Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-18717

Rule2022-18717

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

September 8, 2022

Effective

October 11, 2022

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") amends the existing test procedures for battery chargers to reorganize certain subsections, clarify symbology and references, correct an incorrect cross reference and section title, update the list of battery chemistries, and terminate an existing test procedure waiver because the covered subject models have been discontinued. This final rule also establishes in new appendix Y1 a new a test procedure for battery chargers that expands coverage to include inductive wireless battery chargers and establishes associated definitions and test provisions; establishes a new test procedure approach that relies on separate metrics for active mode, standby mode, and off mode; and updates the EPS selection criteria. The new test procedure Y1 will be used for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, as well as to determine compliance with the updated standards, should such standards be established.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55090-55132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18717]

[[Page 55089]]

Vol. 87

Thursday,

No. 173

September 8, 2022

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 173 / Thursday, September 8, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 55090]]

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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
amends the existing test procedures for battery chargers to reorganize
certain subsections, clarify symbology and references, correct an
incorrect cross reference and section title, update the list of battery
chemistries, and terminate an existing test procedure waiver because
the covered subject models have been discontinued. This final rule also
establishes in new appendix Y1 a new a test procedure for battery
chargers that expands coverage to include inductive wireless battery
chargers and establishes associated definitions and test provisions;
establishes a new test procedure approach that relies on separate
metrics for active mode, standby mode, and off mode; and updates the
EPS selection criteria. The new test procedure Y1 will be used for the
evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, as well as to
determine compliance with the updated standards, should such standards
be established.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is October 11, 2022. The
amendments to the current test procedure will be mandatory for product
testing starting March 7, 2023. Manufacturers will be required to use
the amended test procedure in appendix Y until the compliance date of
any final rule establishing amended energy conservation standards based
on the newly established test procedure in appendix Y1. At such time,
manufacturers will be required to begin using the newly established
test procedure in appendix Y1.
The incorporation by reference of certain materials listed in this
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on October 11,
2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 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, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as those containing information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012</a>. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f2e1f1f03060e010c0a3c1b0e010b0e1d0b1c3e1a0a1c1b0600011c2f0a0a410b000a41080019">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b1f0c1c1ddd8d0dfd2d4e2c5d0dfd5d0c3d5c2e0c4d4c2c5d8dedfc2f1d4d49fd5ded49fd6dec7">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-5709. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d59bbab9b4bbfb97a7bcb6bea2babab195bda4fbb1bab0fbb2baa3">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR part 430:
ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016, ``Wiring Devices--Dimensional
Specifications;''
IEC 62040-3 Ed. 2.0, ``Uninterruptible power systems (UPS)--Part 3:
Method of specifying the performance and test requirements, Edition
2.0, 2011-03;''
IEC 62301, ``Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power, (Edition 2.0, 2011-01), (``IEC 62301'')''.
Copies of ANSI/NEMA WD 6-2016 can be obtained from the American
National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY
10036, (212) 642-4900, <a href="http://webstore.ansi.org">webstore.ansi.org</a>.
Copies of IEC 62040-3 Ed.2.0 and 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., and is
available from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to
<a href="http://webstore.ansi.org">webstore.ansi.org</a>.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N. of
this document.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
1. Battery Chargers
2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
B. Test Procedure
1. Wireless Charger Test Procedure
2. External Power Supply Selection
3. Battery Chemistry and End-of-Discharge Voltages
4. Battery Selection
5. Mode-Specific Metrics
6. Active Mode Test
7. Standby Mode Tests
8. Non-Battery-Charging Related Functions
C. Corrections and Non-Substantive Changes
1. Certification Flowcharts
2. Testing and Certification Clarifications
3. Cross-Reference Corrections
4. Sub-Section Corrections
D. Effective and Compliance Dates
E. Test Procedure Costs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Battery chargers are included among the consumer products for which
the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized to establish and
amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)) 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

[[Page 55091]]

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. Battery chargers, the
subject of this final rule, are products included in the Energy Policy
Conservation Program. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32); 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated 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), the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The 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 under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2)
making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply with any 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 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, as determined by the Secretary, and shall not be unduly burdensome
to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that DOE evaluate test procedures for each type
of covered product, including battery chargers, 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 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 and to not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3))
Additionally, EPCA requires DOE to amend its test procedures for
all covered products to include standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, with standby mode and off mode energy consumption
integrated into the overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or
other energy descriptor unless the Secretary determines that (i) the
current test procedures already fully account for and incorporate the
standby mode and off mode energy consumption, or (ii) such an
integrated test procedure is technically infeasible for a particular
covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A); see also 42 U.S.C.
6295(u)(1)(B)(i))) If an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode
energy use test procedures, if separate tests are technically feasible.
(Id.) 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. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\4\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Id.
DOE is publishing this final rule 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 comments and data on whether, since the last test
procedure update, there have been changes in battery charger testing
methodology or new products introduced to the market since the last
test procedure update that may necessitate amending the test procedure
for battery chargers. 85 FR 26369, 26370. DOE specifically solicited
feedback on possible approaches to testing inductive wireless battery
chargers not designed for use in a wet environment. 85 FR 26369, 26371.
DOE requested comment on the characteristics of the EPSs typically used
by manufacturers for testing and certification purposes for battery
charger products that require an EPS but do not come prepackaged with
one, and the characteristics of the EPS used by consumers in real-world
settings. Id. DOE also requested comment on whether using a reference
EPS 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.
On November 23, 2021, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``November 2021 NOPR''), in which DOE responded to comments received
in response to the May 2020 RFI and proposed amendments to the test
procedures for battery chargers in appendix Y and in a new appendix Y1.
86 FR 66878. DOE's proposed amendments to appendix Y included
reorganizing two subsections, clarifying symbology and references,
correcting an incorrect cross reference and section title, updating the
list of battery chemistries, and terminating an existing test procedure
waiver because the

[[Page 55092]]

covered subject models have been discontinued. 86 FR 66878, 66881,
66885-66886, 66889-66894.
DOE also proposed to establish a new appendix Y1 that, in addition
to the changes proposed for appendix Y, would expand the scope of the
test procedure to include inductive wireless battery chargers beyond
those designed and manufactured to operate in a wet environment
(removing that distinction altogether), increase the rated battery
energy limit of fixed location wireless chargers in appendix Y1 from
<=5 Wh to <=100 Wh, establish associated definitions for fixed-location
wireless chargers and open-placement wireless chargers and
corresponding test provisions; establish a new test procedure approach
that relies on separate metrics for active mode, standby mode, and off
mode (consequently removing the battery charger usage profiles and
single-metric unit energy consumption calculation); and update the EPS
selection criteria. 86 FR 66878, 66881, 66883-66885, 66887-66889.
On January 7, 2022, DOE published an extension of the comment
period in response to a joint request submitted by some
stakeholders.\5\ 87 FR 890.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The joint request was submitted by the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers, Consumer Technology Association,
Information Technology Industry Council, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute,
Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, and Power Tool Institute. Comment
no. EERE-BT-2020-TP-0012-0017 (available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012-0017">www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2020-BT-TP-0012-0017</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received comments in response to the November 2021 NOPR from
the interested parties listed in Table II.1.

Table II.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the November 2021 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final Document No.
Commenter(s) rule in docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co., INC........... Honda..................... 26 Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Efficiency Advocates 23 Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation
of America, Natural Resources Defense
Council.
Association of Home Appliance Joint Trade Associations.. 24 Trade Associations.
Manufacturers, Outdoor Power Equipment
Institute, Power Tool Institute, Inc.
California Investor-Owned Utilities CA IOUs................... 25 Utilities.
(Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
Diego Gas and Electric, Southern
California Edison).
CSA Group............................... CSA....................... 12 Efficiency Organization.
Delta-Q Technologies.................... Delta-Q................... 28 Manufacturer.
Information Technology Industry Council. ITI....................... 20 Trade Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.... NEEA...................... 27 Efficiency Organization.
Schumacher Electric Corporation......... Schumacher................ 21 Manufacturer
STIHL................................... STIHL..................... 16 Manufacturer.
Wireless Power Consortium............... WPC....................... 22 Efficiency Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for battery chargers. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-TP-
0012, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

In this final rule, DOE amends appendix Y by adopting the proposed
test procedure changes as follows:
(1) Updates terms used in the battery chemistry table;
(2) Provides further direction regarding the application for a
battery charger test procedure waiver when battery energy cannot be
directly measured;
(3) Provides more descriptive terms for battery energy and battery
voltage values used for determining product class and calculating unit
energy; and
(4) Corrects a cross-reference and a table title, further clarifies
certain references and terminologies, and reorganizes certain
subsections for improved readability.
DOE is also adopting the proposed new appendix Y1, which would
generally require that testing be conducted as provided in appendix Y
as amended in this final rule, but with the following additional
changes:
(1) Establishing definitions associated with inductive wireless
power transfer, and differentiating between wireless chargers 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) to the
transmitter and those that do not (``open-placement'' wireless
chargers);
(2) Including within the scope of the test procedure fixed-location
inductive wireless battery chargers, and adding a separate no-battery
mode test for open-placement wireless chargers;
(3) Removing the unit energy consumption (``UEC'') \7\ calculations
and usage profiles and instead relying 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 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) Specifying EPS selection priority and amending selection
requirements for battery chargers that do not ship with an EPS and for
which one is not recommended by the manufacturer.
Manufacturers would not be required to test according to appendix
Y1 until such time as compliance is required with any amended energy
conservation standards for battery chargers established after September
8, 2022.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
test procedure provision prior to the amendment, as well as the reason
for the adopted change.

