in 

a lifetime 6 average PUL of 49 and 56 

percent for single- and three-phase 

liquid-immersed transformers, 

respectively.7 This is consistent with 

the current test procedure requirements 

of rating liquid-immersed transformers 

at 50 percent PUL. In the April 2013 DT 

ECS final rule, DOE it had received 

public comment stating that utilities 

had oversized transformers due to their 

inability to accurately monitor 

transformer loading and due to their 

assumption that loading will increase in 

the future. In the case of liquidimmersed transformers, this may 

account for the relatively low PUL as a 

function of transformer capacity. See, 78 

FR 23336, 23349, citing comment from 

Baltimore Gas and Electric. 

Further, in the April 2013 DT ECS 

final rule, DOE estimated that, on 

average, the RMS PUL for LVDT 

transformers ranged from 20 and 25 

percent for commercial and industrial 

customers, respectively.8 Finally, DOE 

estimated that, on average, the PUL for 

MVDT transformers ranged from 32 and 

38 percent for commercial and 

industrial customers, respectively.9

However, the current test procedure 

requirements for rating LVDT and 

MVDT transformers are 35 and 50 

percent PUL, respectively. DOE also 

assumed in its April 2013 DT ECS final 

rule that there would be no load growth 

over the life of LVDT and MVDT 

distribution transformers. 78 FR 23336, 

23375. 

Therefore, the PUL requirements in 

the test procedure might not fully reflect 

the PUL experienced by in-service 

distribution transformers. Consequently, 

the degree of alignment of test PUL with 

in-service PUL of a customer’s 

individual distribution transformer may 

affect how closely the test procedureestimated energy use mirrors the actual 

energy use experienced by the customer. 

Currently, a customer can specify that 

transformer efficiency be optimized to 

their in-service PUL, but that customer 

is limited to purchasing transformers 

that comply with the energy 

conservation standard at the test PUL. 

However, DOE estimated that 

approximately 10 percent of liquidimmersed, and 2 percent of LVDT and 

MVDT customers evaluate transformer 

efficiency when making a purchase, 

indicating that the remainder of 

customers prioritize low price (and 

ignore efficiency) when purchasing 

transformers of their required 

specification. 77 FR 7323. 

To the extent that transformer 

purchases are market-price driven, DOE 

would expect that the lowest-cost 

transformer design would likely have an 

efficiency peak at or near the test PUL. 

This low-cost transformer would 

experience reduced efficiency when 

44350 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

operated at PULs other than the test 

PUL for which it was likely optimized. 

If in-service PUL differs from test PUL, 

equipment may be suboptimal for the 

expected operating conditions. If 

instead, the test procedure (via PUL 

specification) incentivized optimization 

at the in-service PUL, increased inservice performance may be possible 

with no increase in purchase price 

relative to transformers designed to 

meet existing standards via the existing 

test procedure. DOE also recognizes that 

many transformer purchasers are 

utilities that likely well understand 

these relationships. As such, as 

described above, factors other than 

efficiency (such as requirements by 

Public Utility Commissions) are likely 

driving purchasing decisions. DOE 

understands there may be variation 

between the PUL specified in the test 

procedure and actual use and seeks 

comment on how these factors should 

be considered given the sophisticated 

nature of transformer purchases. 

As discussed, in-service distribution 

transformers experience a wide range of 

load conditions. In addition, based on 

DOE’s initial analysis, distribution 

transformers may be operated at PULs 

different from those at which they are 

rated. To evaluate in-service PUL 

further, DOE is seeking to understand 

the relation between in-service PUL as 

compared to rated PUL. To that end, 

DOE requests any related information or 

data that commenters believe would 

assist DOE in its understanding. This 

information may include PUL data for 

liquid-immersed, MVDT, and LVDT 

distribution transformers in operation, 

including the kVA ranges, number of 

phases (single- or three-phase) and 

application type associated with the 

PUL data. In addition, DOE also 

requests data on the potential annual 

load growth expected for newly 

installed transformers. Finally, DOE 

requests information on the extent to 

which the identified issue is taken into 

account by utilities purchasing 

transformers. 

DOE is interested in PUL data 

gathered from distribution transformers 

in operation, including information 

from manufacturers, utilities, and 

industry groups (e.g., the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers). 

