Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-24367

Proposed Rule2021-24367

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

November 23, 2021

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the test procedures for battery chargers to improve test procedure representativeness. The proposal would: Establish a new appendix Y1 that would expand coverage of inductive wireless battery chargers and establish associated definitions and test provisions; establish a new test procedure approach that relies on separate metrics for active mode, stand-by, and off-mode (consequently removing the battery charger usage profiles and unit energy consumption calculation); and update the wall adapter selection criteria. DOE also proposes changes to appendix Y to reorganize two subsections, to clarify symbology and references, to correct an incorrect cross reference and section title, to update the list of battery chemistries, and to terminate an existing test procedure waiver because the covered subject models have been discontinued. DOE further proposes to mirror these changes in the newly proposed appendix Y1. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposals.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 223 (Tuesday, November 23, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 23, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66878-66914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24367]

[[Page 66877]]

Vol. 86

Tuesday,

No. 223

November 23, 2021

Part V

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers;
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 23, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 66878]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012]
RIN 1904-AE49

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Battery Chargers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedures for battery chargers to improve test procedure
representativeness. The proposal would: Establish a new appendix Y1
that would expand coverage of inductive wireless battery chargers and
establish associated definitions and test provisions; establish a new
test procedure approach that relies on separate metrics for active
mode, stand-by, and off-mode (consequently removing the battery charger
usage profiles and unit energy consumption calculation); and update the
wall adapter selection criteria. DOE also proposes changes to appendix
Y to reorganize two subsections, to clarify symbology and references,
to correct an incorrect cross reference and section title, to update
the list of battery chemistries, and to terminate an existing test
procedure waiver because the covered subject models have been
discontinued. DOE further proposes to mirror these changes in the newly
proposed appendix Y1. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on
the proposals.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than January 24, 2022. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Wednesday,
December 15, 2021, from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants. If no participants register for the webinar, it
will be cancelled.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Alternatively,
interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number
EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012, by any of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#753714010110070c361d140712100706474547452125454544473510105b111a105b121a03">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket
number EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012 or regulatory information number (``RIN'')
1904-AE49 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section V ``Public Participation,'' of this
document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail or hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of
public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a
commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please
contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss
the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic
health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail
and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held),
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed
in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012">www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012</a>. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for information
on how to submit comments through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#165766667a7f7778757345627778727764726547637365627f7978655673733872797338717960">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d2bfbbb1bab3b7befcb9bbb6bd92baa3fcb6bdb7fcb5bda4">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#18596868747179767b7d4b6c79767c796a7c6b496d7d6b6c7177766b587d7d367c777d367f776e">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain the previously
incorporated by reference standards and to incorporate by reference the
following industry standards into part 430:

IEC 62301, (``IEC 62301''), ``Household electrical appliances--
Measurement of standby power, (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).''

Copies IEC 62301 can be obtained from the International
Electrotechnical Commission at 446 Main Street, Sixteenth Floor,
Worcester, MA 01608, or by going to www.iec.ch.
See section IV.M. for a discussion of this standard.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
1. Battery Chargers
2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
B. Test Procedure
1. External Power Supply Selection
2. Battery Chemistry and End-of-Discharge Voltages
3. Battery Selection
4. Battery Charger Usage Profile and Unit Energy Consumption
5. Battery Charger Modes of Operation
6. Test Procedure Waivers Regarding Non-Battery-Charging Related
Functions
C. Corrections and Non-Substantive Changes
1. Certification Flow Charts
2. Testing and Certification Clarifications
3. Cross-Reference Corrections
4. Sub-Section Corrections
D. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
E. Compliance Date and Waivers
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations

[[Page 66879]]

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Battery chargers are included among the consumer products for which
DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards
and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) DOE's energy conservation
standards and test procedures for battery chargers are currently
prescribed at title 10 CFR 430.32(z), and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix Y (``Appendix Y''), respectively. The following sections
discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for battery
chargers and relevant background information regarding DOE's
consideration of test procedures for this product.

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This
NOPR covers battery chargers, which are included under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6291(32); 42 U.S.C 6295(u))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was re-designated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those consumer
products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297) 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. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A); see also 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(B)(i)) Standby mode and off mode energy consumption must be
incorporated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or
other energy descriptor for each covered product unless the current
test procedures already account for and incorporate standby and off
mode energy consumption or unless such integration is technically
infeasible. If an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible,
DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode energy use test
procedure for the covered product, if such test procedures are
technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any such amendment
must consider the most current versions of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62301 \3\ and IEC
Standard 62087 \4\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\4\ IEC 62087, Methods of measurement for the power consumption
of audio, video, and related equipment (Edition 3.0, 2011-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 with
respect to such procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) EPCA also requires
that DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product at
least once every 7 years 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 be
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in
response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure
should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish
in the Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested
persons an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and
arguments with respect to such procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2) The
comment period on a proposed rule to amend a test procedure shall be at
least 60 days and may not exceed 270 days. Id. In prescribing or
amending a test procedure, the Secretary shall take into account such
information as the Secretary determines relevant to such procedure,
including technological developments relating to energy use or energy
efficiency of the type (or class) of covered products involved. Id. If
DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE
must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(ii)) DOE is publishing this NOPR in satisfaction
of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A))

B. Background

On May 4, 2020, DOE published a request for information (``May 2020
RFI'') seeking stakeholder comments and data on whether, since the last
test procedure update, there have been changes in battery charger
testing methodology or new products

[[Page 66880]]

introduced to the market that may necessitate amending the test
procedure for battery chargers. 85 FR 26369. DOE specifically solicited
feedback on possible approaches to testing inductive wireless battery
chargers not designed for use in a wet environment, and whether any
industry test procedures have been developed or were being developed to
specifically address such products. 85 FR 26369, 26371. DOE requested
data on how inductive wireless chargers were used in the field,
particularly with regard to the placement of the wireless charging
receiver found in end use products on the transmitting surface of the
charger. Id. For battery charger products that require a wall adapter
but do not come prepackaged with one, DOE requested comment on the
characteristics of the wall adapters typically used by manufacturers
for testing and certification purposes and, if different, the
characteristics of the wall adapters used by consumers in real-world
settings. DOE also requested comment on whether using a reference wall
adapter for testing would be appropriate in such a situation. Id. DOE
similarly requested comment on the appropriateness of testing a battery
charger using a reference battery load. 85 FR 26369, 26372. DOE further
requested comment on whether other parts of the battery charger test
procedure need to be updated such as end-of-discharge voltages,
prescribed battery chemistries, consumer usage profiles, battery
selection criteria, and the battery charger waiver process. 85 FR
26369, 26372-26373.
DOE received comments in response to the May 2020 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.

Table I.1--Written Comments Received in Response to May 2020 RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) NOPR Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of Home Appliance AHAM.............. Trade
Manufacturers. Association.
Association of Home Appliance Joint Commenters.. Trade
Manufacturers, Power Tool Association.
Institute, Inc.
California Investor Owned CA IOUs........... Utility
Utilities (Pacific Gas and Association.
Electric Company, San Diego Gas
and Electric, Southern
California Edison).
Delta-Q Technologies Corp........ Delta-Q........... Manufacturer.
Information Technology Industry ITI............... Trade
Council. Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.............. Efficiency
Alliance. Organization.
Techtronic Cordless GP........... TTI............... Manufacturer.
Wireless Power Consortium........ WPC............... Efficiency
Organization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for pool heaters. (Docket No. EERE-
2020-BT-TP-0012, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail">www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail</a>;D=EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012). The references are arranged
as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), DOE proposes to
update appendix Y to reflect updates in battery chemistry and user
profiles, to provide more explicit direction, correct cross-reference
errors, and to improve organization of the test procedure, as follows:

(1) Update terms used in the battery chemistry table;
(2) Provide further direction regarding the application for a
battery charger test procedure waiver when battery energy cannot be
directly measured;
(3) Provide more descriptive terms for battery energy and
battery voltage values used for determining product class and
calculating unit energy; and
(4) Correct a cross-reference and a table title, further clarify
certain references, and reorganize certain subsections for improved
readability.

DOE is also proposing to establish an amended test procedure for
all covered battery chargers in a new appendix Y1, which would
generally require that testing be conducted as provided in the proposed
amendments to appendix Y, but with the following additional changes:

(1) Establish definitions associated with inductive wireless
power transfer, and differentiate between those that incorporate a
physical receiver locating feature (e.g., a peg, cradle, dock,
locking mechanism, magnet, etc.) for aligning or orienting the
position of the receiver (``fixed-location'' wireless chargers) with
respect to the transmitter and those that do not (``open-placement''
wireless chargers);
(2) Include within the scope of the test procedure fixed-
location inductive wireless battery chargers, and add a separate no-
battery mode test for open-placement wireless chargers;
(3) Remove the unit energy consumption (``UEC'') \6\
calculations and usage profiles and instead rely on separate metrics
for active mode, standby mode, and off mode using E<INF>a</INF>,
P<INF>sb</INF>, and P<INF>off</INF>, respectively, as measured by
the newly established appendix Y1; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The UEC represents the annualized amount of the non-useful
energy consumed by a battery charger among all tested modes of
operation. Non-useful energy is the energy consumed by a battery
charger that is not transferred and stored in a battery as a result
of charging, i.e., the losses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Specify wall adapter selection priority and amend selection
requirements for battery chargers that do not ship with a wall
adapter and for which one is not recommended by the manufacturer.

If the proposed amendments for appendix Y are finalized,
manufacturers testing and reporting battery charger's energy use will
have to do so based on the DOE test procedure as amended beginning 180
days following the final rule. Furthermore, as proposed, manufacturers
would not be required to test according to proposed appendix Y1 until
such time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation
standards, should such standards be amended.
Additionally, DOE is not proposing amendments to address an
existing test procedure waiver and extension of waiver (Case Nos. BC-
001 and 2018-012), having initially determined that the basic models
subject to the waiver are no longer available on the market.
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedure as well as the reason for the proposed change.

[[Page 66881]]

Table II.1--Summary of Changes to the Current Test Procedure and the New Proposed Test Procedure Relative to
Current Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedure Applicable test procedure Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only those wireless chargers that Proposes to increase the 5 Appendix Y1.............. To reflect changes in
operate in ``wet environments'' Wh limit to 100Wh and to the market.
and have a battery energy of less replace the ``wet
than or equal to 5 watt-hours environment'' designation
(Wh) are in scope of the battery with ``fixed-location
charger test procedure. wireless chargers'', such
that wireless chargers
meant for dry as well as
wet environments would be
in scope.
Does not differentiate between Addresses open-placement Appendix Y1.............. To reflect changes in
types of wireless chargers. wireless chargers and the market.
fixed-location wireless
chargers, and proposes
definitions for both.
Does not provide a test method for Adds a no-battery mode Appendix Y1.............. To reflect changes in
open-placement wireless chargers. test method for open- the market and to
placement wireless improve
chargers in a newly representativeness.
created section of the
appendix.
Does not provide wall adapter Adds wall adapter Appendix Y1.............. To reflect changes in
selection priority for chargers selection order priority technology and to
that do have associated wall and removes the 5.0V DC improve
adapters. For those that do not, input criteria. For representativeness
current test procedure requires battery chargers that do and comparability of
DC battery chargers be tested not ship with a wall results.
with 5.0 V DC for USB port adapter and do not have a
powered devices, or the midpoint recommended adapter,
of the rated input voltage range proposes that the charger
for others. be tested using a wall
adapter that is minimally
compliant with the
applicable energy
conservation standard and
supplies the rated input
voltage and current.
Battery chemistries specified in Updates ``Lithium Appendix Y and Appendix To reflect changes in
Table 3.3.2 do not reflect the Polymer'' to ``Lithium- Y1. the market.
latest industry naming convention. ion Polymer,'' and
changes ``Nanophosphate
Lithium-ion'' to
``Lithium Iron
Phosphate''.
UEC calculation relies on usage Removes battery charger Appendix Y1.............. To improve
profiles to determine the length usage profiles and the representativeness.
of time spent in each mode of UEC calculation; adopts
operation. separate metrics, Ea, Psb
and Poff, for the energy
performance of a battery
charger in each of the
following three modes of
operation respectively:
Active mode, standby mode
and off mode.
Total test duration might not Prolongs the test duration Appendix Y1.............. To improve
capture the true maintenance mode until maintenance mode representativeness.
power of certain battery chargers. power has been captured
representatively, if
needed.
Manufacturer can report the Provides specific Appendix Y and Appendix To improve
battery discharge energy and the direction to apply for a Y1. representativeness.
charging and maintenance mode test procedure waiver if
energy as ``Not Applicable'' if the battery energies
the measurements cannot be made. cannot be directly
measured.
Uses the designation ``Ebatt'' for Changes the denotations to Appendix Y............... To improve
both experimentally measured ``Measured Ebatt'' for readability.
battery energy and representative experimentally measured
battery energy. battery energy, and
``Representative Ebatt''
for representative
battery energy, with
further clarification in
the footnotes.
Section 3.3.4 incorrectly Corrects the cross-section Appendix Y and Appendix To improve
references section 3.3.2 for reference to Table 3.3.2. Y1. readability.
instructions on how to discharge
batteries.
Table 3.3.2 is located after Moves Table 3.3.2 to Appendix Y and Appendix To improve
Section 3.3.10 (Determining the Section 3.3.8. Y1. readability.
24-hour Energy Consumption) but
is required for use in section
3.3.8 (Battery Discharge Energy
Test).
Certain sections use terms such as Further clarifies the Appendix Y and Appendix To improve
``above'' or ``below'' for referenced sections. Y1. readability.
references.
Battery charger standby mode and Reorganizes sections Appendix Y and Appendix To improve
off mode can be inappropriately 3.3.11 and 3.3.12 so Y1. readability.
tested if manufacturer does not battery charger standby
follow the test procedure in and off modes can be
order. tested correctly even if
the test procedure order
is not followed.
Column title in Table 3.3.3 states Corrects the title to read Appendix Y and Appendix To improve
``Special characteristic or rated ``Special characteristic Y1. readability.
battery voltage''. or highest rated battery
voltage'' to clarify that
for multi-voltage
chargers, the highest
battery voltage must be
used to determine product
class.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has tentatively determined that, of the proposed amendments
described in section III of this NOPR, the proposals in appendix Y1 to
require testing with a minimally compliant wall adapter, increase the
scope of wireless chargers, and to remove the usage profiles and UEC
calculation would result in a value for measured energy use that is
different from that measured using the current test procedure. However,
as proposed, testing in accordance with these specific proposed changes
would not be required until such time as compliance is required with
new and amended energy conservation standards. DOE further clarifies
that if the proposed

[[Page 66882]]

amendments for appendix Y were made final manufacturers testing and
reporting a battery charger's energy use will have to do so based on
the DOE test procedure at appendix Y as amended beginning 180 days
following the final rule. DOE has also determined that the test
procedure will not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Discussion of DOE's
proposed actions are addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR.