[[Page 55093]]

Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE test procedure Amended test procedure Applicable test procedure Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only those wireless chargers that Increases the 5 Wh Appendix Y1................. To reflect changes in
operate in ``wet environments'' limit to 100Wh and the market.
and have a battery energy of less replaces the ``wet
than or equal to 5 watt-hours (Wh) environment''
are in scope of the battery designation with
charger test procedure. ``fixed-location
wireless chargers'',
such that wireless
chargers meant for
dry as well as wet
environments would be
in scope.
Does not differentiate between Addresses open- Appendix Y1................. To reflect changes in
types of wireless chargers. placement wireless the market.
chargers and fixed-
location wireless
chargers, and adds
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 EPS selection Adds EPS selection Appendix Y1................. To reflect changes in
priority for chargers that do have order priority and technology and to
associated EPSs. For those that do removes the 5.0V DC improve
not, current test procedure input criteria. For representativeness
requires DC battery chargers be battery chargers that and comparability of
tested with 5.0 V DC for USB port do not ship with an results.
powered devices, or the midpoint EPS and do not have a
of the rated input voltage range recommended adapter,
for others. requires that the
charger be tested
using an EPS 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 Y1.. To reflect changes in
Table 3.3.2 do not reflect the Polymer'' to the market.
latest industry naming conventions. ``Lithium-Ion
Polymer,'' and
changes
``Nanophosphate
Lithium-Ion'' to
``Lithium Iron
Phosphate''.
UEC calculation relies on usage Removes battery Appendix Y1................. To improve
profiles to determine the length charger usage representativeness.
of time spent in each mode of profiles and the UEC
operation. calculation; adopts
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 Appendix Y1................. To improve
capture a representative measure duration until representativeness.
of maintenance mode power of maintenance mode
certain battery chargers. power has been
captured
representatively, if
needed.
Manufacturer can report the battery Provides specific Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
discharge energy and the charging direction to apply representativeness.
and maintenance mode energy as for a test procedure
``Not Applicable'' if the waiver if the battery
measurements cannot be made. energies cannot be
directly measured.
Uses the designation ``Ebatt'' for Changes the Appendix Y.................. To improve
both experimentally measured denotations to readability.
battery energy and representative ``Measured Ebatt''
battery energy. for experimentally
measured battery
energy, and
``Representative
Ebatt'' for
representative
battery energy, with
further clarification
in the footnotes.
Section 3.3.4 incorrectly Corrects the cross- Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
references section 3.3.2 for section reference to readability.
instructions on how to discharge Table 3.3.2.
batteries.
Table 3.3.2 is located after Moves Table 3.3.2 to Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
Section 3.3.10 (Determining the 24- Section 3.3.8. readability.
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 Y1.. To improve
``above'' or ``below'' for referenced sections. readability.
references.
Battery charger standby mode and Reorganizes sections Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
off mode can be inappropriately 3.3.11 and 3.3.12 so readability.
tested if manufacturer does not battery charger
follow the test procedure in order. standby and off modes
can be tested
correctly even if the
test procedure order
is not followed.
Column title in Table 3.3.3 states Corrects the title to Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
``Special characteristic or rated read ``Special readability.
battery voltage''. characteristic or
highest rated battery
voltage'' to clarify
that for multi-
voltage chargers, the
highest battery
voltage must be used
to determine product
class.
Uses the term ``wall adapters'' to Changes the ``wall Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
refer to external power supplies, adapter'' terms to readability.
which is inconsistent with more technically
certification requirements and correct term of
reporting templates. ``EPSs''.
Definition of ``C-Rate'' does not Adds clarification Appendix Y and Appendix Y1.. To improve
provide a straightforward that a 0.2 C-Rate readability.
translation between charge or would translate to a
discharge rate and charge or charge or discharge
discharge time. period of 5 hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has determined that the amendments to appendix Y described in
section III and adopted in this document will not alter the measured
efficiency of battery chargers, or require retesting or recertification
solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the amendments to the test
procedure at appendix Y. Additionally, DOE has determined that the
amendments will not increase the cost of testing under appendix Y.
DOE has determined that the newly established appendix Y1, which
specifies testing with a minimally compliant EPS, increases scope of
wireless chargers, and removes 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, testing in
accordance with the newly established appendix Y1 would not be required
until such time as compliance is required with new and amended energy
conservation standards, should DOE establish such standards.
Additionally, DOE has determined that testing under appendix Y1 would
not increase the cost of testing as compared to testing under appendix
Y. Discussion of DOE's actions are addressed in detail in section III
of this document.
The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be
based on testing in

[[Page 55094]]

accordance with the amended appendix Y test procedures beginning 180
days after the publication of this final rule. Manufacturers will be
required to certify compliance using the new appendix Y1 test procedure
beginning on the compliance date of any final rule published after the
effective date of this final rule that establishes amended energy
conservation standards for battery chargers.

III. Discussion

In this battery chargers test procedure final rule, DOE is amending
appendix Y and establishing a new appendix Y1 as described throughout
the following sections.
EPCA requires DOE to review the test procedure for battery chargers
at least once every 7 years and to determine whether amendments to the
test procedure would more accurately or fully comply with the
requirements for test procedures to be reasonably designed to produce
representative test results without undue burden. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) In response to the November 2021 NOPR, the Joint Trade
Associations stated that DOE proposed several changes that improve the
clarity but not representativeness of the test procedure and urged DOE
to prioritize other rulemakings. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at
p. 1) DOE reiterates that it is undertaking this rulemaking pursuant to
the periodic review required by EPCA. As discussed in the following
sections, DOE has determined that appendix Y, as amended in this final
rule, and appendix Y1 as established in this final rule, more
accurately and fully comply with the requirements in EPCA for test
procedures to be reasonably designed to produce representative test
results without undue 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. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32); 10 CFR 430.2)
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. 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 based on the respective product classes. These
different specifications are intended to ensure that each battery
charger is tested to produce results that measure energy use during a
representative average use cycle or period of use.
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 (``V'') 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.
The CA IOUs stated in their comment responding to the November 2021
NOPR that new consumer products powered by batteries require more
power, and therefore current battery chargers are more powerful than
when DOE initially developed its battery charger standard and test
procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7) These more powerful battery
chargers, they claimed, offer larger energy savings potential through
energy efficiency standards. Id. CA IOUs therefore recommended that DOE
clarify the scope of the test procedure, and expand it to cover battery
chargers that can operate on either 115V or 230V AC voltage levels. (CA
IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7) CA IOUs noted that US residences typically offer
AC electricity at both 115V and 230V at 60Hz and that modern battery
chargers may be designed for either voltage, and therefore DOE should
expand the test procedure to include both voltage levels. Id.
DOE notes that AC line voltage for common household electrical
outlets in the United States is typically limited to 115V \8\ at 60Hz
for residential environments, with specialized 230V 60Hz AC line
voltage outlets reserved for limited number of heavy-duty applications
such as clothes washers, dryers, and electric cooking products. While
battery chargers with universal inputs exist (i.e., that support a
range of 115V to 230V as input voltage), such products support 230V
generally only to facilitate travel outside of the United States
without the need for a travel adapter. These products, when used within
the United States, operate at 115V and therefore should be tested as
such. The scope of the test procedure includes any battery charger
capable of operating at either DC or United States AC line voltage
without regard to whether it is also capable of operating at other
voltages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ DOE refers to AC line voltage here as 115V, recognizing that
United States line voltage is also often referred to as 120V or 110V
in some contexts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs further requested that DOE clarify the extent of DOE's
authority on automobile chargers and other products. (CA IOUs, No. 25
at p. 7) CA IOUs stated that DOE possessed the authority to regulate
battery chargers embedded in consumer products, and therefore DOE could
regulate chargers embedded in automobiles even if DOE cannot regulate
the efficiency of electric vehicles themselves. Id. CA IOUs asked DOE
to clarify its authority under EPCA to set standards for chargers
embedded in automobiles, both those that charge other consumer products
and those that charge the automobile's internal battery. Id. NEEA also
encouraged DOE to cover electric vehicle (``EV'') chargers under the
test procedure scope, stating that market data and policy trends
illustrate the need for EV charger efficiency standards. (NEEA, No. 27
at p. 10) NEEA noted there are three types of energy losses associated
with EV charging, and that consumers are paying for these energy losses
as though the lost energy were gasoline leaking from the hose as a tank
is filled. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 10) NEEA further suggested that because
public policy and market designs are not focusing on promoting higher
efficiency charging, EV chargers focus on lower cost and lower weight,
and that even small efficiency differences from standards could have
large nationwide impacts. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 11)
DOE notes, however, that due to the definition of battery chargers
in EPCA, DOE's authority to regulate battery chargers extends only to
battery chargers that charge batteries for consumer products. (42
U.S.C. 6291(32)) As defined by EPCA, ``consumer products'' statutorily
excludes automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) Regardless, DOE further notes
that its test procedure for battery chargers as established in appendix
Y (and newly established appendix Y1) cannot be adapted to measure the
energy performance of battery chargers designed to charge electric
vehicles without significant modifications that were not proposed in
the November 2021 NOPR. Therefore, in this final rule DOE clarifies
that this battery charger test procedure does not provide a method for
testing electric vehicle battery chargers, and they remain outside the
test procedure's scope.

