[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 23, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33431-33435]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16020]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.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
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 (< 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.="" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------=""> 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