III. Discussion

As stated, EPCA requires DOE to periodically review the test
procedure for battery chargers and determine whether amendments to the
test procedure would more accurately or fully comply with the
requirements regarding representativeness and test burden. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) In the following sections, DOE discusses in detail
relevant test procedure issues, proposes changes to the current DOE
test procedure for battery chargers, and responds to relevant comments
received in response to the May 2020 RFI. The Joint Commenters and AHAM
stated in response to the May 2020 RFI that there are no product or
testing changes that would warrant a significant update to DOE's
current battery charger test procedure, recommended only minor
revisions, and urged DOE to prioritize other issues. (Joint Commenters,
No. 6 at pp. 1-2, AHAM, No. 5 at p. 2) DOE is undertaking this
rulemaking pursuant to the periodic review as required by EPCA. As
discussed in the following sections, DOE has initially determined that
amending the current test procedure (and adding a new appendix) as
proposed would more fully comply with the requirements in EPCA
regarding representativeness and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))

A. Scope of Applicability

1. Battery Chargers
This rulemaking applies to battery chargers, which are devices that
charge batteries for consumer products, including battery chargers
embedded in other consumer products. 10 CFR 430.2. (See also 42 U.S.C.
6291(32)) Functionally, a battery charger is a power conversion device
used to transform input voltage to a suitable voltage for charging
batteries used to power consumer products. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) A
battery charger may be wholly embedded in another consumer product,
partially embedded in another consumer product, or wholly separate from
another consumer product. Id.
DOE's current battery charger test procedure applies to battery
chargers that operate at either direct current (``DC'') or United
States alternating current (``AC'') line voltage (115 Volts at 60
Hertz), as well as to uninterruptible power supplies that have an AC
output and utilize the standardized National Electrical Manufacturer
Association (``NEMA'') plug, 1-15P or 5-15P, as specified in American
National Standards Institute ``ANSI''/NEMA WD 6-2016.
Appendix Y differentiates among different types of battery
chargers, including batch chargers, multi-port chargers, and multi-
voltage chargers, as well as various battery chemistries. For each type
of battery charger, appendix Y specifies test setup requirements and
test battery selection, such as battery preparation steps, battery end-
of-discharge voltages, and battery charger usage profiles \7\ based on
the respective product classes. These different specifications ensure
that each battery charger is tested to produce results that measure
energy use during a representative average use cycle or period of use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ In section III.B.4, DOE discusses a proposal to remove the
UEC metric and the associated usage profile in favor of a multi-
metric approach that would measure the energy performance of battery
chargers in each mode of operation (active, standby and off modes)
independently. If such a proposal were to be finalized, usage
profiles would no longer be unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE's current energy conversation standards for battery chargers
were published on June 13, 2016 (``June 2016 Final Rule''). The
standards cover inductive wireless battery charger products (also
referred to as ``wireless power devices'') only to the extent that such
products are designed and manufactured to operate in a wet environment
(i.e., Product Class 1). 81 FR 38266, 38282; 10 CFR 430.32(z)(1). DOE
established standards for these wet-environment inductive wireless
battery chargers (e.g., battery chargers found in wireless toothbrushes
and electric shavers) after finding that the technology used in those
products was mature. Id. DOE did not establish standards for other
types of inductive wireless battery chargers to avoid restricting the
development of newer, less mature inductively charged products. Id.
Similarly, DOE did not generate usage profiles for other types of
inductive wireless chargers at the time because of their nascent state
of development and their lack of widespread availability in the
marketplace. Id. Without usage profiles, a corresponding unit energy
consumption value cannot be calculated. Id.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether DOE should
further clarify the term ``wet environment,'' whether any industry test
procedures have been developed (or are being developed) to specifically
address inductive wireless chargers other than those used in a wet
environment, and data on how inductive wireless chargers are used in
the field. 85 FR 26369, 26371.
In response, CA IOUs and NEEA recommended that DOE create and
define categories of wireless chargers based on whether they are
dedicated wireless chargers, interoperable single device wireless
chargers, and interoperable multiple device wireless chargers, and that
DOE expand the scope to include all dedicated wireless chargers rather
than just those that are under 5Wh or designed to work in wet
environments. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at pp. 2-4, NEEA, No. 8 at p. 11) NEEA
stated that wireless charging is expected to continue to be integrated
into new consumer products and cited research suggesting that wireless
charging could nearly double national energy use of battery chargers by
2030. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 1) NEEA noted that DOE's current test
procedure already covers wired chargers associated with the same end
uses as dedicated wireless charging systems. (NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 1-2).
CA IOUs recommended that DOE eliminate the wet environment distinction,
but that if DOE maintains the wet environment distinction that an
ingress protection (``IP'') rating of IPX7 or IPX8 \8\ would be
suitable to identify wet rated products. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 5)
Similarly, the Joint Commenters suggested that DOE re-define Product
Class 1 as pertaining to inductive chargers that use a locating feature
rather than ``inductive chargers for wet environments'' to avoid
confusion. (Joint Commenters, No. 6 at p. 2) ITI stated that the term
``wet environments'' would benefit from further clarification, and
requested that DOE provide more examples of products within this
category. (ITI, No. 7 at p. 3) Delta-Q commented that the distinction
of use in a wet environment does not sufficiently define the scope of
covered wireless charger products. (Delta-Q, No. 10 at p. 1) Delta-Q
claimed that, although Product Class 1 is intended for low-power
personal hygiene products, other chargers such as those for outdoor
lawn mowers and drones may also be covered

[[Page 66883]]

by the wet environment characterization. Id. Delta-Q recommended that
DOE continue to exclude non-hygiene products, asserting that they
represent a rapidly-changing emerging market and that regulating their
efficiency at this time could stifle innovation. (Delta-Q, No. 10 at p.
1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ IPX7 and IPX8 are both ingress protection levels as defined
by IEC 60529, ``Degrees of Protection Provide by Enclosures (IP
Code)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated previously, inductive wireless battery chargers are
subject to the DOE test procedures and energy conservation standards
only to the extent that such battery chargers have an inductive
connection and are designed for use in a wet environment. (See Table
3.3.3 of appendix Y, footnote to Product Class 1) This scope of
coverage includes those wireless charging products for which DOE
determined in the June 2016 Final Rule had sufficiently mature designs
such that regulation would not impede innovation, e.g., electric
toothbrushes and shavers. 81 FR 38266, 38283. While DOE refers to these
as ``wet environment'' products, this term refers to products found in
wet environment applications, not the level of waterproofing. But, as
discussed further in this section, DOE is proposing to remove the ``wet
environment'' distinction altogether.
The wet environment products covered in scope require sealing to
prevent moisture ingress, and typically use a locating feature, such as
a peg, cradle or a dock, to confine the physical engagement of the
receiver (i.e., consumer product) and the transmitter (i.e., charger).
85 FR 26369, 26371. This feature provides relatively consistent
placement of the receiver during testing. Id. The consistent physical
alignment of the receiver to the transmitter enables the battery
charger's energy performance to be measured repeatably using DOE test
procedure. But DOE tentatively finds that approaches providing
consistent receiver-transmitter alignment are now being used in non-wet
environments.
Therefore, by adding a new appendix Y1 and eliminating the ``wet-
environment'' limitation on inductive wireless battery chargers
currently contained in appendix Y, DOE would be subjecting inductive
wireless battery chargers as a whole to testing in appendix
Y1testingY1. DOE further proposes to define the term ``fixed-location''
wireless charger in appendix Y1 to refer to inductive wireless battery
chargers that incorporate a physical receiver locating feature (e.g., a
peg, cradle, dock, locking mechanism, magnet, etc.) to repeatably align
or orient the position of the receiver with respect to the transmitter,
and to require that battery chargers meeting such a definition be
subject to the DOE test procedure regardless of whether it is for a
wet-environment. This proposed amendment to include fixed-location
inductive wireless chargers would cover products such as inductive
chargers for electronic watches, fitness bands, smartphones, wireless
earbuds, and wireless speakers, if the basic model prioritizes wireless
charging of a battery and has a physical receiver locating feature.
DOE also proposes to increase the rated battery energy limit of
fixed-location wireless chargers in appendix Y1 from <=5 Wh to <100 Wh
in order to address the broader scope of battery chargers that
currently employ inductive wireless connections and to accommodate
potential future product designs that may have larger battery energies.
For battery chargers, the UEC metric represents an annualized amount of
non-useful energy consumed by a battery charger in all modes of
operation by combining the energy or power consumption in each mode
with specified usage profiles (i.e. the time spent in that mode) and
subtracting from it the discharged energy of a fully charged battery.
Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y established such usage profiles for different
classes of battery chargers, including inductive wireless chargers,
defined by ranges of battery energy and voltage. At the time of the
June 2016 Final Rule, inductive wireless chargers designed for use in
wet environments were all found to have a battery energy under 5Wh. 81
FR 38266, 38283. As such, Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y specifies a rated
battery energy of <=5 Wh for Product Class 1. But, since the June 2016
Finale Rule, products on the market that rely on such inductive
wireless charger designs have grown to include electronic wearable
devices such as watches, fitness trackers, wireless earbuds, and even
some smartphones. DOE has conducted initial research and found that
although most of the fixed-location inductive wireless chargers were
designed for batteries with lower energy ratings, typically within
20Wh, there are some fixed-location inductive wireless chargers that
can charge products with higher battery energy levels of around 80Wh,
namely inductively charged power tool products. DOE is not able to find
fixed-location inductive chargers designed for products with battery
energy of more than 100Wh. Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes that a
rated battery energy limit of <100 Wh would appropriately cover the
range of products that would be newly included in scope as a result of
DOE's proposal to remove the wet environment designation.
As noted, in section III.B.4, DOE discusses the proposal to remove
the UEC metric and the associated usage profile in favor of a multi-
metric approach that provides the energy performance of battery
chargers in each mode of operation (active, standby, and off modes)
independently. If such a proposal were finalized, usage profiles based
on battery energy limits would be unnecessary altogether.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to define fixed-location wireless
chargers in appendix Y1 and whether this definition accurately captures
all the types of wireless chargers with locating features that are on
the market; its proposal to remove the ``wet environment'' designation
for wireless chargers; its proposal to revise the scope of Product
Class 1 to include all fixed-location wireless chargers in appendix Y1;
and its proposal to increase the rated battery energy limit for fixed-
location wireless chargers from <=5 Wh to <100 Wh in appendix Y1 to
accommodate the range of inductive wireless battery chargers on the
market and potential future product designs that may have larger
battery energies. DOE also requests information on which types of
inductive wireless battery chargers would be subject to DOE regulations
due to the proposed change in scope, including any corresponding usage
data, if available.
DOE also proposes to define the term ``open-placement'' wireless
chargers in appendix Y1 to address wireless charging products that do
not have a physical locating feature (e.g., charging mats). CA IOUs,
NEEA, and ITI stated in response to the May 2020 RFI that there are
difficulties in testing open-placement wireless chargers, but
encouraged DOE to continue working with stakeholders to establish
either its own uniform wireless charger test method or adopt one being
developed by the industry, such as ANSI/Consumer Technology Association
(``CTA'') 2042.3 \9\ (``ANSI/CTA 2042.3''), the WPC protocol,\10\ or
the IEC 63288 test procedure.\11\ (CA IOUs, No. 9 at pp.

[[Page 66884]]

1-2, ITI, No. 7 at pp. 1, 3-4, NEEA, No. 8 at p. 6) CA IOUs suggested
that wireless chargers are no longer a nascent technology; however,
NEEA claimed that wireless chargers are still relatively nascent when
compared to other charging technologies. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 2, NEEA,
No. 8 at p. 5) CA IOUs and NEEA commented that wireless chargers are
rapidly growing in popularity, and that because of the wide variation
in efficiency, wireless chargers present significant opportunities for
energy savings. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at pp. 1-2, NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 1-3,
ITI, No. 7 at pp. 3-4) WPC further commented that wireless chargers
still need to be tested uniquely to account for the wide charging area,
unique standby, and end of charge behavior, irrespective of whether the
system is treated as a battery charger or as an external power supply
(``EPS''). (WPC, No. 4 at p. 2) NEEA suggested that interoperable
(i.e., open-placement) wireless chargers are similar to EPSs, in which
standby power and active mode efficiency are regulated separately.
(NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 4-5 and 7-9) WPC also asserted that the term
``wireless battery chargers'' may be misleading and cause overly
burdensome testing for wireless power sources, and that wireless
chargers are better classified as EPSs because of their lack of battery
charging circuitry and their AC-to-DC power conversion nature. (WPC,
No. 4 at p. 2) Similarly, for open-placement wireless power transfer
devices, CA IOUs and NEEA suggested that DOE implement a standby power
measurement in the interim while an active mode test method continues
to be developed. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 2, NEEA, No. 8 at pp. 9-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ American National Standards Institute/Consumer Technology
Association Standard 2042.3, ``Methods of Measurement for Power
Transfer Efficiency and Standby Power of Wireless Power Systems''.
\10\ Wireless Power Consortium, ENERGY STAR Test Method for
Wireless Power Transmitters, test procedure development in progress.
\11\ International Electrotechnical Commission IEC 63288,
``Wireless Power Transfer--Measuring method for wireless power
transfer efficiency and standby power--mobile phone''. For more
information on the development of IEC 63288, including access to
drafts of the test procedure, visit www.iec.ch/dyn/www/
f?p=103:7:516407272337837::::SP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:10039,25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE recognizes the increasing usage of open-placement inductive
wireless chargers designed to work with a range of products by
supporting multiple wireless charging protocols and having physical
form factors that do not restrict engagement or alignment to one
specific end use device. DOE also recognizes that, as indicated by
commenters, a number of challenges remain with establishing a
representative test procedure for these interoperable open-placement
inductive wireless products. First, efficiency of wireless power
transfer varies greatly depending on the alignment of the receiver with
respect to the transmitter. A test procedure designed to capture the
representative energy performance of such a device would need to
repeatably measure the average power transfer efficiency across the
full range of possible placement positions on the transmitter. Second,
representative test load(s) would need to account for all charging
scenarios because these open-placement wireless chargers are designed
to work with various third-party products. Third, these devices also
typically incorporate other non-battery-charging related features
inherent to implementing an open-placement design, such as foreign
object detection circuits, that may affect charging efficiency.
DOE acknowledges the industry's progress in developing test methods
for open-placement wireless chargers, such as ANSI/CTA 2042.3, the WPC
protocol, and the IEC 63288 test procedure. These test methods specify
the use of either one reference receiver at multiple charging positions
on the transmitter or require using multiple receivers at an optimal
receiver placement point. DOE has reviewed these industry test
standards, and tentatively finds that they do not sufficiently address
the challenges with respect to repeatability of placement and ensuring
use of a representative third-party receiver. DOE, working in
conjunction with industry organizations such as the WPC, has found that
mitigating these challenges is difficult. To-date, that work has
yielded test methods that either lack repeatability or result in
significant test burden. In addition, evaluating whether a particular
test procedure measures the energy performance of open-placement
wireless chargers during a representative average use cycle,
specifically during active mode operation, requires data on consumer
usage at the various modes of operation. DOE lacks, and is unaware of,
such data.
Because data are lacking to develop a test procedure that would
provide representative measurements of such a technology during active
mode operation, DOE is not proposing a test procedure for measuring the
active mode energy performance of open-placement wireless chargers in
this NOPR. DOE will continue its efforts, working with industry bodies,
such as WPC, IEC, and ANSI/CTA, to develop an active mode test
procedure for open-placement wireless chargers that appropriately
addresses the impact of receiver placement on charging efficiency, and
will continue to gather relevant consumer usage data.
DOE finds, however, that measuring the no-battery mode energy
performance of an open-placement wireless charger would not be affected
by the same issues discussed above for active-mode testing, and is more
straightforward than measuring active-mode energy. Therefore, DOE
proposes to create a new section 5 of appendix Y1 titled, ``Testing
requirements for all open-placement wireless chargers,'' which would
include instructions for testing open-placement wireless chargers in
no-battery mode according to IEC 62301 Ed. 2.0. DOE proposes that,
after observing a period of stability, the AC input power of the open-
placement wireless charger would be measured without any foreign
objects (i.e., without any load) placed on the charging surface. DOE
also proposes that if the open-placement wireless charger has power
supplied by an EPS but does not come pre-packaged with such an EPS,
then testing must be conducted with any compatible and commercially-
available EPS that is minimally compliant with DOE's energy
conservation standards for EPSs as prescribed in 10 CFR 430.32(w). DOE
notes that open-placement wireless chargers are not currently subject
to energy conservation standards and are not subject to requirements
regarding standby energy use. Were the proposed standby test procedure
provisions to be adopted, open-placement wireless chargers would not be
required to be tested according to such provisions until such time as
compliance is required with any energy conservation standards that DOE
may establish for these chargers. If the proposed amendments were made
final, manufacturers voluntarily testing and reporting the energy usage
of any open-placement wireless chargers would have to be based on the
DOE test procedure as amended beginning 180 days following the final
rule.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to define open-placement wireless
chargers in appendix Y1 and whether this definition accurately captures
all the types of wireless chargers without physical locating features
that are on the market. DOE also requests comment on its proposal to
require testing of the no-battery mode power consumption of these open-
placement wireless chargers.