[[Page 55095]]

Finally, CA IOUs requested clarification regarding whether chargers
used by (i) electric trucks, E-bikes, electric motorcycles, electric
boats, and other consumer electric vehicles that are not automobiles;
(ii) aerial drones and other battery-powered, remotely operated devices
marketed to consumers; (iii) battery-powered electric riding lawn
mowers and walk-behind lawnmowers sold to consumers; and (iv) battery
chargers commonly referred to as ``DC fast chargers'' or ``Level 3
chargers'' (e.g., Wallbox and SETEC) that are not embedded in electric
automobiles but are designed to charge batteries in electric
automobiles by bypassing the on-board battery charger. (CA IOUs, No. 25
at p. 7)
A manufacturer is best positioned to know the nuances of their
model's characteristics and design, which impact how regulations apply.
DOE however notes that most battery chargers intended for use with
consumer electronics, including E-bikes, aerial drones and lawn mowers
are in scope of the battery charger test procedure. While DOE cannot
comment on the test procedure's applicability to all the battery
chargers for a specific end-use product group, DOE suggests inquiring
with the department directly for clarifications on a case-by-case
basis.
2. Inductive Wireless Battery Chargers
DOE's current energy conversation standards for battery chargers
were established in a final rule 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
under the test procedure in appendix Y. Id.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to define fixed-location
wireless chargers and open-placement wireless chargers in a new
appendix Y1 to include these chargers within the scope; and to expand
the scope of the proposed appendix Y1 test procedure to cover testing
of fixed-location wireless chargers in all modes of operation, as well
as testing of open-placement wireless charger in no-battery mode only.
86 FR 66878, 66882-66884. DOE proposed 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. DOE then proposed 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). DOE proposed to remove the ``wet environment'' products
distinction for wireless chargers, as a result of these changes. 86 FR
66878, 66883.
ITI, the Joint Efficiency Advocates, the Joint Trade Associations,
the CA IOUs, NEEA, and Delta-Q expressed general support for DOE's
proposed approach to expand the scope in appendix Y1 to remove the wet
environment definition and to classify and cover both fixed-location
and open-placement wireless chargers. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2; Joint
Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 1-2; Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at p. 8; CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 2-3; NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 4-6; Delta-
Q, No. 28 at p. 1) However, NEEA urged DOE to adopt technology-neutral
definitions for wireless chargers rather than specifying only an
inductive connection, to allow future products to be tested and
considered under the test procedures regardless of specific product
technology used (citing inductive, magnetic resonant, radio frequency
as examples) and allow free competition to deliver wireless charging
without restriction by technology specific test procedures. (NEEA, No.
27 at pp. 6-7) Instead, NEEA recommended a definition for wireless
chargers that defines wireless chargers as those chargers that transmit
energy without a wired connection to a receiving device. (NEEA, No. 27
at p. 7) DOE notes that other wireless charging methods beyond those
addressed in appendix Y and new appendix Y1 are still nascent and lack
widespread availability in the market. Defining such technologies and
addressing them in the test procedure at this time could potentially
restrict the development of these less mature technologies.
DOE proposed in the November 2021 NOPR to cover fixed-location
wireless chargers, having tentatively determined that the physical
receiver locating feature would allow accurate and repeatable relative
receiver alignment or orientation. 86 FR 66878, 66883. NEEA noted that
DOE's proposal for fixed-location wireless chargers addresses the
technical challenges associated with physical displacement of the
transmitter and receiver, and that wireless charger efficiency depends
on the product's horizontal and vertical displacement from the
transmitter but that fixed-location charger's magnetic or physical
guides ensure proper and consistent positioning. (NEEA, No. 27 at 6).
ITI suggested that DOE clarify in its definition that fixed-location
wireless chargers should be able to align or orient the receiver
position in both vertical and horizontal orientations through the
receiver locating feature, whereas open-placement chargers do not
incorporate a physical receiver locating feature. (ITI, No. 20 at pp.
1-2) ITI further inquired whether a wireless charger that relies on LED
or another form of indication to indicate correct placement in lieu of
physical locating features, would be considered as an open-placement
one. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2)
DOE concludes that the definition as proposed, specifying that the
locating feature should ``repeatably align or orient the position of
the receiver with respect to the transmitter'', to be sufficiently
specific without respect to whether such alignment is in the vertical
or horizontal (or any other) position. DOE finds that this
specification in the definition sufficiently minimizes test to test
variation without prescribing additional design constraints. In cases
where the charger only employs indication of correct placement, such as
by visual indication or audio indication, but does not have physical
locating features that ensures repeatable alignment or orientation, DOE
notes that relative receiver placement can still vary ever so slightly
for such chargers, which causes variation in active mode testing.
Therefore, such wireless charger would still be considered as open-
placement wireless charger because of the lack of locating feature that
can ``repeatably align or orient the position of the receiver with
respect to the transmitter.''
NEEA stated that for future fixed-location wireless chargers able
to charge a variety of products (interoperable fixed-location
chargers), different

[[Page 55096]]