Issue 1. DOE seeks comment, data, 

and information regarding initial (first 

year of service) PUL data for 

distribution transformers. 

Issue 2. DOE requests input on the 

initial RMS PUL values presented in 

section I.B of this RFI. More broadly, 

DOE requests input on the distribution 

of PUL values experienced by the 

population of 

Issue 3. transformers of a given 

category (e.g., specific kVA, phases, 

application, etc.). Specifically, 

commenters should specify whether the 

distributional data they provide 

represents the first year of service, or the 

full lifetime. 

Issue 4. DOE seeks comment, data and 

information regarding the load growth 

estimate over the life of distribution 

transformers currently being installed. 

Specifically, DOE seeks comment, data 

and information on whether loads will 

increase over time, and if so, what the 

annual load growth would be for liquidimmersed, LVDT, and MVDT 

transformers, respectively. 

Issue 5. DOE seeks comment, data and 

information regarding the extent to 

which efficiency is taken into account 

in transformer purchasing decisions. 

2. Temperature Correction 

DOE’s current test procedure specifies 

temperature correction of measured loss 

values, a process that calculates the 

losses of a transformer as though its 

internal temperature during testing was 

equal to a ‘‘reference’’ temperature. The 

reference temperature provides a 

common point of comparison, so that 

the effect of temperature on efficiency is 

diminished. In general, higher internal 

temperature increases load losses, in 

part due to increased resistivity of the 

conductor/windings. If transformers in 

service do not reach the same internal 

temperature (under identical operating 

conditions, including ambient 

temperature and PUL), temperature 

correction may weaken the ability of the 

test procedure to predict relative inservice performance. For example, two 

otherwise-identical transformers may 

have different inherent abilities to shed 

heat. As a result, one may operate at a 

lower internal temperature under 

identical operating conditions, and 

produce lower losses. If a test procedure 

evaluates both units as though they had 

reached the same internal temperature, 

then those lower in-service losses 

(which are an advantage to the 

customer) may not be reflected. 

DOE is requesting comments, data, 

and information from interested parties 

on whether the current temperature 

correction is appropriate or whether 

alternative approaches should be 

considered. 

Issue 6. DOE seeks comments, data, 

and information regarding the 

appropriateness of the current test 

procedure requirements with respect to 

temperature correction. Specifically, 

DOE requests comment on whether 

testing at specified ambient conditions 

or correcting to the same internal 

temperature is more representative of 

distribution transformer in-service 

performance. 

Issue 7. DOE seeks comments, data, 

and information regarding how 

temperature varies with PUL, and how 

significantly it affects transformer 

performance over a PUL range. 

Specifically, under the current internal 

temperature correction methodology, 

DOE requests comment on how it could 

specify the reference temperature for 

testing at PULs other than the current 

test PUL. 

C. Efficiency Metric 

As noted, the current DOE test 

procedure measures efficiency at a 

single test PUL. Based on the data and 

information received in response to this 

RFI, DOE may consider either 

continuing to use the current single test 

PUL requirements for rating distribution 

transformers, or revising the single test 

PUL to an alternative single test PUL, if 

it better reflects how distribution 

transformers operate in service. 

Alternatively, DOE may consider an 

alternative efficiency metric altogether, 

such as a multiple-PUL weightedaverage efficiency metric. Use of a 

weighted-average efficiency metric 

comprised of more than one test PUL 

may better reflect how distribution 

transformers operate in service because 

a given distribution transformer 

commonly experiences a range of PULs 

in service depending on the end-use of 

the customer. In addition, a given 

customer is unlikely to operate a 

distribution transformer at a single, 

constant PUL equal to the typical PUL. 

Thus, a single test PUL may not fully 

capture how distribution transformers 

operate in service. 

While a weighted-average efficiency 

could result in additional test burden, 

DOE understands that this metric may 

more effectively characterize operation 

in-service. In addition, the additional 

test burden could be mitigated via the 

AEDM for distribution transformers. 

This is because AEDMs would allow 

manufacturers to determine the 

efficiency of one or more of its untested 

basic models using a mathematical 

model instead of testing. 