B. Test Procedure

1. External Power Supply Selection
Most battery chargers require the use of a power adapter to convert
120 volt (``V'') AC line voltage into a low-voltage DC or AC output
suitable for powering the battery charger. DOE's battery charger test
procedure specifies that the battery charger be tested with the power
adapter packaged with the charger, or the power adapter that is sold or
recommended by the manufacturer. If a power adapter is not packaged
with the charger, or if the manufacturer does not

[[Page 66885]]

sell or recommend a power adapter, then the battery charger is tested
using a 5.0V DC input for products that draw power from a computer USB
port, or using the midpoint of the rated input voltage range for all
other products. Appendix Y, sections 3.1.4.(b) and 3.1.4.(c). However,
the 5.0 V DC specification for products drawing power from a computer
USB port may not be representative for battery chargers designed for
operation only on DC input voltage and for which the manufacturer does
not package the charger with a wall adapter or sell or recommend a wall
adapter. The current generation USB specification can support up to 20
V, per the voltage and current provisions of the most recent version of
the International Electrotechnical Commission's (``IEC'') ``Universal
serial bus interfaces for data and power--Part 1-2: Common components--
USB Power Delivery'' (``IEC 62680-1-2'') specification.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested information on the
characteristics and technical specifications of the wall adapters
typically used when testing battery chargers shipped without a wall
adapter and for which a wall adapter is not recommended by the
manufacturer. 85 FR 26369, 26371. DOE also sought detailed technical
information and data on the characteristics of the wall adapters
typically used in the real world with such battery chargers including,
but not limited to, input and output voltages, output wattage, power
supply topologies, output connector type, and the impact of these on
average efficiencies. Id. Additionally, DOE sought comment on whether
testing such battery chargers using a reference wall adapter would be
appropriate, and if so, how a reference wall adapter should be defined.
Both CA IOUs and ITI supported providing additional direction on
the AC adapter used to test chargers that do not come with one. (CA
IOUs, No. 9 at p. 4; ITI, No. 7 at p. 5) CA IOUs and ITI recommended
that DOE provide minimum technical characteristics that must be met
when testing battery chargers with external power supplies without an
AC adapter pre-packaged, sold, or recommended by the manufacturer. Id.
ITI further commented that the cable used can also affect power
consumption, and that a reference wall adapter would work only if DOE
designs one for universal connection types. (ITI, No. 7 at p. 5) The
Joint Commenters stated that the test procedure already addresses USB
chargers and therefore amendments are not necessary regarding the wall
adapter provisions. (Joint Commenters, No. 6 at p. 2)
Considering the current market and these comments, DOE proposes to
require in appendix Y1 that when wall adapter is not pre-packaged with
a battery charger (and the charger manufacturer does not sell or
recommend a compatible charger), testing would be performed using any
commercially-available EPS that is both minimally compliant with DOE's
energy conservation standards for external power supplies (``EPS'')
found in 10 CFR 430.32(w) and satisfies the EPS output criteria
specified by the battery charger manufacturer. DOE recognizes that
these battery chargers are always operated with an EPS by the consumer,
and that testing them without one is unrepresentative of their actual
use. Because the battery charger energy consumption is measured at the
input, under the proposed appendix Y1 requirement to test these battery
chargers with a minimally compliant EPS, the energy consumption of the
minimally compliant EPS will be included when calculating the battery
charger product's unit energy consumption, similar to the testing
condition in which an EPS is supplied with the charger. DOE has
tentatively concluded that this proposal would not result in additional
test burden; the current battery charger test procedure already
requires input power to be captured, and this proposal does not lead to
additional test steps. Furthermore, this proposed EPS selection
criterion would not be required until DOE amends the energy
conservation standards to account for the updated EPS selection
criteria, if adopted. However, manufacturers are still required to
continue testing their battery charger products following the amended
appendix Y, if made final, during the meantime. If the proposed
appendix Y1 amendments were made final, manufacturers can voluntarily
test and report any such representations based on the appendix Y1 test
procedure as amended beginning 180 days following the test procedure
final rule.
When performing compliance or enforcement testing on such a battery
charger basic model, DOE proposes that if the certified EPS is no
longer available in the market, DOE would test the battery charger with
any compatible minimally compliant EPS that meets the performance
criteria. The intent of the proposal to test with a minimally compliant
power supply is to allow manufacturers a wider selection of EPSs that
are readily available, while ensuring that the battery charger is
tested in a configuration representative of actual use. This proposal
would also only apply to appendix Y1.
Additionally, DOE is proposing to specify in section 3.1.4(b) of
appendix Y the order of preference for the test configuration when a
wall adapter is provided or recommended. DOE is proposing that a
battery charger would be tested using the pre-packaged wall adapter; if
the battery charger does not include a pre-packaged wall adapter, then
the battery charger would be tested with a wall adapter sold and
recommended by the manufacturer; if the manufacturer does not recommend
a wall adapter that it sells, then the battery charger is to be tested
with a wall adapter recommended by the manufacturer.
ITI commented that input or output cables can affect a battery
charger's power consumption but stopped short of quantifying their
impact. (ITI, No. 7 at p. 5) DOE's analysis suggests that only output
cables have the potential to notably impact power consumption, but that
battery chargers are rarely shipped without an output cable. DOE,
therefore, continues to require that battery chargers be tested with
the output cable that is supplied with the device.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to specify the priority of
wall adapter selection in appendix Y1. DOE also requests comment on the
proposal in appendix Y1 to replace the 5 V DC input requirement for
those chargers that do not ship with an adapter, and one is not
recommended, with the requirement that these chargers be tested with
any compatible and commercially-available EPS that is minimally
compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards for EPSs. DOE also
requests comments on whether these proposals would result in increased
test burden.
2. Battery Chemistry and End-of-Discharge Voltages
The battery charger test procedure requires that, as part of the
battery discharge energy test, the battery must be discharged at a
specified discharge rate until it reaches the specified end-of-
discharge voltage stipulated in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y. Appendix Y,
section 3.3.8(c)(2). Table 3.3.3 defines different end-of-discharge
voltages for different battery chemistries. A footnote to Table 3.3.2
provides that if the presence of protective circuitry prevents the
battery cells from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage
specified, then the battery cells must be discharged to the lowest
possible voltage permitted by the protective circuitry. Id.

[[Page 66886]]

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested information on whether there
have been any new battery chemistries that are not covered by the
categories listed in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y. 85 FR 26369, 26372. DOE
also requested information on whether any of the end-of-discharge
voltages listed for the battery chemistries under Table 3.3.2 of
appendix Y need to be updated. Id.
ITI and the Joint Commenters stated that they were not aware of any
new battery technologies or changes to existing chemistries that would
warrant an update to Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y. (ITI, No. 7 at p. 6;
Joint Commenters, No. 6 at pp. 1-2) The Joint Commenters stated that
the footnote to Table 3.3.2 addresses the end-of-discharge voltage of
battery chemistries not explicitly included in Table 3.3.2. (Joint
Commenters, No. 6 at p. 2)
Delta-Q commented that, normally, the battery management system
would terminate discharge before reaching the appendix Y specified end-
of-discharge voltage, which is consistent with the Table 3.3.2
footnote. (Delta-Q, No. 10 at p. 1) Delta-Q stated that because of
this, DOE should keep the protective circuitry guidelines in the test
procedure, as it is representative of the charger's energy use. Id.
Delta-Q also commented that the term ``Lithium Polymer'' listed in
Table 3.3.2 is not clear because the term can refer to either an
existing, but commercially unsuccessful, battery technology with cells
that rely on a polymer electrolyte instead of a liquid electrolyte; or
the term may refer to non-rigid laminated pouch packing, as is found in
small consumer products. Id. Delta-Q also asserted that the term is
altogether unnecessary in Table 3.3.2 since ``Lithium-Ion'' captures
all lithium battery sub-types. Id. Delta-Q suggested that DOE remove
the term ``Lithium Polymer'' from the table. Id. Delta-Q also commented
that ``Nanophosphate Lithium-ion,'' which is included in Table 3.3.2,
is a registered trademark and should be re-designated as ``Lithium Iron
Phosphate,'' a common battery chemistry, to avoid unintentional
referral to a proprietary product. Id.
CA IOUs encouraged DOE to incorporate emerging battery chemistries
but did not suggest any specific new battery chemistries. (CA IOUs, No.
9 at p. 5)
DOE is proposing to replace the term ``Lithium Polymer'' in Table
3.3.2 of appendix Y with ``Lithium-ion Polymer.'' Lithium-ion polymer
batteries are structurally different from lithium-ion batteries in that
lithium-ion polymer batteries incorporate a polymer separator to reduce
safety hazards. Although having the same end-of-discharge voltage as
lithium-ion batteries, DOE proposes a separate listing for lithium-ion
polymer batteries to reflect the structural differences of these
batteries. DOE also proposes to update the term ``nanophosphate
lithium-ion'' to refer to the non-proprietary version of this battery
chemistry, i.e., ``lithium iron phosphate.'' DOE is proposing to
incorporate these changes in the proposed appendix Y1, as well.
Although the presence of protective circuitries allows some
batteries to discharge to end-of-discharge voltages that are different
from the voltages prescribed in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y, such
circuits are not universal, and accurate values for end-of-discharge
voltages are required to ensure batteries are safely and
representatively discharged when such circuits are not present.
Therefore, no changes are proposed for the footnote regarding
protective circuitries.
DOE requests comment on the proposal to update the term ``Lithium
Polymer'' to ``Lithium-ion Polymer''. DOE also requests comment on the
proposal to rename the term ``Nanophosphate Lithium'' to the non-
proprietary term ``Lithium Iron Phosphate''.
3. Battery Selection
Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y specifies battery selection criteria
based on the type of charger being tested; specifically, whether the
charger is multi-voltage, multi-port, and/or multi-capacity. For multi-
capacity chargers, Table 3.2.1 specifies using a battery with the
highest charge capacity. Similarly, for multi-voltage chargers, Table
3.2.1 specifies using the highest voltage battery. Section 3.2.3(b)(2)
of appendix Y specifies that if the battery selection criteria
specified in Table 3.2.1 results in two or more batteries or
configurations of batteries with same voltage and capacity ratings, but
made of different chemistries, the battery or configuration of
batteries that results in the highest maintenance mode power must be
used for testing.
As indicated, some battery chargers (e.g., lead-acid battery
chargers) can charge numerous combinations of batteries from third-
party vendors, and these battery chargers generally do not have a
maximum battery capacity limit because, theoretically, multiple
batteries can be connected in parallel to a single charger. For these
devices, finding the most consumptive combination of charger and
battery could require a number of trials.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on how manufacturers are
certifying battery chargers that can charge third-party batteries from
different manufacturers but do not ship with batteries themselves. 85
FR 26369, 26372. To address this scenario, DOE also requested feedback
on possible alternate approaches to testing battery chargers, such as
by replacing the batteries with a reference load during testing. Id.
CA IOUs supported both the current battery selection criteria, and
the concept of replacing the test batteries with a representative
resistive load. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 5) CA IOUs stated that this
latter approach would require comprehensive study of multiple batteries
with different chemistries from multiple manufacturers at various
states to be accurate. Id. CA IOUs suggested that DOE analyze any
developed dataset and validate it against actual battery values. Id. CA
IOUs recommended that while a representative resistive load is being
developed, DOE collect a set of reference measurements for a test
laboratory to use in choosing batteries that meet the specified
attributes and tolerances--and if multiple batteries meet the same
criteria, the batteries shall be selected according to Table 3.2.1 of
appendix Y. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at pp. 5-6)
Delta-Q commented that for its multi-capacity chargers sold without
a dedicated battery pack, it would choose commercially-available
batteries with a maximum charge capacity based on the individual
charger, following Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y. (Delta-Q, No. 10 at p. 2)
Delta-Q further stated that it would choose a flooded lead acid battery
to test with chargers that support multiple battery chemistries,
asserting that flooded lead acid batteries have the lowest efficiency.
Id. Delta-Q discouraged an approach that would test battery chargers
with a reference load that simulates the characteristics of a battery.
Id. Delta-Q stated that although using a reference load could improve
test repeatability, it would be almost impossible to simulate the non-
linear response of many common battery chemistries in a way that would
be representative of real-world energy consumption. Id. Delta-Q further
stated that if DOE were to take this approach, it would propose testing
a charger's power conversion efficiency at several steady-state
operating points and calculating a weighted average. Id.
As suggested by commenters, deriving a representative reference
load that accurately models the performance of a battery would require
a considerable amount of testing and development; in