receiver-battery combinations could result in efficiency differences.
(NEEA, No. 27 at p. 6) NEEA suggested that DOE either address these
chargers with an active mode test procedure waiver, or further specify
that these chargers must be tested with a manufacturer-specified range
of receivers but not other products that use the same power transfer
standard. (Id.) The CA IOUs referred DOE to WPC's comment that fixed-
location wireless chargers risk efficiency variations for different
receivers, which prevents WPC from releasing a receiver-independent
active mode power transfer efficiency metric. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 5)
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to continue to measure performance and
regulate fixed-location wireless charging systems under the current
approach, and suggested that DOE require combinations of new receiver
devices used in conjunction with previous wireless charger models to
meet the minimum efficiency requirement. (Id.) The CA IOUs further
encouraged DOE to clarify that if a change in receiver were to reduce
efficiency beyond a nominal threshold for a particular fixed-location
wireless charger, then it should be regulated as a new basic model.
(Id.)
DOE notes that the definitions of ``fixed-location wireless
charger'' and ``open-placement wireless charger'' proposed in the
November 2021 NOPR and adopted in this final rule indicate that the
term ``wireless battery charger'' encompasses both the transmitter
(i.e., the charging mat, for example) and the receiver (i.e., the end-
use product containing the battery). Neither the transmitter nor the
receiver on its own constitutes a ``battery charger.'' As such, each
combination of transmitter and receiver \9\ that has different
electrical, physical, or functional characteristics that affect energy
consumption would be considered a different basic model and would be
required to be certified accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ DOE further notes that applicable to transmitters that can
accommodate multiple receivers or batteries, only the manufacturer
recommended combinations are tested. See section 3.1.4(b) of
appendix Y and appendix Y1 as finalized, which specifies testing
battery chargers with an EPS recommended by the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITI further suggested that although ITI is unaware of any type of
wireless chargers other than fixed-location or open-placement wireless
chargers, DOE should leave open the possibility that future wireless
chargers may not fall into either fixed-location or open-placement
wireless chargers. (ITI No. 20 at p. 2) DOE agrees with ITI that all
current wireless chargers would fall in either fixed-location wireless
charger or open-placement wireless charger category. As such, the
adopted fixed-location and open-placement wireless charger definitions
would capture the current wireless charger market accurately. DOE will
make thorough reviews of the battery charger test procedure, should new
charger types mature in the market.
The Joint Trade Associations, noting that they support maintaining
the UEC approach, also suggested DOE add Table 3.3.3 to a UEC-
compatible version of appendix Y1 so that Product Class 1 is preserved
with lower battery energy limits, and a new Product Class 1A can be
established for higher battery energy inductive chargers. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 8) The Joint Trade Associations stated that
it would be appropriate to separate wireless chargers from wired
chargers under this approach, and further suggested DOE would need to
account for the expanded scope and create a new Product Class 1A for
higher energy inductive chargers. (Id.) DOE notes that DOE is adopting
the proposed multi-metric approach, and under the multi-metric
approach, DOE does not need to further separate product classes, as the
testing method and calculation steps for determining the tested values
are the same for battery chargers in all product classes. To the extent
that consideration of different product classes may be warranted, DOE
would do so in a future energy conservation standards rulemaking.
ITI inquired as to the applicability of standards to a product that
can take either wired or wireless charging; and the applicability of
standards to a wireless charger shipped without an end use device.
(ITI, No. 20 at p. 6) As stated earlier, different wired/wireless
charger and end use product/battery combinations could result in
different charging efficiencies. Therefore, they would constitute
different battery charger models and would need to be tested and
certified separately. DOE notes that manufacturers have already been
certifying products in this way under the current test procedure.
Furthermore, under the new appendix Y1 test procedure if a consumer
product can accept charge either wired or wirelessly, each charging
configuration would also need to be tested and certified separately.
The CA IOUs supported DOE expanding coverage to ``combination
products'' with integrated wireless chargers such as bedside or desk
lamps, clocks, and furniture that has built in wireless chargers. (CA
IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 5-6) The CA IOUs suggested that these products are
currently not covered under DOE's battery charger test procedure and
are expected to significantly displace DOE-regulated battery chargers
in some product classes. Id. The CA IOUs stated that they are analyzing
combination products and recommended DOE establish clear definitions
for combination products to clarify what combination products are not
covered by DOE's test procedures and standards, so that they can be
covered under other energy efficiency regulations or guidelines such as
CEC Low Power Mode Roadmap.\10\ (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 5-6) The Joint
Efficiency Advocates encouraged DOE to expand the no-battery mode only
test coverage to include dual-purpose open-placement chargers such as
alarm clocks and table lamps with embedded wireless chargers, because
they are becoming increasingly common. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No.
23 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ CEC Low Power Road Map is available on <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-6">www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and-regulations/appliance-efficiency-regulations-title-20/appliance-efficiency-proceedings-6</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's definition for battery charger includes battery chargers
embedded in other consumer products. 10 CFR 430.2. For combination
products that have multiple functions, if they do come with a battery
charger, then the battery charging component of the combination product
would still need to be tested under DOE's battery charger test
procedure.
The Joint Trade Associations stated that there was some confusion
in DOE's proposal for expanded wireless chargers in appendix Y1, as
they noted the preamble proposed a change to Product Class 1 in
appendix Y1 to include all fixed-location wireless chargers, but that
this change was not present in the regulatory text, and the proposed
regulatory text for Table 3.3.3 of appendix Y shows a measured battery
energy of 20Wh, a value not discussed anywhere in the preamble. (Joint
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 8) DOE notes that the reference to 20
Wh in the proposed regulatory text for appendix Y was an error and has
been corrected to 5 Wh for this final rule.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to increase the rated
battery energy limit of fixed-location wireless chargers in appendix Y1
from <=5 Wh to 100 Wh. 86 FR 66878, 66883. At the time of the June 2016
Final Rule, all inductive wireless chargers designed for use in wet
environments (the prior scope of coverage) had a battery energy under 5
Wh. Id. In discussion of the increased limit in the November 2021 NOPR
and in light of the removal of the wet environment distinction, DOE
stated that it had conducted initial research and found that although
most

[[Page 55097]]

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 80 Wh, namely
inductively charged power tool products. Id. The expansion of the limit
to 100 Wh was made to accommodate potential future product designs that
may have larger battery energies. Id. In their response to the November
2021 NOPR, NEEA noted that wireless charging for consumer products is
already commonplace and continued growth is expected, along with
substantially increased energy use. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 4) ITI and the
Joint Trade Association supported the proposal to expand the scope to
include those with battery energies up to 100Wh. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2,
Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 8)
WPC stated that wireless chargers (referred to as ``wireless power
transmitters'' by WPC) should be categorized as external power supplies
(``EPSs'') because they can power devices without batteries. (WPC, No.
22 at p. 1) WPC stated that although they believe wireless chargers
should be tested as EPSs with appropriate resistive loads, the usage
profile is very different from wired chargers, and they are more
frequently used for ``top-ups''. (WPC, No. 22 at pp. 1-2)
In the November 2019 NOPR, the department acknowledged that open-
placement wireless chargers are sometimes designed to work with third
party products, some of which may not be battery operated. DOE's
research of the marketplace however shows that the vast majority of
these third-party applications continue to be primarily reliant on
battery power, with power received from an open-placement charger used
to charge that battery. This conclusion is reasonable, considering the
inherent limitation in the distance across which wireless power can be
transmitted. As such, DOE maintains that the revised battery charger
test procedure is appropriate for capturing the energy performance of
open-placement wireless chargers in no-battery mode. With regards to
WPC's comment that wireless chargers should be measured with resistive
loads, DOE notes that testing with a load is only relevant for active
mode testing, which DOE did not propose for the reasons stated in
section III.B.1 of this final rule. For the reasons discussed in the
preceding paragraphs and in the November 2021 NOPR, DOE is adopting the
proposals made in the November 2021 NOPR to establish definitions for
both fixed-location wireless chargers and open-placement wireless
chargers, to increase the rated battery energy limit for fixed-location
inductive chargers from <5 Wh to <100 Wh, and, as discussed below to
expand the test procedure's scope to cover testing open-placement
wireless chargers in no-battery mode only.

B. Test Procedure

1. Wireless Charger Test Procedure
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand the scope of the
proposed appendix Y1 test procedure to cover testing of fixed-location
wireless chargers in all modes of operation, and to cover testing of
open-placement wireless charger in no-battery mode only. 86 FR 66878,
66882-66884.
The CA IOUs further recommended that DOE collaborate with industry
and standards organizations to develop a suitable method of measurement
for active mode power for interoperable open placement chargers, such
as the approach proposed by WPC that measures active mode power
consumption at several key locations on the charging device. (CA IOUs,
No. 25 at p. 3) The CA IOUs modeled the savings potential from applying
potential standby and active mode power regulations to inductive
battery chargers. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs estimated
the lifetime unit energy savings from regulating standby mode to be
about 1.4 GWh for 5 years of shipments. (Id.) The CA IOUs estimated the
lifetime unit energy savings from regulating active mode to be about 60
GWh for 5 years of shipments. (Id.)
NEEA supported the development of a standby test method for open-
placement wireless chargers using International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) 62301 in appendix Y1 and encouraged DOE to continue
developing an active mode test procedure with industry. (NEEA, No. 27
at 6). NEEA further recommended that DOE in the interim retain a
placeholder for future active mode or other low power mode testing of
open-placement wireless chargers. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 6-7). WPC agreed
that no appropriate active mode test can be prescribed for open-
placement wireless chargers yet, because of varying receiver efficiency
and the capability for one open placement charger to simultaneously
charge multiple receivers. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 1) However, WPC noted
that covering only fixed-location wireless chargers in the active mode
test procedures can discourage manufacturers from choosing more
efficient fixed-location wireless charger designs. (WPC, No. 22 at pp.
1-2) WPC recommended that DOE extend the no-battery only test to fixed-
location chargers designed for receivers that can take open-placement
chargers as well (for example, exclude certain wireless charging stands
and specific in-car wireless chargers from the active charging test).
(WPC, No. 22 at pp. 1-2)
DOE acknowledges the difficulty in establishing a repeatable and
representative open-placement wireless charger (including interoperable
open-placement wireless charger) test procedure for active mode. As
stated in the November 2021 NOPR, 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. 86 FR
66884. 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. Id.
Based on further evaluation and consideration of the comments
received, DOE concludes that a representative and repeatable test
procedure for measuring the active mode energy performance of open-
placement wireless chargers cannot be prescribed at this time without
undue burden. 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