Issue 8. DOE seeks comments, data, 

and information on the continued use of 

a single test PUL requirement. Further, 

if a single test PUL requirement is 

maintained, DOE seeks comment on 

whether the existing single test PUL 

requirements should be maintained or 

whether alternate single test PUL 

requirements may better match the 

typical or RMS value in service. In 

addition, DOE seeks comment on the 

testing burden using an alternate single 

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44351 

test PUL as compared to the current test 

procedure. 

Issue 9. DOE seeks comments, data, 

and information regarding testing a 

single transformer at multiple PULs. 

Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the 

degree to which a multiple-PUL 

weighted-average efficiency would more 

accurately reflect distribution 

transformer operation in service, as 

compared to the current test procedure. 

In addition, DOE seeks comment on any 

additional testing burden that might be 

associated with testing at multiple 

PULs. 

Issue 10. DOE seeks comments, data, 

and information regarding the number 

of PULs (and the corresponding test 

PUL values) that parties believe may be 

appropriate for a multiple PUL test 

procedure. In addition, DOE seeks 

comments, data, and information 

regarding what weightings or additional 

requirements may be necessary under a 

multiple PUL test procedure. 

Issue 11. DOE seeks comments, data, 

and information on whether there are 

any other options or alternative metrics 

not presented in this RFI that should be 

considered for measuring and rating the 

efficiency of distribution transformers. 

D. Sampling, Representations, AEDMs 

The certification and compliance 

requirements for distribution 

transformers are codified under 10 CFR 

429.11, 429.12, 429.47, 429.70, 429.110, 

and in Appendix C to Subpart C of Part 

429. DOE’s sampling requirements are 

listed at 10 CFR 429.47. The sampling 

requirements, among other things, state 

that, (1) the provisions of 10 CFR 429.11 

apply, (2) efficiency of a basic model 

may be determined through testing or 

through application of an AEDM under 

the requirements of 10 CFR 429.70, and 

(3) a manufacturer must use a sample of 

at least five units if more than five units 

have been manufactured over a span of 

six months (10 CFR 429.47(a)(2)(i)(B)), 

or as many as have been produced if 

five or fewer have been manufactured 

over a span of six months (10 CFR 

429.47(a)(2)(i)(A)). 

Issue 12. DOE seeks comment 

regarding the sampling requirements for 

distribution transformers. Specifically, 

DOE seeks information on how 

manufacturers have been applying the 

sampling provisions. DOE also seeks 

comments from manufacturers on 

whether there are instances in which 

there are questions as to how to apply 

the sampling requirements or select the 

appropriate sample size. 

10 CFR 429.47(a)(2)(ii) states that any 

represented value of efficiency of a basic 

model must be less than or equal to: 

Where: 

x ̄ = the arithmetic mean of the sample units’ 

tested efficiencies, and 

n = number of units in the sample. 

This provision permits representation 

of a basic model efficiency greater than 

the arithmetic mean of the sample units’ 

tested efficiencies. The degree to which 

it may exceed the mean is a function of 

the sample size; smaller samples may 

exceed the mean by a greater amount. 

As a result, manufacturers may 

represent an efficiency for a basic model 

between the value of Equation 1 and the 

minimum efficiency requirements at 10 

CFR 431.196. 

DOE notes that distribution 

transformer test reports do not always 

indicate how efficiency is calculated, 

nor do they always provide information 

about the measured values. 

Issue 13. DOE seeks comment 

regarding the represented values of 

efficiency relative to calculated values, 

specifically, whether manufacturers 

typically represent the minimum 

efficiency standard, the maximum 

represented efficiency (RE) allowable, or 

a different value; how manufacturers 

determine what value to represent; and 

why. 

Issue 14. DOE’s requirements related 

to AEDMs are at 10 CFR 429.70. This 

section specifies under which 

circumstances an AEDM may be 

developed, validated, and applied to 

product performance ratings for certain 

covered products and equipment. 

AEDM application to distribution 

transformers is permitted pursuant to 10 

CFR 429.47(a)(2) and may serve a 

manufacturer who finds it burdensome 

to physically test units of each basic 

model sold. However, DOE notes that 

currently, manufacturers frequently test 

every basic model instead of calculating 

efficiency using the AEDM provisions. 

Issue 15. DOE seeks information 

regarding the usefulness of the AEDM 

provisions, and whether and why 

manufacturers select the option to use 

AEDMs. 

