Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Distribution Transformers

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

regarding the proposed rule and this reopening notice no later than

July 23, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Please submit 10 copies (no faxes) to: Kathi Epping, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 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 (3\1/2\'' 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

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.E[email protected], 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.L[email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 346(a) of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6317(a), the

Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) proposed in a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (``NOPR'' or ``Notice'') to adopt a new regulation,

10 CFR Part 432. 63 FR 63360 (November 12, 1998). The regulation (the

``proposed 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

[[Page 33432]]

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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 liquid-immersed 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.)

[[Page 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, Cutler-Hammer, 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 dry-type 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

[[Page 33434]]

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\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ For 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 ( Demonstrate the compliance of aggregations of basic models

to the aggregate standard as described in TP-2 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.

[[Page 33435]]

(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.

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