[[Page 55098]]

placement on charging efficiency, and will continue to gather relevant
consumer usage data. WPC stated that fixed-placement does not
necessarily mean battery charger, because the battery management and
control circuitry are often placed in the wireless receiver. (WPC, No.
22 at p. 3) WPC agreed that the present ``interoperable'' wireless
charger (regardless of open-placement or fixed-location) efficiency
testing method is not representative of real-world performance and is
likely not repeatable. WPC stated that to make such a test method
repeatable would require a placement coordinate table that moves the
receiver in 1mm increments within the charging area, developing
accurate user placement models, and limiting the receiver to one
specific product design. (Id.)
For fixed-location wireless battery chargers that can work with
multiple end use products, each different wireless charger and end use
product/battery combinations could result in different charging
efficiencies, therefore, they would constitute as different battery
charger models and would need to be tested and certified separately.
DOE notes that manufacturers have already been certifying products in
this way under the current test procedure. As for open-placement
wireless chargers, DOE notes that for even a relatively small wireless
charging coil of 30 by 30 square millimeters, to accurately and
repeatably capture the overall active mode energy consumption by moving
the relative receiver placement in 1mm increments, as described by WPC,
would result in 900 iterations. Even if the technician were to measure
the efficiency differences across 5mm or 10mm increments, it would
still result in dozens of repeated active mode tests, which adds
significant undue burden to the test procedure. Additionally, because
of the open-placement wireless charger design, it would be virtually
impossible to develop representative relative receiver placement
models. Therefore, DOE reiterates that a representative and repeatable
test procedure for measuring the active mode energy performance of
open-placement wireless chargers cannot be prescribed at this time
without undue burden.
WPC further suggested that the name for open-placement chargers
``no-battery mode'' test should be changed to ``no receiver mode''.
(WPC, No. 22 at p. 2) DOE notes that wirelessly charged devices usually
have batteries and receiving circuitry built-in the device; therefore,
batteries and receivers cannot be separated without tearing down the
product. To maintain test mode language consistency, DOE is not
changing the ``no-battery mode'' designation.
DOE appreciates the remainder of WPC's comments and notes that this
final rule establishes only a test procedure and not energy
conservation standards for fixed-location wireless chargers. DOE does
not believe simply providing a method for testing the efficiency of
these technologies without a corresponding energy conservation standard
would impact manufacturer's design choices.
In this final rule, DOE is finalizing its proposal from the
November 2021 NOPR to test fixed-location wireless chargers in all
modes of operation, and to capture the no-battery mode energy
performance of open-placement wireless chargers in the new appendix Y1.
DOE is also adopting the proposal to leave a placeholder section in the
new appendix Y1 to be reserved for a potential active mode test
procedure for open-placement wireless chargers.
2. External Power Supply Selection
Most battery chargers require the use of an EPS to convert 115-volt
(``V'') AC line voltage into a low-voltage DC or AC output suitable for
powering the battery charger. DOE's current battery charger test
procedure specifies that the battery charger be tested with the EPS
packaged with the charger, or the EPS that is sold or recommended by
the manufacturer. If an EPS is not packaged with the charger, or if the
manufacturer does not sell or recommend an EPS, 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 an EPS or sell or
recommend an EPS. 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.
To resolve this issue and improve test procedure representativeness
and test results comparability, in the November 2021 NOPR DOE proposed
to require in appendix Y1 that when an EPS 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 (i) minimally compliant with
DOE's energy conservation standards for EPS found in 10 CFR 430.32(w)
and (ii) satisfies the EPS output criteria specified by the battery
charger manufacturer. 86 FR 66878, 66885. DOE further proposed that if
the certified EPS is no longer available in the market, then for DOE's
compliance and enforcement testing DOE would test the battery charger
with any compatible minimally compliant EPS that meets the performance
criteria. Id. Additionally, in appendix Y1, DOE proposed to clarify the
EPS selection priority when one is provided or recommended, to maintain
test procedure repeatability. Id.
In response to these proposals regarding EPSs, DOE received several
comments. Schumacher suggested DOE allow manufacturers describe the
recommended EPSs in their user manuals for customers' reference and
that such recommendations direct the use of an EPS when testing a
battery charger that does not ship with one. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p.
5) ITI asked DOE to clarify whether the ``minimally compliant EPS''
language simply means any compliant EPS, currently level VI, and
nothing more. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2) Both the Joint Efficiency Advocates
and NEEA suggested DOE further specify the efficiency range for these
minimally compliant EPSs to improve reproducibility and maintain a
level playing field. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2; NEEA,
No. 27 at pp. 9-10) WPC and the CA IOUs recommended DOE prescribe a
standardized EPS when none is recommended. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 2; CA
IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6)
The CA IOUs also commented that there is a trend towards shipping
chargers without an EPS, and that many consumers are reusing AC to DC
EPSs whose efficiency under load contributes to an important part of
the battery charger efficiency and should not be eliminated via an
adjustment factor approach unless significant experimental validation
confirms this model. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6) The CA IOUs further
requested that DOE consider how new battery chargers will typically be
powered by older EPSs if current trends continue. (Id.)
As an initial matter, DOE will also continue studying the trends of
shipping battery chargers without an EPS and the effect of reusing old
EPSs. The proposal to require testing with a minimally compliant EPS
reflects the

[[Page 55099]]

wide selection of EPSs readily available and ensures that the battery
charger is tested in a configuration representative of actual use, as
most battery chargers require the use of an EPS to convert 115V AC line
voltage into a low-voltage DC or AC output. By ``minimally compliant
EPS'', DOE is referring to EPSs that are minimally compliant with their
respective EPS product class energy conservation standard, or in other
words, EPSs with Compliance Certification Database (``CCD'') reported
efficiencies as close to their respective minimum product class energy
conservation standard as possible. Requiring the use of a minimally
compliant EPS for testing will help improve test procedure
reproducibility. Requiring the use of an EPS with an efficiency as
close to the minimum as possible also ensures that manufacturers who do
not package, sell, or recommend an EPS for testing with their battery
chargers do not get an unfair advantage, by preventing the use of a
very efficient third-party EPS for testing. DOE reiterates that the
make and model of such minimally compliant EPS used for testing would
also need to be reported to CCD, as prescribed by battery charger
certification reporting requirements at 10 CFR 429.39. Specifying the
use of a minimally compliant EPS results in battery chargers shipped
without an EPS being tested with EPSs of comparable efficiency. As
such, DOE is not prescribing specific EPSs, or the acceptable range of
EPS efficiencies for testing with battery chargers.
The Joint Trade Associations opposed DOE's proposal to test battery
chargers with a minimally compliant EPS, when applicable. The Joint
Trade Associations claimed that manufacturers do not know which
adapters are minimally compliant until after testing them. The Joint
Trade Associations instead suggested DOE to continue allow 5V DC input
option for conventional USB connections. For other connections,
including for USB-PDs, the Joint Trade Associations proposed allowing
any other commercially available EPS to be used. The Joint Trade
Associations asserted that this would avoid possible circumvention
through use of a specially designed adapter, but that DOE should study
whether adapters vary enough in efficiency that this approach may cause
an increase in unacceptable testing variations. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 9)
DOE clarifies that the ``minimally compliant'' qualification
applies to the EPS and compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standards applicable to EPSs. By adopting the proposal to
test with a minimally compliant EPS for applicable battery chargers, it
would further avoid accounting for adapter efficiency differences,
leading to unacceptable testing variation. The efficiencies of DOE
compliant EPSs can be found on DOE's publicly available CCD. As
discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, testing with a 5V DC input is less
representative than testing with an EPS. 86 FR 66878, 66885.
Additionally, testing with a 5V DC input does not provide as comparable
of results with battery chargers that are shipped and tested with an
EPS. Therefore, in order to improve the representativeness and
comparability of testing, DOE is adopting the provisions discussed in
the preceding paragraphs to test with a ``minimally compliant EPS,'' as
proposed in the November 2021 NOPR. These battery chargers are operated
with an EPS by the consumer and testing the chargers without an EPS is
not representative of actual use. DOE is also adopting the proposed
enforcement testing change in appendix Y1 from the November 2021 NOPR
to address instances in which the certified EPS relied on in testing is
no longer available in the market. 86 FR 66878, 66885. In such an
instance, DOE will test the battery charger with any compatible
minimally compliant EPS that meets the performance criteria.
Regarding DOE's proposal in appendix Y1 to further specify the EPS
selection priority when one is provided or recommended, DOE did not
receive comments opposing such proposal, with both WPC and the Joint
Efficiency Advocates expressing their support for this proposal. (WPC,
No. 22 at p. 2; Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 2) As such,
DOE is adopting the proposal that a battery charger would first 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. DOE reiterates that only if when the
manufacturer does not package, sell, or recommend an EPS to be used
with the battery charger, then the battery charger should be tested
with a minimally compliant EPS, or in other words, and EPS that is no
more efficient than the corresponding baseline EPS standard.
For the reasons presented in the November 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is adopting the proposals from the November
2021 NOPR to specify the EPS selection priority and require applicable
battery chargers to test with a minimally compliant EPS in the new
appendix Y1.
3. 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 3.3.2 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.
DOE stated in the November 2021 NOPR that 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. 86 FR 66878, 66886. Therefore, DOE proposed no changes
for the footnote regarding protective circuitries. Id. However, DOE
proposed to update the term used for battery chemistry in Table 3.3.2
from ``Lithium Polymer'' to ``Lithium-Ion Polymer'' and to change
``Nanophosphate Lithium-Ion'' to ``Lithium Iron Phosphate'' in order to
reflect changes in the market. 86 FR 66878, 66886.
The Joint Trade Associations supported DOE's proposal to update the
battery chemistry terms, and also supported not changing the foot note
regarding end-of-discharge voltages. The Joint Trade Associations
further stated that they are not aware of new cut off voltages and the
new battery chemistries DOE considered are still in their infancy.
(Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 9)
Schumacher requested that DOE add Lead-Carbon based Valve-Regulated
Lead Acid (``VRLA'') batteries to the list of batteries, stating that
such batteries are quickly developing and are mostly used in Solar
Charging and RVs. However, Schumacher indicated that they were not sure
of the per-cell rating or end-of-discharge voltage for these batteries.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2) In response to Schumacher's comment,