E. Other Test Procedure Topics 

In addition to the issues identified 

earlier in this document, DOE welcomes 

comment on any other aspect of the 

existing test procedures for distribution 

transformers not already addressed by 

the specific areas identified in this 

document. DOE particularly seeks 

information that would improve the 

repeatability, reproducibility, and 

consumer representativeness of the test 

procedures. DOE also requests 

information that would help DOE create 

a procedure that would limit 

manufacturer test burden through 

streamlining or simplifying testing 

requirements. Comments regarding the 

repeatability and reproducibility are 

also welcome. 

DOE also requests feedback on any 

potential amendments to the existing 

test procedure that could be considered 

to address impacts on manufacturers, 

including small businesses. Regarding 

the Federal test method, DOE seeks 

comment on the degree to which the 

DOE test procedure should consider and 

be harmonized with the most recent 

relevant industry standards for 

distribution transformers and whether 

there are any changes to the Federal test 

method that would provide additional 

benefits to the public. DOE also requests 

comment on the benefits and burdens of 

adopting any industry/voluntary 

consensus-based or other appropriate 

test procedure, without modification. As 

discussed, the Federal test method for 

distribution transformers is based on the 

industry standard NEMA TP 2–1998. 

The Federal test method is also based on 

IEEE C57.12.90–1999 ‘‘IEEE Standard 

Test Code for Liquid-Immersed 

Distribution, Power and Regulating 

Transformers and IEEE Guide for Short 

Circuit Testing of Distribution and 

Power Transformers;’’ IEEE C57.12.91– 

2001, ‘‘IEEE Standard Test Code for DryType Distribution and Power 

Transformers;’’ IEEE C57.12.00–2000, 

‘‘IEEE Standard General Requirements 

for Liquid-Immersed Distribution, 

Power and Regulating Transformers;’’ 

and IEEE C57.12.01–1998, ‘‘IEEE 

Standard General Requirements for DryType Distribution and Power 

Transformers Including those with Solid 

Cast and/or Resin Encapsulated 


EP22SE17.002</GPH>
44352 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

Windings.’’ When establishing the 

Federal test procedure for distribution 

transformers, DOE determined that 

basing the procedure on multiple 

industry standards, as opposed to 

adopting an industry test procedure (or 

procedures) without modification, was 

necessary to provide the detail and 

accuracy required for the Federal test 

procedure, with the additional benefit of 

providing manufacturers the Federal 

test procedure in a single reference. 71 

FR 24972, 24982. 

Additionally, DOE requests comment 

on whether the existing test procedures 

limit a manufacturer’s ability to provide 

additional features to consumers on 

distribution transformers. DOE 

particularly seeks information on how 

the test procedures could be amended to 

reduce the cost of new or additional 

features and make it more likely that 

such features are included on 

distribution transformers. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by October 23, 2017, 

comments, and information on matters 

addressed in this notice and on other 

matters relevant to DOE’s consideration 

of amended test procedures for 

distribution transformers. These 

comments and information will aid in 

the development of a test procedure 

NOPR for distribution transformers if 

DOE determines that amended test 

procedures may be appropriate for these 

products. 

Submitting comments via http://

regulations.gov. The http://

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to http://

www.regulations.gov information for 

which disclosure is restricted by statute, 

such as trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business 

Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments 

submitted through http://

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through http://www.regulations.gov 

before posting. Normally, comments 

will be posted within a few days of 

being submitted. However, if large 

volumes of comments are being 

processed simultaneously, your 

comment may not be viewable for up to 

several weeks. Please keep the comment 

tracking number that http://

www.regulations.gov provides after you 

have successfully uploaded your 

comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

http://www.regulations.gov. If you do 

not want your personal contact 

information to be publicly viewable, do 

not include it in your comment or any 

accompanying documents. Instead, 

provide your contact information on a 

cover letter. Include your first and last 

names, email address, telephone 

number, and optional mailing address. 

The cover letter will not be publicly 

viewable as long as it does not include 

any comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

one copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) a 

description of the items, (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry, (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources, (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality, (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure, (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time, and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of the 

rulemaking process. Interactions with 

and between members of the public 

provide a balanced discussion of the 

issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking 

process. Anyone who wishes to be 

added to the DOE mailing list to receive 

future notices and information about 

this rulemaking should contact 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–6636 

or via email at ApplianceStandards

Questions@ee.doe.gov. 