[[Page 66887]]

addition, the rapid pace of evolution in battery design would require
frequent updates that would likely outpace DOE's regulatory processes.
Therefore, DOE is not proposing the use of reference test loads.
Furthermore, none of the comments received indicated any particular
difficulty testing battery chargers that can charge numerous
combinations of batteries from third-party vendors. Therefore, DOE is
not proposing any changes to the current battery selection criteria in
Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y, or the proposed new appendix Y1.
4. Battery Charger Usage Profile and Unit Energy Consumption
The UEC equation in section 3.3.13 of appendix Y combines various
performance parameters, including 24-hour energy, measured battery
energy, maintenance mode power, standby mode power, off mode power,
charge test duration, and usage profiles. Table 3.3.3 specifies values
for time spent (in hours per day) in active and maintenance mode,
standby mode, off mode; number of charges per day; and threshold charge
time (in hours). The usage profiles are based on data for a variety of
applications and that primarily consisted of user surveys, metering
studies, and stakeholder input that DOE considered during the
rulemaking culminating in the June 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 38266, 38287.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested feedback on whether the usage
profiles listed in Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y required updating, with a
particular interest in data specific to end-use device type and battery
voltage. 85 FR 26369, 26372.
Delta-Q and NEEA stated that they were not aware of any usage
profile changes for both wired and wireless battery chargers. (Delta-Q,
No. 10 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 8 at p. 10) NEEA recommended that DOE study
and update the usage profiles to help develop a test procedure for
dedicated and interoperable wireless chargers. (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 10)
The Joint Commenters stated that the current usage profiles are
sufficient and that there is no need to change them since manufacturers
have already familiarized themselves with the current profile. (Joint
Commenters, No. 6 at p. 3) CA IOUs commented that wireless chargers can
have different user profiles that result in a longer maintenance
charging period, but that most overnight charging profiles remain the
same as wired chargers. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at pp. 5-6) CA IOUs recommended
that DOE conduct additional research to develop a comprehensive set of
usage profiles. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 6)
Currently, the energy use of a battery charger is captured by a
single metric, UEC. UEC integrates active mode, stand-by mode, and off
mode energy use in order to estimate the amount of non-useful energy
(i.e. energy not transferred to the battery) consumed by the battery
charger over the course of a year. UEC requires the use of usage
profiles to appropriately reflect the period of time a product spends
in each mode. DOE's product class-specific usage profiles were
initially developed using the shipment weighted average usage hours of
all the applications of battery chargers whose battery voltage and
energy met the criteria for each product class. The intended result is
for each usage profile to be appropriately representative of the usage
of the product class as a whole. As the battery charger market
continues to evolve, DOE has observed that the relative share of
shipments among different types of products within a product class has
changed; the types of products within a given product class as well as
the usage patterns of the products within a product class have become
more varied. For example, the current Product Class 2 includes both
smartphones and home power tools--two products with widely different
usage patterns and annual shipments. A more recent market review shows
that the shipments for certain applications, such as smartphones,
cordless phones, wireless headsets etc. have changed significantly
since the usage profiles in appendix Y were originally established.
Additionally, the market and shipments of battery chargers has shown to
change over short periods of time as new products that rely on battery
chargers emerge and are adopted by the market, and as consumer use of
products that rely on battery chargers changes. As an example, note
that the shipments for Digital Audio Players and Digital Cameras have
declined significantly with the advent of smart phones that have
similar built-in capabilities.
As discussed, EPCA requires DOE to amend its test procedures for
all covered products to include standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, with such energy consumption integrated into the overall
energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for
each covered product, unless the Secretary determines that (i) the
current test procedures for a covered product already fully account for
and incorporate the standby mode and off mode energy consumption of the
covered product; or (ii) such an integrated test procedure is
technically infeasible for a particular covered product, in which case
the Secretary shall prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode
energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE is also required to establish
test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce test results
which measure energy efficiency and/or energy use of a covered product
during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as
determined by the Secretary, and such test procedures must not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) Therefore, when
considering the feasibility of a test procedure that provides for a
metric that integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy
use DOE must also consider the representativeness and burden of the
test procedure.
The current test procedure approach specifies an integrated metric
relying on usage profiles, but changes in consumer use of a limited
number of products within a product class and the emergence of new
products can both impact the representativeness of that usage profile.
As the market and usage of battery chargers continues to evolve, the
current test procedure approach risks becoming less representative,
absent additional and continuously-revised usage profiles. Because the
test procedure metric requires integrating active mode, standby mode,
and off mode energy use, the need for new or amended usage profiles
would potentially result in the need to repeatedly amend test
procedures, which in turn potentially would require manufacturers to
update representations, increasing manufacturer burden.
In an effort to maintain the representativeness of the test
procedure for battery chargers while minimizing the potential need for
future amendments, DOE is proposing an approach that does not rely on
the UEC equation or usage profiles. Specifically, DOE is proposing in
appendix Y1 to establish an approach that relies on a separate metric
for each of the following modes of operation: Active mode, standby mode
and off mode. This proposal is discussed in further detail in section
III.B.5 of this NOPR.
DOE notes that if it were to adopt the proposed multi-metric
approach, compliance with the test procedure in appendix Y1 would not
be required until such time as DOE were to amend the energy
conservation standards for battery chargers based on the revised test
procedure in compliance with EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B))

[[Page 66888]]

DOE requests feedback on the proposal to remove the specification
of usage profiles and the associated UEC calculation in appendix Y1, to
be replaced with an approach that relies on separate metrics for active
mode, standby mode, and off mode. For further consideration of the
existing approach, DOE requests, for all applications in each product
class, data such as the percentage of time spent in each mode of
operation along with data sources for consideration in updating the
usage profiles for battery chargers.
5. Battery Charger Modes of Operation
a. Active Mode
Battery charger active mode is the state in which the battery
charger system is connected to the main electricity supply and is
actively delivering power to bring the battery to a fully charged
state, as defined in section 2.1 of appendix Y. Appendix Y currently
tests the active mode power consumption along with battery maintenance
mode power \12\ to produce a consolidated 24-hour energy consumption
value, or E<INF>24</INF>, which is then used in the UEC calculation. As
previously discussed, DOE is proposing to replace the UEC metric system
with a discrete multi-metric approach that determines the energy
efficiency and energy use of the active mode, standby mode, and off
mode power consumption separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Maintenance mode is the operation of a battery charger to
maintain a battery at full charge while a battery remains in the
charger after fully charged. Under the current test procedure the
characterization of maintenance mode as active mode or standby mode
is less critical because the current test procedure metric
integrates the modes. As discussed in the following section, DOE has
tentatively characterized maintenance mode as part of standby mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the newly proposed appendix Y1, DOE proposes to use a charge
test in which the test period would begin upon insertion of a depleted
battery and would end when the battery is fully charged. The active
mode energy, E<INF>a</INF> would represent the accumulated input
energy, meaning the average input power integrated over this test
period.
Similar to the procedure currently in section 3.3.2 of appendix Y
(Determining the Duration of the Charge and Maintenance Mode Test), if
a battery charger has an indicator to show that the battery is fully
charged, that indicator would be used to terminate the active mode
test. If no indicator besides the manufacturer's instructions indicates
how long it should take to charge the test battery, the active mode
test would be conducted for the longest estimated charge time as
provided in the manufacturer's materials. If the battery charger does
not have such an indicator and a manufacturer does not provide such a
time estimate, the length of the active mode test would be 1.4
multiplied by the rated charge capacity of the battery divided by the
maximum charge current. DOE also proposes to arrange sections of
appendix Y1 such that the battery discharge test is performed
immediately after this active mode test is completed and prior to
continuing to the 24-hour charge and maintenance mode test that would
then be used to determine maintenance mode power.
In DOE's experience, it may be possible to analyze the resulting
data from the 24-hour charge and maintenance mode energy consumption
test and divide it into its constituents; i.e., the active mode energy
and maintenance mode power. Under this alternative approach, active
mode energy consumption, E<INF>a</INF>, would be the time series
integral of the power consumed from the point when the battery was
first inserted (or plugged in for chargers with integrated batteries)
until the measured data indicate a drop in power associated with the
transition from active charging to maintenance mode. Under this
approach, a single test period would provide the necessary measurements
for the active mode energy, E<INF>a</INF>, from the 24-hour charge and
maintenance mode test data.
DOE is proposing a separate test for active mode to allow the
battery discharge test to be conducted immediately afterwards and prior
to the maintenance mode test. This would ensure that the energy put
into the battery can be directly compared to the energy extracted from
it without any contribution from other modes of operation such as
maintenance mode. However, DOE may also consider the discussed
alternate approach in the development of the final rule.
DOE requests comment on the proposed approach to determining active
mode energy, as well as the suggested alternate method. In particular,
under the alternate method, DOE requests comment on how to define the
drop in power associated with the transition from active charging to
maintenance mode, such that this method would provide repeatable and
reproducible results.
b. Standby Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode
Standby mode is the condition in which an energy-using product
is:
(1) Connected to a mains power source; and
(2) Offers 1 or more of the following user-oriented or
protective functions:
(aa) To facilitate the activation or deactivation of other
functions (including active mode) by remote switch (including remote
control), internal sensor, or timer.
(bb) Continuous functions, including information or status
displays (including clocks) or sensor-based functions.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii))
Appendix Y defines standby mode for battery chargers as the
condition in which a battery charger is connected to mains electricity
supply, the battery is not connected to the charger--and for battery
chargers with manual on-off switches, all switches are turned on.
Appendix Y also includes a definition for maintenance mode in section
2.8 to mean the mode of operation in which the battery charger is
connected to the main electricity supply and the battery is fully
charged but still connected to the charger. In maintenance mode, a
battery charger continuously monitors the voltage of the fully charged
battery and periodically supplies charge current to maintain the
battery at the fully-charged state.
As mentioned previously, because the current test procedure relies
on a metric that integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode, it
is less critical as to whether maintenance mode is characterized as
standby mode as compared to the proposed multi-metric approach. The
current ``standby mode'' definition in appendix Y only captures what
can be referred to as ``no-battery mode,'' i.e., the condition where a
battery charger is connected to a mains power source but a battery
itself has not yet been inserted. In the context of the proposed multi-
metric approach, DOE has tentatively determined that maintenance mode
is also appropriately characterized as a standby power mode. In
maintenance mode, a battery charger provides continuous monitoring of
the battery charge. While a battery charger provides some limited
charging in maintenance mode in order to maintain the battery at full
charge, it is not charging a depleted battery. Unlike active mode,
maintenance mode can persist indefinitely. As an example, power tool
chargers in residential environments routinely spend an indefinite
amount of time maintaining batteries that are not regularly used but
are required to be fully charged. In addition to balancing and
mitigating self-discharge of the cells, these chargers also typically
provide a status display indicating that the battery is in the fully
charged state and ready for use. As previously mentioned, DOE has
tentatively determined that these continuous functions in maintenance

[[Page 66889]]

mode satisfies both EPCA's and IEC 62301's definition of standby.
To better account for these conditions, DOE proposes to rename what
is currently defined in appendix Y as standby mode to ``no-battery
mode'' in appendix Y1 (and reference this term, as appropriate,
throughout appendix Y1). DOE also proposes to define in appendix Y1 the
term ``standby mode'' to capture both no-battery mode and maintenance
mode. Specifically, DOE proposes that in appendix Y1, standby mode
power of a battery charger (P<INF>sb</INF>), would be calculated as the
sum of the no-battery mode power (P<INF>nb</INF>), and maintenance mode
power (P<INF>m</INF>).
DOE requests feedback on its proposed definition of standby mode in
newly proposed appendix Y1 to capture both no-battery mode as well as
maintenance mode. DOE also requests feedback on its proposal to define
standby power, or P<INF>sb</INF>, to mean the summation of the no-
battery mode (P<INF>nb</INF>) and maintenance mode (P<INF>m</INF>).
In proposing to replace the UEC metric with mode-specific metrics,
DOE considered utilizing the existing E<INF>24</INF> metric instead of
the proposed active mode energy E<INF>a</INF>. E<INF>24</INF> captures
the energy performance of a battery charger in active mode as well as
some time spent in maintenance mode. However, in doing so maintenance
mode would have been captured twice--once as part of E<INF>24</INF> and
again as part of the proposed definition of standby mode. DOE believes
that regulating maintenance mode and no-battery mode in terms of their
power consumption (i.e., in watts), rather than as an energy
consumption metric over a certain period of time (i.e., in watt-hours),
is more appropriate and representative because of the indefinite amount
of time a battery charger may spend in either of these modes, as
described above. As such, DOE is proposing that maintenance mode be
accounted for as part of standby mode instead of within the
E<INF>24</INF> metric in conjunction with active mode.
Per section 3.3.9 of appendix Y, maintenance mode power is
currently measured by examining the power-versus-time data from the
charge and maintenance test, and computing the average power that spans
a whole number of cycles, and includes, at least, the last 4 hours of
the test data. DOE considered an alternative test method in which
maintenance mode power would be calculated as the highest rolling
average over at least a 4-hour continuous time period during the charge
and maintenance mode test, starting from when active mode charging
ends. DOE, however, did not propose this alternate test method in this
NOPR due to lack of sufficient data needed to determine if such a
method would be appropriate for all battery chargers.
DOE requests feedback on its proposed approach to rely on
E<INF>a</INF>, P<INF>sb</INF> and P<INF>off</INF> instead of
E<INF>24</INF>, P<INF>nb</INF> and P<INF>off</INF> to determine the
energy performance of a battery charger, and whether a different
approach exists that may provide test results that are more
representative of the energy performance and energy use of battery
chargers. DOE also requests comment on the described alternate approach
to capturing maintenance mode power and whether such an approach would
be representative of actual use for all battery chargers.
6. Test Procedure Waivers Regarding Non-Battery-Charging Related
Functions
DOE granted Dyson, Inc. (``Dyson'') a waiver from the current
battery charger test procedure for a specified battery charger model
(used in a robotic vacuum cleaner) and provided an alternate means for
disabling non-battery-charging functions during testing.\13\ 82 FR
16580 (Apr. 5, 2017). As described in the petition for waiver, the
battery charger basic models subject to the waiver have a number of
settings and remote management features not associated with the battery
charging function, but are instead associated with the vacuum cleaner
end product that must remain on at all times. 82 FR 16580, 16581. Dyson
explained that it would be inappropriate to make these functions user
controllable, as they are integral to the function of the robot. Id.
The DOE test procedure for battery chargers requires that any function
controlled by the user and not associated with the battery charging
process must be switched off; or, for functions not possible to switch
off, be set to the lowest power consuming mode. Section 3.2.4.b of
appendix Y. DOE determined that the current test procedure at appendix
Y would evaluate the battery charger basic models specified in the
Orders granting the waiver and (related waiver extension) in a manner
so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics as
to provide materially inaccurate comparatively data. 82 FR 16580, 16581
and 84 FR 12240, 12241. Pursuant to the approved test procedure waiver,
the specified basic models must be tested and rated such that power to
functions not associated with the battery charging process are disabled
by isolating a terminal of the battery pack using isolating tape. Id.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the waiver
approach is generally appropriate for testing basic models with similar
features. 85 FR 26369, 26372-26373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Decision and Order Granting a Waiver to Dyson, Inc. From
the Department of Energy Battery Charger Test Procedure (Case No.
BC-001). Subsequently, DOE issued an Extension of Waiver to Dyson,
Inc. to cover an additional basic model (Case No. 2018- 012). 84 FR
12240 (Apr. 1, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delta-Q supported incorporating the waiver language into the test
procedure to make available the same testing method available for other
chargers with integrated non-charging features, such as DC-DC
converters, communication, diagnostics, and datalogging, that increase
user value and reduce cost and complexity. (Delta-Q, No. 10 at p. 2)
The Joint Commenters and ITI also supported physically disabling non-
charging-related features, stating that the inclusion of these features
during the charge and maintenance mode test would produce results that
are not representative of a battery charger's actual use. (Joint
Commenters, No. 6 at p. 3, ITI, No. 7 at p. 1, 8) The Joint Commenters
suggested that DOE add a column to the certification report for
manufacturers to indicate when special modifications were made to an
end-use product for testing and certification purposes. (Joint
Commenters, No. 6 at p. 3) The Joint Commenters recommended that DOE
add additional anti-circumvention language that makes the intent of the
approach to disable non-battery-charging functions clear. Id. ITI
further commented that smart devices must be connected to a network and
that DOE should update the test method to recognize the constant
connectivity needs of these devices, including during charging. (ITI,
No. 7 at p. 9) As an alternative, ITI suggested that DOE could also
prescribe ``adders'' for different functions instead of allowing them
to be disabled. (ITI, No. 7 at pp. 8-9)
CA IOUs recommended that DOE continue to rely on the use of waivers
and review them on a case-by-case basis, granting them only when
publicly available solutions to make the product compliant with DOE's
standards are unavailable. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at pp. 4-5) Furthermore, CA
IOUs recommended that DOE only prescribe waivers to those products with
core components that cannot be disabled without risk of damaging the
product. Id.
NEEA suggested that the robotic vacuum cleaner waivers should be
discontinued, asserting that other manufacturers of similar products
have been able to redesign their products to be successfully tested
without a waiver in response to enforcement action taken