[[Page 55100]]

DOE reviewed the Lead-Carbon based VRLA battery market and was not able
to find valid data to establish the end-of-discharge voltages for these
batteries. At this time, the Lead-Carbon based VRLA battery market
appears to still be developing. As such, DOE is not including Lead-
Carbon based VRLA batteries in Table 3.3.2 of appendix Y.
Schumacher also suggested DOE provide a tolerance to end-of-
discharge voltage to ensure uniformity, because not all test equipment
stops the discharge test at the exact voltage. (Schumacher, No. 21 at
p. 3) DOE notes that battery voltages can fluctuate during discharge
and might drop suddenly around end-of-discharge voltage. Therefore, it
would be more accurate for the test equipment and lab technician to
determine when exactly should discharge be stopped once it reaches
close to DOE specified end-of-discharge voltage. From DOE's own testing
according to the current test procedure, the discharge tests are
usually terminated by either the battery analyzer at the specified end-
of-discharge voltage, or by the built-in battery protection circuitry.
DOE does not anticipate the current test procedure language to cause
repeatability or reproducibility issues, nor did DOE receive other
stakeholder concerns on the current approach.
Delta-Q claimed that the name change from ``Lithium Polymer'' to
``Lithium-Ion Polymer'' does not address the issue that virtually all
commercialized lithium-ion batteries have a polymer separator. (Delta-
Q, No. 28 at p. 1) Delta-Q further proposed DOE to simply delete
``Lithium Polymer'' from the table to avoid confusion and redundancy.
Id. DOE notes that although most lithium-ion batteries on the market
utilize a polymer separator, there are still potentially some batteries
that do not have the polymer separator, and the additional battery
chemistry would not cause variation in test results. Therefore, DOE
will maintain both the Lithium-Ion Polymer and Lithium-Ion chemistries.
For the reasons discussed in the November 2021 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule DOE is adopting the proposed
updates to the battery chemistry table to update ``Lithium Polymer''
term to ``Lithium-Ion Polymer'' and updating the term ``Nanophosphate
Lithium-ion'' to ``Lithium Iron Phosphate''.
4. 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.
Although DOE did not propose to make changes to the current battery
selection criteria in the November 2021 NOPR, Schumacher suggested DOE
reconsider the battery selection method for automotive chargers.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp. 1-2) Schumacher stated that it is better to
use 12V Absorbent Glass Mat (``AGM'') batteries with Thin Plate Pure
Lead (``TPPL'') technology for testing multi-voltage automotive battery
chargers because they have lower stratification, do not need
electrolytes measurement, are easier to maintain, are safer, have lower
losses, and have more repeatable and reproducible results. Schumacher
also indicated that these batteries are more popular, with 12V
batteries being the most common voltage. Schumacher stated that for
multi-voltage automotive battery chargers that can charge 12V
batteries, batteries of other voltages should not be required for
testing because of their significantly fewer annual volumes. (Id.)
Schumacher added that these batteries can be reused more times to keep
test costs lower. Schumacher further suggested DOE add reusing of
automotive batteries and float charging specifications to the test
procedure as many automotive battery chargers reuse the same batteries
for testing. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2)
DOE reiterates that its current battery selection criteria
specifically states that if multiple batteries meet the battery
selection criteria, the battery or configuration of batteries with the
highest maintenance mode power should be selected for testing. Section
3.2.3.(b)(2) of appendix Y. In real world scenarios, consumers do not
always choose the most efficient battery chemistry to use with their
battery chargers. Therefore, testing a lead acid charger with more
efficient AGM batteries with TPPL technology would not be
representative. If a manufacturer can select either a regular AGM
battery or an AGM battery with TPPL technology, the battery with higher
maintenance mode power would be selected for testing. As for selecting
batteries for testing with multi-voltage chargers, Table 3.2.1 of
appendix Y specifically states that battery with the highest voltage
should be used for testing.
DOE's battery charger test procedure requires manufacturers to use
new battery chargers and associated batteries. Section 3.2.2 of
appendix Y. Battery charge capacity can vary with number of charge
cycles and discharge rates, especially for lead acid batteries. As
such, testing a battery charger with a new battery versus with the same
battery, but after repeated number of charge and discharge cycles, can
result in significant variation that diminishes the accuracy and
repeatability of the testing. To determine if a used battery is still
suitable for testing would require monitoring and testing of various
factors, which can also add undue burden. Therefore, DOE is not
changing the requirement that new batteries be used for testing, to
maintain test procedure repeatability as well as test result
reproducibility and comparability.
5. Mode-Specific Metrics
Currently, DOE's battery charger test procedure is based on the
integrated UEC approach. The UEC equation in section 3.3.13 of appendix
Y integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode power measurements
by combining certain 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
the usage profile for each battery charger product class, meaning the
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). In incorporating usage profiles into the
integrated metric, DOE in the June 2016 Final Rule stated that
aggregating the performance parameters of battery chargers into one
metric and applying a usage profile would allow manufacturers more
flexibility for improving performance during the modes of operation
most beneficial to their consumers, rather than being required to
improve the performance in each mode of operation, including those
which may not provide any appreciable benefit. 81 FR 38266, 38286-
38287.
UEC integrates active mode, standby 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. The UEC approach therefore requires the use

[[Page 55101]]

of usage profiles to appropriately reflect the period of time a product
spends in each mode, in order to maintain the representativeness of the
metric for an average use cycle or period of use as required by EPCA.
The usage profiles provide a weighted average of application-specific
usage for battery chargers within a specific product class. The usage
profiles are based on data for a variety of applications from user
surveys, metering studies, and stakeholder input that DOE considered in
the June 2016 Final Rule. 81 FR 38266, 38287. DOE's product-class
specific usage profiles were initially also 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 was for each usage profile to
be representative of the usage of the product class as a whole.
EPCA requires that DOE 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)) EPCA requires the use of an
integrated metric unless such a test procedure is technically
infeasible. If an integrated test procedure is technically infeasible,
DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off mode energy use test
procedures, if a separate test is technically feasible. (Id.)
However, under EPCA, DOE is 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)) The requirement for a representative
test procedure that does not impose an undue burden underpins EPCA's
ability to develop and enforce standards, and therefore is a
fundamental requirement of EPCA. EPCA does not define what is
technically infeasible or what it means. But DOE finds it reasonable
when considering the technical feasibility of a test procedure that
provides for a metric that integrates active mode, standby mode, and
off mode energy use to consider the representativeness and burden of a
test procedure using that metric. An integrated test procedure metric
that cannot be reasonably expected to produce representative test
results or that would result in undue burden cannot be considered
technically feasible under EPCA, because it is unable to meet the
requirements to be a permissible test procedure under the statute--even
if an integrated metric is theoretically possible approach were those
requirements to not apply.
As explained in the November 2021 NOPR, 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. 86 FR 66878, 66887. In the November 2021 NOPR DOE
presented the example of the current Product Class 2, which includes
both smartphones and small capacity home power tools--two products with
widely different usage patterns and annual shipments. Id. A more recent
market review shows that the shipments for certain applications, such
as smartphones, cordless phones, wireless headsets, have changed
significantly since the usage profiles in appendix Y were originally
established. Id. Furthermore, there has been a recent but rapid market
adoption of smart wearable devices, tablets, consumer drones, and
mobility scooters from DOE's internal research. Some of these products
would have drastically different usage profiles from their respective
product classes, which adversely impacts the representativeness of the
corresponding usage profiles. Changes in consumer use of a number of
products within a product class or the emergence of new or altered end
use products impacts the representativeness of the usage profile for
that product class under the UEC metric. DOE anticipates that the
battery charger market will continue to change dynamically at a rate
that will render usage profiles unrepresentative more quickly than
EPCA's review cycles anticipate. Because the UEC metric requires
integrating active mode, standby mode, and off mode energy use, which
requires representative usage profiles, the need for new or amended
usage profiles to maintain representativeness would result in the need
to repeatedly and frequently amend test procedures, which in turn
potentially would require manufacturers to update representations,
increasing undue manufacturer burden.
In an effort to maintain the representativeness of the test
procedure for battery chargers in light of the rapidly changing market,
while maintaining a consistent test procedure for manufacturers, in the
November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed an approach that does not rely on the
UEC equation or usage profiles. 86 FR 66878, 66887. Specifically, DOE
proposed 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. Id. DOE is not aware and has not been
made aware of any other integrated approach that integrates the energy
consumption of different battery charger modes of operations.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates and CA IOUs noted in response to
DOE's proposal that developing accurate and representative usage
profiles has become more difficult with the constant development of new
end use product types and changes in consumer usage patterns, risking
the market usage assumptions used to calculate UEC becoming obsolete
for specific classes of battery chargers unless continuously updated.
(See, Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2-3; CA IOUs No. 25 at
p. 2) The Joint Efficiency Advocates noted that the multi-metric
approach presented a more representative method. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented
that they found it would be more representative to separate the test
procedure to three separate metrics for active mode, standby mode, and
off mode. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2-3) The CA IOUs
also supported the development of separate reported metrics for active
charge energy, standby mode, and off mode energy use. (CA IOUs, No. 25
at p. 1). The CA IOUs agreed that the evolving nature of battery
charger technology tends to quickly make obsolete the market usage
assumptions used to calculate UEC obsolete for specific classes of
battery chargers. Id. The CA IOUs stated that the benefits of the
disaggregated metric test procedure have become increasingly relevant
for reasons such as products having different usage profiles within the
same product class, evolving technology and