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44353 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 29, 

2017. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20225 Filed 9–21–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2017–0896; Product 

Identifier 2017–SW–034–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede 

airworthiness directive (AD) 2017–07– 

02 for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation 

(Sikorsky) Model 269D and Model 269D 

Configuration A helicopters. AD 2017– 

07–02 currently requires reducing the 

life limit of and inspecting certain drive 

shafts. This proposed AD would retain 

the requirements of AD 2017–07–02 and 

propose repeating the inspections. The 

actions of this proposed AD are 

intended to detect and prevent an 

unsafe condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 21, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Send comments to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the 

‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2017– 

0896; or in person at the Docket 

Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

economic evaluation, any comments 

received and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

Office (telephone 800–647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed rule, contact Sikorsky 

Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service 

Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, 

Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1–800– 

Winged–S or 203–416–4299; email wcs_

cust_service_eng.gr-sik@lmco.com. You 

may review service information at the 

FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood 

Pkwy., Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 

76177. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Schwetz, Aviation Safety 

Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, 

Compliance and Airworthiness 

Division, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, 

Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7761; email 

michael.schwetz@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to participate in this 

rulemaking by submitting written 

comments, data, or views. We also 

invite comments relating to the 

economic, environmental, energy, or 

federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposals in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. To ensure the docket 

does not contain duplicate comments, 

commenters should send only one copy 

of written comments, or if comments are 

filed electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments that we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposed rulemaking. 

Before acting on this proposal, we will 

consider all comments we receive on or 

before the closing date for comments. 

We will consider comments filed after 

the comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. We may change this 

proposal in light of the comments we 

receive. 

Discussion 

On March 20, 2017, we issued a Final 

rule; request for comments to add AD 

2017–07–02, Amendment 39–18840 (82 

FR 15120, March 27, 2017) for Sikorsky 

Model 269D and Model 269D 

Configuration A helicopters with a 

KAflex engine side drive shaft part 

number (P/N) SKCP2738–7 and KAflex 

pulley side drive shaft P/N SKCP2738– 

5 installed. AD 2017–07–02 requires 

reducing the life limit of the drive shafts 

and performing several inspections of 

the drive shafts within 25 hours time-inservice (TIS). AD 2017–07–02 also 

specifies replacing the drive shaft 

assemblies as an optional terminating 

action for the requirements of the AD. 

AD 2017–07–02 was prompted by four 

incidents involving failure of the engine 

side drive shaft. The actions required by 

AD 2017–07–02 are intended to prevent 

failure of the drive shaft, loss of rotor 

drive, and subsequent loss of control of 

the helicopter. 

This NPRM would retain the 

requirements of AD 2017–07–02 but 

would require that some of the 

inspections be repeated every 100 hours 

TIS or 400 hours TIS. Repeating these 

inspections is necessary to detect and 

prevent the unsafe condition. Because 

these proposed requirements are for 

longer intervals, we are providing the 

public an opportunity to comment. 

FAA’s Determination 

We are proposing this AD because we 

evaluated all the relevant information 

and determined the unsafe condition 

described previously is likely to exist or 

develop in other products of these same 

type designs. 

Related Service Information 

We reviewed Appendix B to Sikorsky 

S–330 Model 269D Helicopter Basic 

Handbook of Maintenance Instructions 

No. CSP–D–2, dated February 1, 1993, 

and revised October 15, 2014; and 

Appendix B to Sikorsky S–333 Model 

269D Config. ‘‘A’’ Helicopter Basic 

Handbook of Maintenance Instructions 

No. CSP–D–9, dated July 20, 2001, and 

revised October 15, 2014. This service 

information specifies repetitive 

inspection procedures, overhaul and 

retirement schedules, and weight and 

balance procedures. The Airworthiness 

Limitations section, which is included 

in this service information, contains the 

life limits for drive shaft assembly P/Ns 

SKCP2738–5 and SKCP2738–7. 

We also reviewed Sikorsky 269D 

Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin DB– 

052, Basic Issue, dated January 16, 2014, 

which distributes the service life 

reduction information and implements a 

new 1,200-hour overhaul inspection for 

drive shaft assembly P/Ns SKCP2738–3, 

SKCP2738–5, and SKCP2738–7.