[[Page 66890]]

by the California Energy Commission (``CEC''). (NEEA, No. 8 at p. 10)
Based on DOE's review of the market indicating that products
subject to the waivers granted to Dyson are no longer available, DOE is
not proposing to amend the test procedure to include instructions
regarding disabling power to functions not associated with the battery
charging process that are not consumer controllable. If made final,
this proposal would terminate the existing Dyson waivers consistent
with 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3) and 10 CFR 430.27(l).
DOE is also not proposing to include different power consumption
adders for non-battery-charging related functions. As stated, the DOE
test procedure applies to battery chargers as that term is defined by
EPCA and in the DOE regulations. Inclusion of power consumption adders
for non-battery charging-related functions would result in a UEC or
active energy consumption value unrepresentative of the energy use by
the battery charger.

C. Corrections and Non-Substantive Changes

Since the publication of DOE's current battery charger test
procedure and energy conservation standards, DOE has received numerous
stakeholder inquiries regarding various topics involving battery
charger testing and certification. Based on these inquiries, DOE
identified the need for certain minor corrections. These corrections
are addressed in the following sections. Additionally, in the interest
of improving overall clarity, DOE will include a flowchart in the
docket outlining the required testing and certification process upon
publication of a final rule.
1. Certification Flow Charts
Upon publication of a final rule, DOE will include flowcharts in
the docket, shown in Figure III.C.1 and Figure III.C.2,\14\ to help
manufacturers better understand the battery charger testing and
certification process. In particular, the flow charts would provide an
overview of the testing and certification process including an overview
of the basic model definition; the scope of DOE's battery charger test
procedure; the required sample size; difference between a rated value,
a represented value, and a certified rating; and the statistical
criteria for determining compliance with energy conservation standards.
The flow charts are not intended to address all aspects of the testing
and certification requirements, but instead provide a general-level
guide to the process. As such, manufacturers should not rely solely on
the flow charts for testing and compliance. Manufacturers of battery
chargers are required to comply with the applicable provisions under 10
CFR parts 429 and 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Figures III.C.1 and III.C.2 are included to clarify the
process in this rulemaking only. Manufacturers should not rely
solely on the flow charts as substantive guides for testing and
compliance, should changes proposed in this NOPR be finalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 66891]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO21.192

[[Page 66892]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO21.193

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE requests stakeholder feedback on whether such flow charts will
assist manufacturers through the certification testing and
certification process. DOE also requests comment on whether the flow
charts would benefit from the inclusion of any additional information.
2. Testing and Certification Clarifications
DOE's current battery charger UEC calculation is prescribed in
section 3.3.13 of appendix Y, with product

[[Page 66893]]

specific certification requirements prescribed in 10 CFR 429.39. In
response to the May 2020 RFI, stakeholders submitted comments
suggesting areas regarding the testing and certification requirements
that may benefit from additional detail or re-organization.
a. Multiple Battery Combinations
ITI suggested that DOE add the term ``representative testing'' to
make it clear that testing is not required for every combination of
battery pack and EPS if the battery packs and EPSs are identical in
electrical ratings. (ITI, No. 7 at pp. 1-2) ITI commented that testing
every combination would be time-consuming, costly, and requires
excessive test samples, which produces nearly identical test results
between combinations. (ITI, No. 7 at p. 2) ITI also suggested that the
sample size should be reduced for products that pass DOE's energy
conservation standards by more than a certain margin. (ITI, No. 7 at
pp. 1-2)
Manufacturers are required to test and certify basic models of
battery chargers, as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. For battery chargers, the
term ``basic model'' means all units of a given battery charger class
manufactured by one manufacturer; having the same primary energy
source; and, which have essentially identical electrical, physical, and
functional characteristics that affect energy consumption and energy
efficiency. 10 CFR 430.2. Individual units within a basic model may be
distributed under different brand names but must be made by the same
manufacturer. If the battery selection criteria specified in Table
3.2.1 of appendix Y results in two or more batteries or configurations
of batteries of different chemistries, but with equal voltage and
capacity ratings, the battery or configuration of batteries with the
highest maintenance mode power, as determined in section 3.3.9 of
appendix Y, should be selected for testing. This would result in a
single battery or a single configuration of batteries for conducting
the test.
In cases where the battery charger basic model's UEC passes DOE's
energy conservation standards and shows consistent energy consumption,
manufacturers have the potential to certify the product with only 2
units tested so long as they follow the test procedure and the
certification requirement. Otherwise, more samples would need to be
tested until the sampling requirements of 10 CFR 429.39 are met.
b. Measured vs. Rated Battery Energy
The product class distinctions provided in Table 3.3.3 of appendix
Y are based in part on rated battery energy as determined in 10 CFR
429.39(a), which in turn references the represented value of battery
discharge energy. 10 CFR 429.29(a)(1). The calculation of UEC in
section 3.3.13 of appendix Y is based in part on the tested (i.e.,
measured) battery energy.
TTI commented that there is inconsistency when determining the
battery charger product class between appendix Y and DOE's battery
charger standard at 10 CFR 430.32(z). Under appendix Y, the term
``E<INF>batt</INF>'' refers to the measured battery energy while under
the standard (10 CFR 430.32(z), the term ``E<INF>batt</INF>'' refers to
the rated battery energy determined in 10 CFR 429.39(a). (TTI, No. 3 at
p. 1) TTI commented that because of this, different labs are using
different battery energy values to determine battery charger product
class and energy conservation standards, resulting in possibly
inaccurate certifications. Id.
As described, UEC calculation in section 3.3.13 of appendix Y
incorporates the measured battery energy as determined in section 3.3.8
of appendix Y. In contrast, determining the appropriate product class
determination for purposes of standards compliance is based on the
``rated'' battery energy (i.e., the represented value of the battery
energy). To better distinguish between measured battery energy and
rated (i.e., represented) battery energy, DOE proposes updating the
nomenclature in appendix Y by modifying the ``E<INF>batt</INF>'' term
used in the UEC calculation and usage profile selection in Table 3.3.3
to ``Measured E<INF>batt</INF>''. DOE notes, however, that if the
proposal to remove the UEC equation and usage profiles, as described in
III.B.4 are finalized, all remaining instructions within appendix Y1
will rely on measured E<INF>batt</INF>, such that distinguishing
between measured and rated E<INF>batt</INF> would not be required.
DOE requests comments on whether manufacturers and test
laboratories are currently using ``measured'' battery energy or
``rated''/``represented'' battery energy values to determine battery
charger product class. DOE requests comment on its proposal to update
the nomenclature in appendix Y to refer to ``Measured
E<INF>batt</INF>'' and ``Represented E<INF>batt</INF>'' to better
distinguish between the two values.
c. Alternate Test Method for Small Electronic Devices
ITI recommended that DOE simplify the test procedure for small
electronic devices by relying on the battery capacity as marked on the
battery pack/cell instead of direct measurements. (ITI, No. 7 at p. 2)
ITI claimed that this approach would simplify sample preparation for
certain samples, avoid the need for obtaining special samples from the
factory with unsealed enclosures, and avoid the difficulty of soldering
test leads to a very small battery terminals in mobile products. Id.
DOE has observed several occasions where the measured battery
energy was lower than the capacity as marked on the battery pack/cell
(i.e., nameplate) battery energy. In such cases, a test procedure
reliant on the nameplate battery energy, rather than measured battery
energy, could result in an unrepresentative value of UEC or active
energy consumption. Accordingly, DOE is not proposing to amend the
requirement to rely on the measured battery energy value for the
purpose of the testing and certification.
d. Inability To Directly Measure Battery Energy
Section 3.2.5.(f) of appendix Y states that when the battery
discharge energy and the charging and maintenance mode energy cannot be
measured directly due to any of the following conditions: (1) Inability
to access the battery terminals; (2) access to the battery terminals
destroys charger functionality; or (3) inability to draw current from
the test battery, the battery discharge energy and the charging and
maintenance mode energy shall be reported as ``Not Applicable.'' In
such cases, the test procedure does not provide instruction on how to
proceed with the remainder of the test, and an alternate test method
must be used to measure battery discharge energy and the charging and
maintenance mode energy. DOE therefore proposes to update section
3.2.5(f) of appendix Y to explicitly state that if any of the
aforementioned conditions are applicable, preventing the measurement of
the battery discharge energy and the charging and maintenance mode
energy, a manufacturer must submit a petition for a test procedure
waiver in accordance with 10 CFR 430.27. The same provision would also
be included as part of the new appendix Y1.
e. Determining Battery Voltage
The product class distinctions provided in Table 3.3.3 of appendix
Y are based in part on ``battery voltage'' in addition to rated battery
energy or special charging characteristics, as described previously.
Section 3.3.1 of appendix Y specifies recording the nameplate battery
voltage of the test

[[Page 66894]]

battery. Section 2.21 of appendix Y defines ``nameplate battery
voltage'' as specified by the battery manufacturer and typically
printed on the label of the battery itself. If there are multiple
batteries that are connected in a series, the nameplate battery voltage
of the batteries is the total voltage of the series configuration--that
is, the nameplate voltage of each battery multiplied by the number of
batteries connected in series. Connecting multiple batteries in
parallel does not affect the nameplate battery voltage. Section 2.21 of
appendix Y.
Additionally, for a multi-voltage charger, the battery with the
highest battery voltage must be selected for testing, as prescribed by
Table 3.2.1 of appendix Y. Consequently, the highest supported battery
voltage should also be used to determine product class, which is not
reflected by the current term ``battery voltage'' in Table 3.3.3.
Updating the language in Table 3.3.3 would avoid the potential for
future confusion with regard to multi-voltage products.
TTI asked DOE to provide a method to determine battery voltage for
certification purposes. (TTI, No. 3 at p. 1)
DOE proposes to amend Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y by replacing the
term ``battery voltage'' with ``highest nameplate battery voltage'' to
provide clearer direction that the battery voltage used to determine
product class is based on its nameplate battery voltage, and that for
multi-voltage products, the highest voltage is used. This proposed
change would also be reflected in the proposed appendix Y1.
DOE is not aware of any multi-voltage battery chargers that are
currently incorrectly certified. Updating the language in appendix Y
would further avoid the potential for future confusion with regard to
multi-voltage products. DOE requests comments on its proposal to amend
Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y, and the corresponding language in the
proposed appendix Y1, with the term ``highest nameplate battery
voltage.''
3. Cross-Reference Corrections
Section 3.3.4 of appendix Y, ``Preparing the Battery for Charge
Testing,'' specifies that the test battery shall be fully discharged
for the duration specified in section 3.3.2 of appendix Y, or longer
using a battery analyzer. However, DOE's intention was to instruct the
user to discharge a test battery not for a set duration but until it
reaches the end of discharge voltages listed in Table 3.3.2 of appendix
Y. While a battery would be fully discharged with either set of
instructions, current instructions would lead to a battery preparation
step that is significantly longer. Additionally, there are several
instances in appendix Y of which DOE used generic terms such as
``specified above'' or ``noted below''. While these generic reference
terms are referring to the test procedure sections immediately
preceding or following, identifying the specific referenced sections
would improve the test procedure clarity. Therefore, DOE proposes to
further clarify these cross-references in appendix Y, and incorporate
this same change into proposed appendix Y1, to reduce test burden and
avoid potential confusion. To further streamline the readability of
appendix Y, DOE also proposes to move the end-of-discharge Table 3.3.2
so that it immediately follows the battery discharge energy test at
section 3.3.8.
4. Sub-Section Corrections
Sections 3.3.11(b) and 3.3.12(b) of appendix Y provide instructions
for testing the standby and off mode power consumption, respectively,
of a battery charger with integral batteries. Section 2.6 of appendix Y
describes an integral battery as a battery that is contained within the
consumer product and is not removed from the consumer product for
charging purposes. Sections 3.3.11(c), 3.3.11(d), 3.3.12(c), and
3.3.12(d) provide instructions applicable to products containing
``integrated power conversion and charging circuitry,'' which is
intended to refer to products with integral batteries for which the
circuitry is integrated within the battery charger, in contrast to
being integrated within a cradle or an external adapter (as referred to
in sections 3.3.11(b) and 3.3.12(b)). To improve the readability of the
test procedure and avoid potential confusion as to the applicability of
sections 3.3.11(c), 3.3.11(d), 3.3.12(c), and 3.3.12(d) in relation to
sections 3.3.11(b) and 3.3.12(b), DOE proposes to reorder these
sections of appendix Y such that section 3.3.11(b) would include only
the statement that standby mode may also apply to products with
integral batteries. The remainder of current section 3.3.11(b), as well
as 3.3.11(c) and 3.3.11(d) would be reorganized as subsections (1)
through (3) subordinate to section 3.3.11(b), to provide clearer
indication that these three subsections refer to three different types
of products with integral batteries. The same structure would be
applied in section 3.3.12(b) for off mode. This proposed change would
also be mirrored in the proposed appendix Y1.