[[Page 55102]]

usage patterns, increases in battery energy density and capacity across
products, and variation in charge time profiles. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p.
2) The CA IOUs stated that as battery charger technologies and markets
evolve, an integrated metric becomes less representative of the product
classes as currently defined in the test procedure and stated that
because DOE's proposed approach does not rely on a UEC equation or
usage profiles, it should be more flexible. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2)
NEEA also supported DOE's proposed multi-metric approach and noted
that its research demonstrated that the use of separate active,
standby, and off mode metrics aligns with the current battery charger
market. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 2) NEEA noted that battery charger end uses
are substantially more varied than when DOE promulgated its UEC metric,
citing AHAM's comment that there are hundreds, if not, thousands of
battery-charged consumer products in the market. NEEA noted that there
are many factors that contribute to this growth, such as price
reduction for lithium-ion batteries, increased wireless applications,
and smaller charger formats. NEEA stated that this proliferation makes
it technically inappropriate to continue using usage profiles to
represent the energy use of hundreds of widely varying applications.
(Id.) NEEA explained as well that markets for and shipments of battery
chargers can change rapidly, as products evolve and consumer demand
shifts. NEEA listed certain products as examples, such as landlines,
smartphones, drones, cameras and MP3 players. Id. NEEA stated that
while the UEC approach is appropriate for more stable appliance
categories such as refrigerators, it is not a useful measure for the
continuously evolving array of battery charger end uses. (NEEA, No. 27
at p. 3) In contrast, NEEA noted that there are multiple advantages to
DOE's multi-metric approach: increasing representativeness of the range
of battery chargers, both now and as the market continues to change;
improving harmonization with DOE's EPS test procedure approach; and
enabling more detailed standards analysis. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 3)
ITI suggested, however, that DOE continue using the UEC metric
while gathering active charge energy data to fully understand the
complexity of these energy use parameters before deciding to switch
metrics. (ITI, No. 20 at 3) ITI and the Joint Trade Associations stated
that current class groupings are not perfect, but that they were based
on objective criteria and still provide a clear indication of which
product class a charger should fall into. (ITI, No. 20 at 3; Joint
Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3) Delta-Q acknowledged the
imperfection of the UEC and its usage profiles but did not support
replacing the usage profiles-based UEC system with the multi-metric
approach, stating that the multi-metric approach will unduly constrain
design options to minimize overall energy use while managing trade-offs
with cost and customer value. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 1) Delta-Q
suggested that the multi-metric approach would cause uncertainty and
could require redesigns, increase costs, and remove features that may
not reduce energy consumption in real-world usage. Id.
DOE does not agree that the multi-metric approach lacks the
potential to reduce energy consumption in real-world usage. DOE's UEC
metric currently represents the annualized amount of the non-useful
energy consumed by a battery charger (i.e., energy losses) among all
tested modes of operation. As battery and battery charger technology
develops along with change in usage profiles, DOE is noticing that more
and more energy losses happen during maintenance mode and no-battery
mode, as battery chargers are simply either maintaining the battery at
a fully charged state or monitoring the charger circuitry to facilitate
active charging when a battery is inserted. In these modes, the battery
charger is not doing any useful work to transfer energy into the
battery, and because these modes can last indefinitely, they can result
in significant energy savings potential if regulated separately from
active mode. DOE further notes that the potential redesign and
additional costs are not associated with change to multi-metric testing
approach, but directly related to the energy conservation standards
rulemaking. However, DOE notes that any energy savings potential and
cost burdens from increased efficiency levels would be analyzed
thoroughly in the separate energy conservation standards rulemaking.
The Joint Trade Associations opposed the proposed multi-metric
approach, asserting that the multi-metric approach does not satisfy
EPCA's intent or requirements, and it would make savings and energy
savings difficult for the consumer to understand as well as for DOE to
analyze. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 1-3) The Joint Trade
Associations asserted that DOE failed to demonstrate that its proposals
are justified and are not arbitrary and capricious, and that DOE's
proposal does not meet the requirements of the Administrative Procedure
Act or the Data Quality Act. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3)
The Joint Trade Associations asserted that DOE has not shown that the
current approach does not represent an average consumer use cycle, that
it cannot be updated to maintain its representativeness of average
consumer use, that it is infeasible to integrate active mode and
standby mode, or that the current test procedure approach would be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp.
2-4) The Joint Trade Associations also noted that the proposed appendix
Y1 would add significant burden and is contrary to EPCA's clear
preference for aggregated metrics. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at
pp. 1-2)
The Joint Trade Associations acknowledged, however, that the
current product classes are not perfect and that they have acknowledged
their imperfection from the beginning; they acknowledged that there are
difficulties in developing product classes for battery chargers, with
thousands of different end use products, and that usage and shipments
of products within classes differs. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24
at pp. 2-3) The Joint Trade Associations solution to these issues was
not to remove the UEC metric and usage profiles but to update the usage
profiles and shipments analysis more regularly, considering the breadth
of products in each class from both usage and shipments perspectives.
The Joint Trade Associations offered to provide data to assist in that
analysis. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3). The Joint Trade
Associations noted that EPCA requires DOE to review and update test
procedures at least once every 7 years, and that DOE has further
discretion to initiate an early review if usage profiles or shipments
for product classes become unrepresentative. (Joint Trade Associations,
No. 24 at p. 4) Because DOE is already required to update the test
procedures periodically, the Joint Trade Associates could not see how
the multi-metric approach solved any issue. The Joint Trade
Associations noted that these reviews and updates are critical to DOE's
analysis, and it is difficult to understand why it is too challenging
to do these as part of the test procedure review. The Joint Trade
Associations speculated that DOE did not want to be bothered re-
assessing its categorizations and updating usage profiles. Id.
DOE is undertaking this rulemaking in compliance with its
requirement under EPCA to review and update test procedures at least
once every 7 years. However, the issue DOE identified with keeping the
current integrated UEC

[[Page 55103]]