D. Test Procedure Costs and Harmonization

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate some editorial changes in
the existing test procedure for battery chargers at appendix Y to: (1)
Update battery chemistry table to improve representativeness; (2)
explicitly refer manufacturers to the test procedure waiver provisions
when battery energy cannot be measured; and (3) provide more
descriptive designation of the different battery energy and battery
voltage values used for determining product class and calculating unit
energy consumption. The proposed changes to appendix Y also include
minor cross reference corrections and test procedure organization
improvements. DOE is also proposing to terminate the existing Dyson
test procedure waiver.
Newly proposed appendix Y1 would include all the changes previously
listed, as well as: (1) Remove the ``wet environment'' designation and
expand the 5 Wh battery energy limit to 100 Wh for fixed-location
wireless chargers; (2) add definitions for ``fixed-location'' and
``open-placement'' wireless chargers; (3) introduce a new no-battery
mode only test for open-placement wireless chargers; (4) amend the wall
adapter selection for chargers that do not come with one; and (5)
establish an approach that relies on separate metrics for active mode,
standby mode, and off mode, in place of the UEC calculation in appendix
Y. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amendments would
not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct.
Appendix Y Test Procedure Amendments
The proposals specific to appendix Y would not alter the scope of
applicability or the measured energy use of basic models currently
certified to DOE. DOE does not anticipate that the proposals specific
to appendix Y would cause any manufacturer to re-test any currently
covered battery chargers or incur any additional testing costs.
Appendix Y1 Test Procedure Proposal
All the proposals specific to appendix Y1 would not be required to
be used until DOE amends energy conservation standards for battery
chargers in a future rulemaking and requires battery charger
manufacturers to rate their products using appendix Y1. DOE is aware
that certain manufacturers may be voluntarily reporting under state
programs the energy efficiency as

[[Page 66895]]

determined under appendix Y of a limited number of fixed-location
wireless chargers that are not currently subject to the DOE test
procedure. DOE is not aware of such representations being included in
manufacturer literature. Given that such reporting appears limited to
state programs and manufacturers are not otherwise making
representations of the energy efficiency or energy use of such
products, DOE is unable to estimate the extent of such reporting. If
the proposed amendments were made final, beginning 180 days following
the final rule, were manufacturers to continue such voluntary
reporting, any such representations would have to be based on the DOE
test procedure as amended. To the extent there is a limited number of
models for which manufacturers are making voluntary representations,
such models may require re-testing were the proposed amendments
finalized. Further details regarding the cost impact of the proposed
amendments for when battery charger manufacturers are required to test
their products using appendix Y1 are presented in the following
paragraphs.
Appendix Y1--Wireless Chargers
The proposal to remove the ``wet environment'' designation and
increase the battery energy limit will increase the scope of the
existing battery charger test procedure to include wireless battery
chargers other than those with inductive connection and designed for
use in a wet environment. DOE has estimated the testing cost associated
to test these fixed-location and open-placement wireless chargers in
accordance with the proposed test procedures, if finalized. DOE
estimates that it would take approximately 48 hours to conduct the test
for one fixed-location wireless charger unit and 2.2 hours to conduct
the no-battery mode only test for one open-placement wireless charger
unit. These tests do not require the wireless charger unit being tested
to be constantly monitored by a lab technician. DOE estimates that a
lab technician would spend approximately 4.2 hours to test a fixed-
location wireless charger unit and one hour to test an open-placement
wireless charger unit.
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (``BLS's'')
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for
electrical and electronic engineering technologist and technician is
$32.84.\15\ DOE also used data from BLS's Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation to estimate the percent that wages comprise the total
compensation for an employee. DOE estimates that wages make up 70.4
percent of the total compensation for private industry employees.\16\
Therefore, DOE estimates that the total hourly compensation (including
all fringe benefits) of a technician performing these tests is
approximately $46.65.\17\ Using these labor rates and time estimates,
DOE estimates that it would cost wireless charger manufacturers
approximately $196 to conduct a single test on a fixed-location
wireless charger unit and approximately $47 to conduct a single test on
an open-placement wireless charger unit.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ DOE used the mean hourly wage of the ``17-3023 Electrical
and Electronic Engineering Technologists and Technicians'' from the
most recent BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (May
2020) to estimate the hourly wage rate of a technician assumed to
perform this testing. See <a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173023.htm">www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173023.htm</a>.
Last accessed on July 22, 2021.
\16\ DOE used the March 2021 ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation'' to estimate that for ``Private Industry Workers,''
``Wages and Salaries'' are 70.4 percent of the total employee
compensation. See <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06172021.pdf">www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06172021.pdf</a>. Last accessed on July 22, 2021.
\17\ $32.84 / 0.704 = $46.65.
\18\ Fixed-location wireless charger: $46.65 x 4.2 hours =
$195.93 (rounded to $196)
Open-placement wireless charger: $46.65 x 1 hour = $46.65
(rounded to $47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requires that at least two units to be tested for each basic
model prior to certifying a rating with DOE. Therefore, DOE estimates
that manufacturers would incur testing costs of approximately $392 per
fixed-location wireless charger basic model and approximately $94 per
open-placement wireless charger basic model, when testing these
wireless chargers. However, this proposal to remove the ``wet
environment'' designation and increase the battery energy limit for
wireless battery chargers, if finalized, would only be applicable for
appendix Y1, and manufacturers would not be required to use appendix Y1
for wireless battery chargers that are not currently covered by
appendix Y until DOE amends the energy conservation standards for
battery chargers as part of a future rulemaking. DOE will further
address the expected costs to industry if and when DOE establishes
energy conservation standards for wireless chargers.
Appendix Y1--Wall Adapter Selection
The proposed update to require the use of a minimally compliant
power supply selection criteria for battery chargers that are not sold
with one ensures that these products are tested in a manner that is
representative of actual use in accordance with EPCA. This proposal
would not create additional cost or require additional time as compared
to the current test procedure, as these battery chargers currently
require a low voltage input; this proposal would only specify how the
low voltage input must be provided and would not result in additional
costs. DOE also anticipates this proposal to impact the measured energy
consumption of battery chargers, but only for scenarios where the
manufacturer previously certified the product using an EPS that is
either not minimally compliant or used a bench power supply and failed
to include its energy consumption as part of the battery charger
system.
However, the proposed test procedure would only apply to the
proposed new appendix Y1, meaning it would not be required for testing
until DOE amends energy conservation standards and requires
manufacturers to use appendix Y1. Based on DOE's market research, DOE
estimates that most battery charger models do not remain on the market
for more than four years because of frequent battery charger new model
updates and retirement of old models. Therefore, DOE anticipates that
most battery chargers required to use appendix Y1 will likely be
introduced into the market after this test procedure amendment is
finalized.\19\ Because of this, DOE does not anticipate that battery
charger manufacturers would have to re-test battery charger models that
were introduced into the market prior to DOE finalizing this proposed
test procedure. Should use of appendix Y1 be required due to amended
energy conservation standards, battery chargers introduced prior to
this test procedure's finalization would likely no longer be on the
market. Battery charger manufacturers using the proposed selection
criteria of a power supply would not incur any additional testing costs
compared to the current battery charger testing costs. Therefore,
battery chargers introduced into the market after DOE finalizes this
proposed test procedure, is finalized, have the option to test those
models using the proposed selection criteria of a power supply. Any
manufacturer seeking to avoid any risk of retesting costs can choose to
comply with the propose selection criteria of a power supply earlier.
If a manufacturer chooses this option, they would incur the same
testing costs when using the proposed selection criteria as they
currently incur

[[Page 66896]]

and would not have to retest those battery chargers after appendix Y1
is required to comply with future energy conservation standards. DOE
will examine the potential retesting costs of manufacturers continuing
to test battery charger models that do not use the proposed selection
criteria of a power supply in the future energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ For this cost analysis DOE estimates that the battery
charger test procedures will be finalized in 2022. Similarly,
amended energy conservation standards, if justified, would be
finalized in 2024 with an estimated 2026 compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix Y1--Modes of Operation
DOE has also estimated the testing costs associated with battery
charger testing under the proposed appendix Y1. Removing usage profiles
and switching the UEC metric to an active, standby, and off modes
separate multi-metric system in appendix Y1 will cause battery charger
manufacturers to re-test their products when DOE amends energy
conservation standards requiring manufacturers to test their products
using appendix Y1. Under appendix Y1, if the manufacturer has (i)
already tested and certified the battery charger basic model under the
current appendix Y and (ii) still has the original testing data from
the appendix Y testing available for standby power calculation, those
battery charger basic models would only need to be retested with the
active charge energy and discharge tests with additional standby power
data analysis. For these battery charger basic models, DOE estimates an
extra labor time of 1.5 hours would be needed to set up and analyze the
test results.\20\ Using the previously calculated fully-burdened labor
rate of $46.65 per hour for an employee conducting these tests, DOE
estimates manufacturers would incur approximately $70 to analyze the
test results for these battery chargers. DOE requires at least two
units be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates manufacturers
would incur approximately $140 per battery charger basic model for
these battery chargers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ The total additional testing time for conducting the extra
active charge energy charge and discharge test can range from 8
hours to 21 hours. However, only 1.5 hours of the total extra
testing time would require technician intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basic models that will either be newly covered under the expanded
scope or that are missing the original test data from their appendix Y
testing would need to be fully tested under appendix Y1. DOE estimates
a total testing time ranging from 43 to 62 hours would be needed, with
4.2 hours of technician intervention required to test each additional
battery charger unit. Using the previously calculated fully-burdened
labor rate of $46.65 for an electrical technician to conduct these
tests, manufacturers would incur approximately $196 per unit. DOE
requires at least two units be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE
estimates manufacturers would incur approximately $392 per battery
charger basic model to conduct the complete testing under appendix Y1.
All Other Test Procedure Amendments
The remainder of the proposal would add additional detail and
instruction to improve the readability of the test procedure. The
cross-reference corrections, sub-section corrections and
reorganizations also help improve the test procedure readability and
clarity without modifying or adding any steps to the test method. As
such, these proposals, if finalized, will not result in increased test
burden.
DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact of the
proposals presented in this document in relation to test burden, costs,
and impact on the measured unit energy consumption of battery charger
products. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the per basic model
test costs associated with testing battery chargers and wireless
chargers to the proposed appendix Y1. DOE also requests comment on
DOE's initial assumption that manufacturers would not incur any
additional testing burden associated with the proposed changes to
appendix Y and the proposed changes regarding the power supply
selection criteria in appendix Y1.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards
as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly
burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect
the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or
estimated operating costs of that product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use. Section 8(c) of appendix A, 10 CFR
part 430 subpart C. But where the industry standard does not meet EPCA
statutory criteria for test procedures, DOE will make modifications to
the DOE test procedure via these standards through the rulemaking
process.
The test procedures for battery chargers at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix Y currently incorporates by reference certain
provisions of IEC 62301 (testing equipment and measuring device
specifications), IEC 62040 (specifies testing conditions and
measurement specifications for uninterruptible power supplies), and
ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 for uninterruptible power supply plug standards.
DOE is proposing to maintain the incorporation of these standards and
incorporate these standards in the new appendix Y1.
Different organizations either have developed or are in the process
of developing their own test procedures for measuring the wireless
charging efficiency of interoperable chargers, including the ANSI/CTA
2042.3, WPC protocol, and the IEC TC 100 TA 15 test method. The WPC
protocol provides a ranking of various wireless battery chargers by
comparing their relative power transfer efficiencies when a reference
receiver is placed on the most optimum charging location. The WPC
protocol, however, does not provide an absolute value for a wireless
charger's efficiency, and because it currently relies on a small number
of reference receivers to represent the entire breadth of real-world
loading conditions it may not be representative of actual use.
Similarly, ANSI/CTA 2042.3 and IEC TC 100 TA 15 requires receivers to
be placed at precise optimal charging locations.
DOE tentatively finds that these approaches are likely to lead to
significant repeatability issues. Even a slight variation in alignment
between the wireless transmitter and receiver can result in
significantly different efficiency measurements. These approaches also
require that the receiver be placed at the highest signal strength
area, which may not be representative of real-world usage. Furthermore,
IEC's test method utilizes 5 reference receivers with 4 different load
ratings, requiring a total of 20 tests for a single wireless charger;
this creates a total testing time considerably longer than the current
DOE test procedure. Due to the potential issues with repeatability,
non-representativeness of actual use, and test burden, DOE is not
proposing to incorporate the aforementioned industry standards in its
test procedure for battery chargers.
DOE recognizes that adopting industry standards with modifications
may increase overall testing costs if the modifications needed to meet
the conditions under EPCA require different testing equipment or
facilities. DOE seeks comment on the degree to which the DOE test
procedure should consider and be harmonized further with the most
recent relevant industry standards for battery chargers, 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, or any other comments regarding adopting any
industry/voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure,
without modification.

[[Page 66897]]

E. Compliance Date and Waivers

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in
accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 180 days after
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) To the extent the modified test
procedure proposed in this document is required only for the evaluation
and issuance of updated efficiency standards, use of the modified test
procedure, if finalized, would not be required until the implementation
date of updated standards. See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
section 8(d). Manufacturers are still required to continue testing
their battery charger products following the amended appendix Y, if
made final, during the meantime. If the proposed appendix Y1 amendments
are made final, manufacturers can voluntarily test and report any such
representations based on the appendix Y1 test procedure beginning 180
days following the test procedure final rule.
If DOE were to amend the test procedure, EPCA provides an allowance
for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the
180-day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship in
meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an
extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days
before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue hardship. Id.
Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions of an amended
test procedure that DOE issues, any waivers that had been previously
issued and are in effect that pertain to issues addressed by such
provisions are terminated. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(2). Recipients of any such
waivers would be required to test the products subject to the waiver
according to the amended test procedure as of the compliance date of
the amended test procedure.
As discussed previously, DOE is not proposing to amend the test
procedure to address the waiver and waiver extension granted to Dyson
(Case No. BC-001 and Case No. 2018-012), as the products for which the
waiver and waiver extension were required are no longer available,
making the waiver and waiver extension no longer necessary. If this
proposed rulemaking were made final, the final rule would terminate the
waiver and waiver extension consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3) and 10
CFR 430.27(l).

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute ``significant
regulatory actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order (``E.O.'')
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive
order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in
OMB.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website: <a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>. DOE
reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February
19, 2003.
The following sections detail DOE's IRFA for this test procedure
rulemaking.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for
battery chargers. DOE shall amend test procedures with respect to any
covered product, if the Secretary determines that amended test
procedures would more accurately produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
DOE is required to review existing DOE test procedures for all
covered products every 7 years. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of battery chargers, the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. The size standards are listed by North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry description and are
available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
Battery charger manufacturing is classified under NAICS 335999, ``All
Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing.''
The SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business in this category.
DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
proposed rule. 13 CFR part 121. DOE reviewed the test procedures
proposed in this NOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003.
Wired Battery Chargers
DOE used data from DOE's publicly available Compliance
Certification Database (``CCD'') \21\ and California Energy
Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System
(``MAEDbS'').\22\ DOE identified over 2,000 companies that submitted
entries for Federally regulated battery chargers.\23\ DOE screened out
companies that do not meet the SBA definition of a ``small entity'' or
are foreign-owned and operated. DOE identified approximately 294
potential small businesses that currently certify battery chargers or
applications using battery chargers to DOE's CCD. These 294 potential
small businesses manufacture approximately 3,456 unique basic models of
battery chargers or applications using battery chargers. The number of
battery charger models made by each potential small business ranges
from 1 model to 263 models,

[[Page 66898]]

with an average of approximately 12 unique basic models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ See <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data</a>. Last
accessed on August 11, 2021.
\22\ See <a href="http://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx">cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx</a>. Last accessed on August 11, 2021.
\23\ These entities consist of both battery charger
manufacturers and manufacturers of devices that use a battery
charger (e.g., toys or small electronic devices that have a battery
charger embedded in the product).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE used publicly available data from the Wireless Power Consortium
to estimate the number of wireless battery charger manufacturers and
number of wireless battery charger models.\24\ The majority of these
companies are foreign owned and operated, as most wireless battery
charger manufacturing is done abroad. DOE identified 13 potential
domestic small businesses that manufacture approximately 327 wireless
battery charger models. The number of wireless battery charger models
made by each potential small business ranges from 1 model to 183
models, with an average of approximately 25 models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See <a href="http://www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/products">www.wirelesspowerconsortium.com/products</a>. Last accessed
on September 8, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
Wired Battery Chargers
DOE assumes that each small business's regulatory costs would
depend on the number of unique basic battery charger models and
applications using a battery charger that small business manufactures.
It is likely that some unique applications using a battery charger may
use the same battery charging component as another unique application
listed in DOE's CCD, meaning the cost of testing would be double
counted in this analysis. However, DOE has conservatively estimated the
cost associated with re-testing each unique application using a battery
charger. Additionally, while some battery charger manufacturers could
partially rely on previous testing conducted under appendix Y for their
battery chargers (as described in section III.D.1), DOE conservatively
estimates each small business would need to conduct the entire test
under appendix Y1 for each unique basic model they manufacture.
As discussed in section III.D.1, battery chargers would only need
to be tested under appendix Y1 when DOE sets future energy conservation
standards for battery chargers that require appendix Y1. DOE estimates
that the total time for conducting testing under appendix Y1 would
range from 43 to 62 hours, and that it would require approximately 4.2
hours of technician intervention to test each additional battery
charger unit. Using the previously calculated fully-burdened labor rate
of $46.65 for an electrical technician to conduct these tests,\25\
manufacturers would incur approximately $196 of testing costs per unit.
DOE requires at least two units be tested per basic model. Therefore,
DOE estimates manufacturers would incur approximately $392 of testing
costs per battery charger basic model to conduct the complete testing
under appendix Y1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Based on data from the BLS's Occupational Employment and
Wage Statistics, the mean hourly wage for an electrical and
electronic engineering technologist and technician is $32.84
(<a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173023.htm">www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes173023.htm</a>). Additionally, DOE used data
from BLS's Employer Costs for Employee Compensation to estimate the
percent that wages comprise the total compensation for an employee.
DOE estimates that wages make up 70.4 percent of the total
compensation for private industry employees (<a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06172021.pdf">www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06172021.pdf</a>). $32.84 / 0.704 = $46.65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates that all small businesses combined would incur
approximately $1.35 million \26\ if these small businesses re-tested
all their unique basic models of battery chargers or applications using
battery chargers under appendix Y1. An The potential range of testing
costs for an individual small business would be between $392 (to re-
test one basic model to) and approximately $103,000 (to re-test 263
basic models,), with an average cost of approximately $4,704 to re-test
12 basic models (the average number of models) under appendix Y1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ $392 (testing cost per basic model) x 3,456 (number of
unique basic models manufactured by all small businesses) =
$1,354,752.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE was able to find annual revenue estimates for 289 of the 294
small businesses DOE identified. DOE was not able to identify any
reliable annual revenue estimates for the remaining five small
businesses. Based on the number of unique basic models of battery
chargers or applications using battery chargers each small business
manufactures, DOE estimates that the $392 per model potential re-
testing cost would represent less than 2 percent of annual revenue for
286 of the 289 small businesses. DOE estimates that three small
businesses could incur re-testing costs that would exceed 2.0 percent
of their annual revenue.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ One small business manufactures eight unique basic models,
which if all basic models were re-tested could cost up to $3,136.
This small business has an estimated annual revenue of $52,000,
meaning testing costs could comprise up to 6.0 percent of their
annual revenue. Another small business manufactures six basic
models, which if all basic models were re-tested could cost up to
$2,352. This small business has an estimated annual revenue of
$94,000, meaning testing costs could comprise up to 2.5 percent of
their annual revenue. The remaining small business manufactures five
basic models, which if all basic models were re-tested could cost up
to $1,960. This small business has an estimated annual revenue of
$68,400, meaning testing costs could comprise up to 2.9 percent of
their annual revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE assumed that each small business's regulatory costs would
depend on the number of wireless battery charger models that small
business manufactures. As discussed in section III.D.1, wireless
battery chargers would only need to be tested under appendix Y1 when
DOE sets future energy conservation standards for battery chargers. DOE
estimates that a total testing time for conducting testing under
appendix Y1 for wireless battery chargers would take approximately 48
hours to conduct the test for one fixed-location wireless charger unit,
and 2.2 hours to conduct the no-battery mode only test for one open-
placement wireless charger unit. These tests do not require the
wireless charger unit being tested to be constantly monitored by a lab
technician. DOE estimates that a lab technician would spend
approximately 4.2 hours to test a fixed-location wireless charger unit
and one hour to test an open-placement wireless charger unit.
The Wireless Power Consortium database does not identify if the
wireless charger is a fixed-location or an open-placement wireless
charger. Based on DOE's market research, the vast majority of wireless
chargers are open-placement wireless chargers. Therefore, DOE is
estimating the costs to small businesses using the estimated per unit
open-placement wireless charger testing costs.
Using the previously calculated fully-burdened labor rate of $46.65
for an electrical technician to conduct these tests, manufacturers
would incur approximately $47 per unit. DOE requires at least two units
be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE estimates manufacturers would
incur approximately $94 to conduct the no-battery mode test for one
open-placement wireless charger unit under appendix Y1.
DOE estimates that all small businesses combined would incur
approximately $31,000 to test all their wireless chargers under
appendix Y1.\28\ The potential range of testing costs for an individual
small business would be between $94 (to test one wireless charger
model) to approximately $17,200 (to test 183 wireless charger models,),
with an average cost of approximately $2,350 to test 25 wireless
charger models (the average number of models) under appendix Y1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ $94 (testing cost per model) x 327 (number of wireless
charger models manufactured by all small businesses) = $30,738.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE was able to find annual revenue estimates for 12 of the 13
wireless

[[Page 66899]]

charger small businesses DOE identified. DOE was not able to identify
any reliable annual revenue estimates for the remaining wireless
charger small businesses DOE identified. Based on the number of
wireless charger models each small business manufactures, DOE estimates
that the $94 per model testing cost would represent less than 2 percent
of annual revenue for all 12 of the wireless charger small businesses
that DOE found annual revenue estimates for.
DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses DOE
identified; the number of battery charger models assumed these small
business manufacture; and the per model re-testing or testing costs and
total re-testing or testing costs DOE estimated small businesses may
incur to re-test wired battery chargers or to test wireless chargers to
appendix Y1. DOE also requests comment on any other potential costs
small businesses may incur due to the proposed amended test procedures,
if finalized.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
As previously stated in this section, DOE is required to review
existing DOE test procedures for all covered products every 7 years.
Additionally, DOE shall amend test procedures with respect to any
covered product, if the Secretary determines that amended test
procedures would more accurately produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE has initially determined that
appendix Y1 would more accurately produce test results to measure the
energy efficiency of battery chargers.
While DOE recognizes that requiring that battery charger
manufacturers use appendix Y1 to comply with future energy conservation
standards would cause manufacturers to re-test some battery charger
models or test some wireless chargers, for most battery charger
manufacturers it will be inexpensive to re-test or test these models.
Additionally, some manufacturers might be able to partially rely on
previous test data used manufacturers tested their wired battery
chargers under appendix Y.
DOE has tentatively determined that there are no better
alternatives than the proposed amended test procedures in terms of
meeting the agency's objectives to more accurately measure energy
efficiency and reducing burden on manufacturers. Therefore, DOE is
proposing in this NOPR to amend the existing DOE test procedure for
battery chargers.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C.
7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued
under EPCA in order to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or unfair
distribution of burdens'' that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a
result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430,
subpart E, and part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Manufacturers of battery chargers must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To
certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including battery chargers.
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for battery chargers. DOE has determined that
this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures
for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.

[[Page 66900]]

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction,
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at <a href="https://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">https://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>. DOE examined this
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and
determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate,
nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or
more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at <a href="http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf">www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf</a>. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of battery chargers is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a
significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it
is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974

Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the

[[Page 66901]]

commercial or industry standards on competition. DOE has evaluated
these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply
with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether they
were developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of
this test procedure on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

DOE proposes to maintain previously approved incorporation by
reference standards in appendix Y. Additionally, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference the following industry standards into the new
appendix Y1:

1. IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power, (Edition 2.0, 2011-01)'' into the new appendix Y1.
Appendix Y1 references various sections from IEC 62301 for test
conditions, standby power measurement, and measurement uncertainty
determination.
2. EC 62040-3, ``Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)--Part 3:
Methods of specifying the performance and test requirements,''
Edition 2.0, 2011-03. Appendix Y1 references various sections from
IEC 62040 for test requirements of uninterruptible power supplies.
3. ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016, ``Wiring Devices--Dimensional
Specifications,'' ANSI approved February 11, 2016. Appendix Y1
references the input plug requirements in Figure 1-15 and Figure 5-
15 of ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016.

Copies of IEC 62301 and IEC 62040-3 can be obtained from the
International Electrotechnical Commission at 446 Main Street, Sixteenth
Floor, Worcester, MA 01608, or by going to www.iec.ch.
Copies of ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 can be obtained from American
National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York,
NY 10036, 212-642-4900, or by going to <a href="http://www.ansi.org">www.ansi.org</a>.

V. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for
test procedure NOPRs pursuant to the North American Free Trade
Agreement, U.S.-Canada-Mexico (``NAFTA''), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M.
289 (1993); the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended
at 10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (``NAFTA Implementation Act''); and
Executive Order 12889, ``Implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement,'' 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1,
2020, the Agreement between the United States of America, the United
Mexican States, and the United Canadian States (``USMCA''), Nov. 30,
2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into effect,
and Congress's action in replacing NAFTA through the USMCA
Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020), implies the
repeal of E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period requirement for
technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are EPCA and the
USMCA Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA's public comment
period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA only requires a
minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE now provides a
60-day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Submitting comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No 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. Pursuant 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/courier 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

[[Page 66902]]

status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
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).

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to define fixed-location
wireless chargers in appendix Y1 and whether this definition accurately
captures all the types of wireless chargers with locating features that
are on the market; its proposal to remove the ``wet environment''
designation for wireless chargers; its proposal to revise the scope of
Product Class 1 to include all fixed-location wireless chargers in
appendix Y1; and its proposal to increase the rated battery energy
limit for fixed-location wireless chargers from <= 5 Wh to < 100 Wh in
appendix Y1 to accommodate the range of inductive wireless battery
chargers on the market and potential future product designs that may
have larger battery energies. DOE also requests information on which
types of inductive wireless battery chargers would be subject to DOE
regulations due to the proposed change in scope, including any
corresponding usage data, if available.
(2) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to define open-placement
wireless chargers in appendix Y1 and whether this definition accurately
captures all the types of wireless chargers without physical locating
features that are on the market. DOE also requests comment on its
proposal to require testing of the no-battery mode power consumption of
these open-placement wireless chargers.
(3) DOE requests comment on the proposal to specify the priority of
wall adapter selection in appendix Y1. DOE also requests comment on the
proposal in appendix Y1 to replace the 5 V DC input requirement for
those chargers that do not ship with an adapter, and one is not
recommended, with the requirement that these chargers be tested with
any compatible and commercially-available EPS that is minimally
compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards for EPSs. DOE also
requests comments on whether these proposals would result in increased
test burden.
(4) DOE requests comment on the proposal to update the term
``Lithium Polymer'' to ``Lithium-ion Polymer''. DOE also requests
comment on the proposal to rename the term ``Nanophosphate Lithium'' to
the non-proprietary term ``Lithium Iron Phosphate''.
(5) DOE requests feedback on the proposal to remove the
specification of usage profiles and the associated UEC calculation in
appendix Y1, to be replaced with an approach that relies on separate
metrics for active mode, standby mode, and off mode. For further
consideration of the existing approach, DOE requests, for all
applications in each product class, data such as the percentage of time
spent in each mode of operation along with data sources for
consideration in updating the usage profiles for battery chargers.
(6) DOE requests comment on the proposed approach to determining
active mode energy, as well as the suggested alternate method. In
particular, under the alternate method, DOE requests comment on how to
define the drop in power associated with the transition from active
charging to maintenance mode, such that this method would provide
repeatable and reproducible results.
(7) DOE requests feedback on its proposed definition of standby
mode in newly proposed appendix Y1 to capture both no-battery mode as
well as maintenance mode. DOE also requests feedback on its proposal to
define standby power, or Psb, to mean the summation of the no-battery
mode (Pnb) and maintenance mode (Pm).
(8) DOE requests feedback on its proposed approach to rely on Ea,
Psb and Poff instead of E24, Pnb and Poff to determine the energy
performance of a battery charger, and whether a different approach
exists that may provide test results that are more representative of
the energy performance and energy use of battery chargers. DOE also
requests comment on the described alternate approach to capturing
maintenance mode power and whether such an approach would be
representative of actual use for all battery chargers.
(9) DOE requests stakeholder feedback on whether such flow charts
will assist manufacturers through the testing and certification
process. DOE also requests comment on whether the flow charts would
benefit from the inclusion of additional information.
(10) DOE requests comments on whether manufacturers and test
laboratories are currently using ``measured'' battery energy or
``rated''/``represented'' battery energy values to determine battery
charger product class. DOE requests comment on its proposal to update
the nomenclature in appendix Y to refer to ``Measured Ebatt'' and
``Represented Ebatt'' to better distinguish between the two values.
(11) DOE is not aware of any multi-voltage battery chargers that
are currently incorrectly certified. Updating the language in appendix
Y would further avoid the potential for future confusion with regard to
multi-voltage products. DOE requests comments on its proposal to amend
Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y, and the corresponding language in the
proposed appendix Y1, with the term ``highest nameplate battery
voltage.''
(12) DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact of the
proposals presented in this document in relation to test burden, costs,
and impact on the measured unit energy consumption of battery charger
products. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the per basic model
test costs associated with testing battery chargers and wireless
chargers to the proposed appendix Y1. DOE also requests comment on
DOE's initial assumption that manufacturers would not incur any
additional testing burden associated with the proposed changes to
appendix Y and the proposed changes regarding the power supply
selection criteria in appendix Y1.
(13) DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses DOE
identified; the number of battery charger models assumed these small
business manufacture; and the per model re-testing or testing costs and
total re-testing or testing costs DOE estimated small businesses may
incur to re-test wired battery chargers or to test wireless chargers to
appendix Y1. DOE also requests comment on any other potential costs
small businesses may incur due to the proposed amended test procedures,
if finalized.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,

[[Page 66903]]

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.

Signing Authority

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on November 3,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.

Signed in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
parts 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291--6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Section 429.39 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraphs (a) and paragraphs (a)(1) through (2)(iii) to read as
follows:

Sec. 429.39 Battery chargers.

(a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers must
determine represented values, which include certified ratings, for each
basic model of battery charger in accordance with the following
sampling provisions.
(1) Represented values include. The unit energy consumption (UEC)
in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr) (if applicable), battery discharge
energy (E<INF>batt</INF>) in watt hours (Wh), 24-hour energy
consumption (E<INF>24</INF>) in watt hours (Wh) (if applicable), active
mode energy consumption (E<INF>a</INF>) in watt hours (Wh) (if
applicable), maintenance mode power (P<INF>m</INF>) in watts (W), no-
battery mode power (P<INF>nb</INF>) in watts (W) (if applicable),
standby mode power (P<INF>sb</INF>) in watts (W), off mode power
(P<INF>off</INF>) in watts (W), and duration of the charge and
maintenance mode test (t<INF>cd</INF>) in hours (hrs) (if applicable)
for all battery chargers other than uninterruptible power supplies
(UPSs); and average load adjusted efficiency (Eff<INF>avg</INF>) for
UPSs.
(2) Units to be tested. (i) The general requirements of Sec.
429.11 are applicable to all battery chargers; and
(ii) For each basic model of battery chargers other than UPSs, a
sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to
ensure that the represented value of UEC or E<INF>a</INF> is greater
than or equal to the higher of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO21.194

and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
x<INF>i</INF> is the UEC or E<INF>a</INF> of the ith sample; or,
(B) The upper 97.5-percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO21.195

And, x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t<INF>0.975</INF> is the t-statistic for a
97.5-percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom
(from appendix A of this subpart).
(iii) For each basic model of battery chargers other than UPSs,
using the sample from paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section, calculate
the represented values of each metric (i.e., maintenance mode power
(P<INF>m</INF>), no-battery mode power (P<INF>nb</INF>), standby power
(P<INF>sb</INF>), off mode power (P<INF>off</INF>), battery discharge
energy (E<INF>batt</INF>), 24-hour energy consumption (E<INF>24</INF>),
and duration of the charge and maintenance mode test (t<INF>cd</INF>)),
where the represented value of the metric is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO21.196

and, x is the sample mean, n is the number of samples, and
x<INF>i</INF> is the measured value of the ith sample for the metric.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 429.134 is amended by adding paragraph (s) to read as
follows:

Sec. 429.134 Product specific enforcement provisions.

* * * * *
(s) Battery chargers--verification of reported represented value
obtained from testing in accordance with appendix Y1 of 10 CFR part 430
subpart B when using an external power supply. If the battery charger
basic model requires the use of an external power supply (``EPS''), and
the manufacturer reported EPS is no longer available on the market,
then DOE will test the battery charger with any compatible EPS that is
minimally compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards for EPSs
as prescribed in Sec. 430.32(w) of this subchapter and that meets the
battery charger input power criteria.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
4. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

Sec. 430.3 [Amended]

0
5. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the words ``IBR approved for Appendix Y'', in paragraph
(e)(22), and adding in its place the words ``IBR approved for
appendices Y and Y1'';
0
b. Removing the words ``appendix Y to subpart B'', in paragraph (o)(3),
and adding in its place the words ``appendices Y and Y1 to subpart B'';
and
0
c. Removing the words ``Y, Z,'', in paragraph (o)(6), and adding in its
place the words ``Y, Y1, Z,''.
0
6. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraph (aa) to read as
follows:

Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.

* * * * *
(aa) Battery Chargers. (1) For battery chargers subject to
compliance with the relevant standard at Sec. 430.32 as that standard
appeared in the January 1, 2021 edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499:
(i) Measure the maintenance mode power, standby power, off mode
power, battery discharge energy, 24-hour energy consumption and
measured duration of the charge and maintenance mode test for a battery
charger other than uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with
appendix Y to this subpart,
(ii) Calculate the unit energy consumption of a battery charger
other than uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with appendix Y
to this subpart,

[[Page 66904]]

(iii) Calculate the average load adjusted efficiency of an
uninterruptible power supply in accordance with appendix Y to this
subpart.
(2) For a battery charger subject to compliance with any amended
relevant standard provided in Sec. 430.32 that is published after
January 1, 2021:
(i) Measure active mode energy, maintenance mode power, no-battery
mode power, off mode power and battery discharge energy for a battery
charger other than uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with
appendix Y1 to this subpart.
(ii) Calculate the standby power of a battery charger other than
uninterruptible power supplies in accordance with appendix Y1, to this
subpart.
(iii) Calculate the average load adjusted efficiency of an
uninterruptible power supply in accordance with appendix Y1 to this
subpart.
* * * * *
0
7. Appendix Y to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the introductory paragraph;
0
b. Revising sections 3.2.5.(f), 3.3.4., and 3.3.8.;
0
c. Revising Table 3.3.2 through 3.3.10.; and
0
d. Revising sections 3.3.11. through 3.3.13.
The revisions read as follows:

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers

Note: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under
appendix Y to determine compliance with the relevant standard from
Sec. 430.32(z) as that standard appeared in the January 1, 2021
edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499. Specifically, before [Date 180 days
following publication of the final rule] representations must be
based upon results generated either under this appendix or under
appendix Y as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200-499 edition
revised as of January 1, 2021.
For any amended standards for battery chargers published after
January 1, 2021, manufacturers must use the results of testing under
appendix Y1 to determine compliance. Representations related to
energy consumption must be made in accordance with the appropriate
appendix that applies (i.e., appendix Y or appendix Y1) when
determining compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may
also use appendix Y1 to certify compliance with amended standards,
published after January 1, 2021, prior to the applicable compliance
date for those standards.
* * * * *

3.2.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test

* * * * *
(f) If any of the following conditions noted immediately below
in sections 3.2.5.(f)(1) to 3.2.5.(f)(3) are applicable, preventing
the measurement of the Battery Discharge Energy and the Charging and
Maintenance Mode Energy, a manufacturer must submit a petition for a
test procedure waiver in accordance with Sec. 430.27:
(1) Inability to access the battery terminals;
(2) Access to the battery terminals destroys charger
functionality; or
(3) Inability to draw current from the test battery.
* * * * *

3.3.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge Testing

Following any conditioning prior to beginning the battery charge
test (section 3.3.6 of this appendix), the test battery shall be
fully discharged to the end of discharge voltage prescribed in Table
3.3.2 of this appendix, or until the UUT circuitry terminates the
discharge.
* * * * *

3.3.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test

(a) If multiple batteries were charged simultaneously, the
discharge energy is the sum of the discharge energies of all the
batteries.
(1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that were charged in
separate ports shall be discharged independently.
(2) For a batch charger, batteries that were charged as a group
may be discharged individually, as a group, or in sub-groups
connected in series and/or parallel. The position of each battery
with respect to the other batteries need not be maintained.
(b) During discharge, the battery voltage and discharge current
shall be sampled and recorded at least once per minute. The values
recorded may be average or instantaneous values.
(c) For this test, the technician shall follow these steps:
(1) Ensure that the test battery has been charged by the UUT and
rested according to sections 3.3.6. and 3.3.7.
(2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant discharge rate and
the end-of-discharge voltage in Table 3.3.2 of this appendix for the
relevant battery chemistry.
(3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer and begin recording
the voltage, current, and wattage, if available from the battery
analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage is reached or the UUT
circuitry terminates the discharge, the test battery shall be
returned to an open-circuit condition. If current continues to be
drawn from the test battery after the end-of-discharge condition is
first reached, this additional energy is not to be counted in the
battery discharge energy.
(d) If not available from the battery analyzer, the battery
discharge energy (in watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the
voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and sample period (in
hours) for each sample, and then summing over all sample periods
until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached.
* * * * *

Table 3.3.2--Required Battery Discharge Rates and End-of-Discharge
Battery Voltages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
End-of-
discharge
Battery chemistry Discharge rate voltage*
(C) (volts per
cell)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA)........ 0.2 1.75
Flooded Lead Acid....................... 0.2 1.70
Nickel Cadmium (NiCd)................... 0.2 1.0
Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH)............. 0.2 1.0
Lithium-ion (Li-Ion).................... 0.2 2.5
Lithium-ion Polymer..................... 0.2 2.5
Lithium Iron Phosphate.................. 0.2 2.0
Rechargeable Alkaline................... 0.2 0.9
Silver Zinc............................. 0.2 1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ If the presence of protective circuitry prevents the battery cells
from being discharged to the end-of-discharge voltage specified, then
discharge battery cells to the lowest possible voltage permitted by
the protective circuitry.

[[Page 66905]]

3.3.11. Standby Mode Energy Consumption Measurement

The standby mode measurement depends on the configuration of the
battery charger, as follows:
(a) Conduct a measurement of standby power consumption while the
battery charger is connected to the power source. Disconnect the
battery from the charger, allow the charger to operate for at least
30 minutes, and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time
series integral of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period,
divided by the period of measurement. If the battery charger has
manual on-off switches, all must be turned on for the duration of
the standby mode test.
(b) Standby mode may also apply to products with integral
batteries, as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and
standby mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or
adapter alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry,
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and standby mode
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero
watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain
connected to mains, and standby mode measurement is not applicable.

3.3.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption Measurement

The off mode measurement depends on the configuration of the
battery charger, as follows:
(a) If the battery charger has manual on-off switches, record a
measurement of off mode energy consumption while the battery charger
is connected to the power source. Remove the battery from the
charger, allow the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and
record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as the time series integral
of the power consumed over a 10-minute test period, divided by the
period of measurement, with all manual on-off switches turned off.
If the battery charger does not have manual on-off switches, record
that the off mode measurement is not applicable to this product.
(b) Off mode may also apply to products with integral batteries,
as follows:
(1) If the product uses a cradle and/or adapter for power
conversion and charging, then ``disconnecting the battery from the
charger'' will require disconnection of the end-use product, which
contains the batteries. The other enclosures of the battery charging
system will remain connected to the main electricity supply, and off
mode power consumption will equal that of the cradle and/or adapter
alone.
(2) If the product is powered through a detachable AC power cord
and contains integrated power conversion and charging circuitry,
then only the cord will remain connected to mains, and off mode
power consumption will equal that of the AC power cord (i.e., zero
watts).
(3) If the product contains integrated power conversion and
charging circuitry but is powered through a non-detachable AC power
cord or plug blades, then no part of the system will remain
connected to mains, and off mode measurement is not applicable.

3.3.13. Unit Energy Consumption Calculation

Unit energy consumption (UEC) shall be calculated for a battery
charger using one of the two equations (equation (i) or equation
(ii)) listed in this section. If a battery charger is tested and its
charge duration as determined in section 3.3.2 of this appendix
minus 5 hours is greater than the threshold charge time listed in
Table 3.3.3 of this appendix (i.e., (t<INF>cd</INF> - 5) * n >
t<INF>a&m</INF>), equation (ii) shall be used to calculate UEC;
otherwise a battery charger's UEC shall be calculated using equation
(i).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO21.197

Where:

E<INF>24</INF> = 24-hour energy as determined in section 3.3.10 of
this appendix,
Measured E<INF>batt</INF> = Measured battery energy as determined in
section 3.3.8. of this appendix,
P<INF>m</INF> = Maintenance mode power as determined in section
3.3.9. of this appendix,
P<INF>sb</INF> = Standby mode power as determined in section 3.3.11.
of this appendix,
P<INF>off</INF> = Off mode power as determined in section 3.3.12. of
this appendix,
t<INF>cd</INF> = Charge test duration as determined in section
3.3.2. of this appendix, and
t<INF>a&m</INF>, n, t<INF>sb</INF>, and t<INF>off</INF>, are
constants used depending upon a device's product class and found in
the Table 3.3.3:

Table 3.3.3--Battery Charger Usage Profiles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class Hours per day *** Charges (n) Threshold
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- charge time
Special *
Measured battery characteristic or Active + Standby Number per ------------
Number Description energy (measured highest nameplate maintenance (tsb) Off (toff) day
Ebatt) ** battery voltage (ta&m) Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............... Low-Energy........... <=20 Wh............... Inductive Connection 20.66 0.10 0.00 0.15 137.73
****.
2............... Low-Energy, Low- <100 Wh............... <4 V................. 7.82 5.29 0.00 0.54 14.48
Voltage.
3............... Low-Energy, Medium- ...................... 4-10 V............... 6.42 0.30 0.00 0.10 64.20
Voltage.

[[Page 66906]]

4............... Low-Energy, High- ...................... >10 V................ 16.84 0.91 0.00 0.50 33.68
Voltage.
5............... Medium-Energy, Low- 100-3000 Wh........... <20 V................ 6.52 1.16 0.00 0.11 59.27
Voltage.
6............... Medium-Energy, High- ...................... >=20 V............... 17.15 6.85 0.00 0.34 50.44
Voltage.
7............... High-Energy.......... >3000 Wh.............. ..................... 8.14 7.30 0.00 0.32 25.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* If the duration of the charge test (minus 5 hours) as determined in section 3.3.2. of appendix Y to subpart B of this part exceeds the threshold
charge time, use equation (ii) to calculate UEC otherwise use equation (i).
** Measured Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section 3.3.8.
*** If the total time does not sum to 24 hours per day, the remaining time is allocated to unplugged time, which means there is 0 power consumption and
no changes to the UEC calculation needed.
**** Fixed-location inductive wireless charger only.

* * * * *
0
8. Appendix Y1 to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows:

Appendix Y1 to Subpart B of Part 430-Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers

Note: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this
appendix Y1 to determine compliance with any amended standards for
battery chargers provided in Sec. 430.32 that are published after
January 1, 2021. Representations related to energy or water
consumption must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix
that applies (i.e., appendix Y or appendix Y1) when determining
compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may also use
appendix Y1 to certify compliance with amended standards, published
after January 1, 2021, prior to the applicable compliance date for
those standards.

1. Scope

This appendix provides the test requirements used to measure the
energy consumption of battery chargers, including fixed-location
wireless chargers designed for charging batteries with less than 100
watt-hour battery energy and open-placement wireless chargers,
operating at either DC or United States AC line voltage (115V at
60Hz). This appendix also provides the test requirements used to
measure the energy efficiency of uninterruptible power supplies as
defined in section 2 of this appendix that utilize the standardized
National Electrical Manufacturer Association (NEMA) plug, 1-15P or
5-15P, as specified in ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 430.3) and have an AC output. This appendix
does not provide a method for testing back-up battery chargers or
open-placement wireless chargers.

2. Definitions

The following definitions are for the purposes of explaining the
terminology associated with the test method for measuring battery
charger energy consumption.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ For clarity on any other

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on November 23, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.