approach was not the need to update the test procedures according to
the requirements of EPCA, but the frequency of updates required to
maintain the UEC metric as a representative approach to testing as
required under EPCA. DOE reiterates that it has determined it would
need to update the test procedures more often than the 6- and 7-year
standards and test procedure update cycles to maintain the UEC metric;
as other commenters also noted, the battery chargers' dynamic market
already would warrant far more frequent updates and DOE projects this
need to only increase over time. While the Joint Trade Associations
pointed out that DOE regularly updates annual use cycles for products
such as residential dishwashers, laundry products, and air treatment
products based on varying sets of data, DOE notes an approach that is
both feasible and representative for some products may not be feasible
or representative for others where there are clear and significant
differences between the products such as quantity of end use products
for battery chargers.
The Joint Trade Associations further stated that DOE failed to
present data supporting its conclusions from a recent market review
showing that shipments for certain applications have changed
significantly since the usage profiles were established, or that market
and shipments of battery chargers change quickly as the market and
consumer use changes. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 3) The
Joint Trade Associations further disputed that the current approach is
no longer representative, and that DOE has presented no compelling
evidence that the test procedure has become overly burdensome, noting
that the simple solution is to simply update the test procedures. They
concluded that because the current test procedure has accomplished
EPCA's requirements of representative results without undue burden
relatively well, DOE cannot show it is infeasible to have an integrated
metric representative of consumer use. They therefore also disputed
DOE's findings of a repeated need to update leading to increased
manufacturer burden and claimed the multi-metric approach would be more
burdensome than minor revisions to update usage profiles and shipments.
Id.
DOE notes that an approach's historical success or validity does
not necessarily justify maintaining that approach in the face of
changed and changing circumstances. DOE has projected that the battery
chargers' market and the variety of consumer end uses make the UEC
metric increasingly infeasible and untenable to maintain, both
administratively and for regulated parties. The technical requirements
to maintain the UEC metric and its attendant usage profiles are no
longer feasible to meet. The need to frequently review and update usage
profiles, while known in the 2016 rulemaking, was of a different scope
than the need for review and updating dictated by the current market
for battery chargers. DOE believes this need to update would only
increase in rapidity. And as DOE has noted, even if DOE were able to
maintain these profiles on its own end the frequent changes to the test
procedures and standards would require frequent recertifications for
manufacturers and may cause impermissible undue burden.
The Joint Trade Associations disputed that the test procedure must
be representative of consumer use at every moment, noting that this is
not only impossible, but also unnecessary and not consistent with
EPCA's intent. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 4) DOE agrees
that this is not the statutory standard, but DOE notes that DOE is
required to maintain test procedures reasonably designed to produce
representative test results without undue burden. Maintaining the
current battery charger test procedure, which DOE reasonably believes
will lead to foreseeably unrepresentative test results on a regular
basis, is contrary to EPCA's requirements where an alternative test
procedure exists to provide more representative results without undue
burden. While EPCA expresses a preference for an integrated metric,
this preference yields before EPCA's more fundamental need for accurate
and representative test results, without which EPCA's standards are
undermined.
The Joint Trade Associations also argued that DOE originally
grouped products with different usage profiles into the same product
class, and that DOE did not present data in the November 2021 NOPR on
what has changed since the initial test procedure and standards
development. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 2) The Joint Trade
Associations stated that DOE was placing the burden of proof for
retaining the integrated metric on commenters but claimed that the
burden was in fact on DOE to demonstrating that its proposals were
justified and not arbitrary and capricious. Joint Trade Associations,
No. 24 at p. 3) DOE has acknowledged that it is changing its position
on whether the UEC metric can meet the requirements of EPCA but
disagrees that it has not explained the basis for this change in
position. DOE, and other commenters in response, noted that the changes
in the market justified reconsideration and ultimately departure from
the UEC and usage profile approach. The market review has shown that
the UEC integrated metric approach can no longer feasibly be reasonably
expected to produce representative test results as required by EPCA,
absent such frequent updates to the test procedures as to constitute
undue hardship--which itself would contravene EPCA. DOE is adopting its
multi-metric approach because an integrated metric is now infeasible.
The Joint Trade Associations asserted that UEC is a more
representative approach because it accounts for consumer usage, whereas
DOE's multi-metric approach does not account for the contribution of
each to the overall product efficiency. (Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at p. 7) However, as DOE has noted the representativeness of the UEC
approach is dependent on representativeness of the usage profiles and
shipment data underpinning the metric, and the current battery chargers
market dynamics make maintaining the representativeness of that metric
infeasible without incurring undue burden. DOE's UEC approach would
only be representative of the annual non-useful energy resulting from
battery chargers, provided that the usage profiles are updated
frequently and repeatedly. DOE's multi-metric approach would, still
representatively but separately, measure and certify the active mode
energy, standby mode energy, and off mode energy. As battery charger
overall efficiency is highly dependent on usage profiles, the multi-
metric approach can further help consumers in learning which battery
charger would provide best overall efficiency under that specific
consumer's usage profile by providing the separate metrics.
The Joint Trade Associations stated that not only is DOE's proposal
inconsistent with EPCA's clear preference for integrated metrics, but
it is also inconsistent with DOE's systems approach, which aims to
allow flexibility in component designs while ensuring an overall
efficiency requirement. The Joint Trade Associations stated that they
assumed the proposed appendix Y1 will translate to three separate
energy conservation standards requirements and noted that not all
products have the capability to reduce energy consumption of a
particular mode which may require redesign to meet DOE standards. The
Joint Trade Associations commented that by separating active, standby,
and off modes into three metrics DOE is requiring the redesign of
products and

[[Page 55104]]

effectively increased design complexity. The Joint Trade Associations
stated that manufacturers are allowed flexibility to distribute energy
across the different modes with the current UEC compliance
requirements. The Joint Trade Associations stated that the integrated
UEC approach therefore allows more innovation and flexibility in
designs and posited that the burden associated with DOE's multi-metric
approach will likely be more significant as it will inhibit innovation
inhibit innovation and the ability to differentiate one's products from
others in the market. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 4-6) DOE
acknowledges that the original UEC approach provides greater design
flexibility because of its integrated nature, and that this was one
purpose of the UEC metric. 81 FR 38266, 38286-38287. However, DOE
cannot maintain an approach that will not meet EPCA's requirement of
representative test procedures or lead to undue burden. Furthermore,
DOE's multi-metric approach will still regulate the integrated power
draw of battery chargers in standby mode operations, allowing
manufacturers to still have significant design flexibility in improving
either maintenance mode or no-battery mode efficiency.
The Joint Trade Associations further stated that manufactures have
already developed their products to comply with DOE's current
standards, which is challenging for some battery chargers, especially
the infrequently charged ones. The Joint Trade Associations claimed
that if DOE were to change its approach, some products will likely need
to be redesigned and the investments manufacturers have made to comply
with the current standards would be stranded. (Joint Trade
Associations, No. 24 at p. 2)
The Joint Trade Associations commented that they cannot fully
comment on DOE's proposal when DOE has not provided more detail on how
the product classes or standards would be amended. The Joint Trade
Associations stated it is likely that that some currently compliant
products may no longer be compliant under the newly proposed approach
but with no real savings but only additional costs on consumers and
manufacturers. The Joint Trade Associations suggested DOE analyze this
further during manufacturer interviews. (Joint Trade Associations, No.
24 at p. 5)
Schumacher stated that if DOE's amended test procedure impacts
existing CCD reported models, they recommend the currently compliant
products to be grandfathered in under the amended standards or required
to be updated several years after the revised standard publication.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 6) Schumacher argued that if a newly revised
standard was to be put into effect immediately, it would result in
higher cost to manufacturers; whereas a buffer period of several years
would minimize costs and let manufacturers retest the products or
redesign the products. Id.
DOE is adopting the mode-specific metric approach as proposed in
the December 2021 NOPR and consistent with its authority and duties
under EPCA. As previously noted, when considering the feasibility of a
test procedure with a metric integrating active mode, standby mode, and
off mode energy use, DOE must also consider whether that metric will
satisfy the test procedure criteria prescribed by EPCA: the
representativeness of the test procedure and whether a test procedure
is unduly burdensome. The UEC test procedure approach specifies an
integrated metric relying on usage profiles. However, changes in
consumer use and the emergence of new products can both impact the
representativeness of that usage profile and therefore the UEC metric
overall. While the Joint Trade Associations suggested that maintaining
the representativeness of the current usage factors is simply a matter
of updating the data, as discussed in the November 2021 NOPR the market
and shipments of battery chargers has been 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 charger changes. 86 FR 66878, 66887. As an example, DOE
noted 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. Id.
Because of the nature of battery chargers, they serve a great
variety of end use products, updated on an annual basis. Although DOE
collects and reviews usage profiles and shipment data constantly, going
through the process of updating the test procedure and energy
conservation standards in a similar way would impose undue burden on
manufacturers. Needing to update the test procedure in order to avoid
reliance on obsolete usage profiles and comply with EPCA's
representativeness requirement would in turn require updating the
energy conservation standards to reflect the test procedure changes.
Manufacturers would then need to frequently retest and recertify their
products, creating significant and undue burden.
By regulating the different battery charger operating modes
separately, DOE avoids the risk of usage profiles becoming increasingly
unrepresentative before having a chance to update them, as the multi-
metric approach is not reliant on usage profiles, but rather
performance in individual operating modes. The multi-metric approach
provides for a more stable regulatory environment, by minimizing the
possibility that manufacturers would need to retest and recertify
products with changes in the market and the associated usage profiles,
thereby reducing potential test burden.
DOE notes that the multi-metric test procedure approach in appendix
Y1, adopted in this final rule, would not be required until such time
as compliance is required with amended battery chargers energy
conservation standards developed based on the new test procedure,
should DOE establish such standards. Were DOE to establish amended
energy conservation standards reflective of the multi-metrics, DOE
would consider, in part, the efficiencies of battery chargers on the
current market at each metric and the technologies available to improve
the efficiencies at each metric.
DOE reiterates that adoption of the multi-metric test procedure in
appendix Y1 itself will not require manufacturers to redesign their
products. Moreover, the multi-metric testing approach provides results
that more directly correlate to direct testing of a battery charger, as
opposed to results that are dependent on shipments data and data
regarding consumer usage patterns. As such, the test procedure is less
dependent on data that may quickly become obsolete or data that may be
unable to fully reflect appropriate market and consumer usage
conditions. Therefore, DOE anticipates that it will provide a more
stable regulatory environment for manufacturers moving forward.
DOE also notes that it is adopting the alternate active mode test
method proposed in the NOPR, which essentially relies on the current
active and maintenance modes test method found in appendix Y with only
an added step for test technicians to analytically compute the
integrated active mode energy from the active mode and maintenance mode
test data. DOE estimates the additional time required to perform the
active energy calculation would be roughly the same as that for
calculating UEC. However, because technicians would no longer need to
compute UEC under the multi-metric approach, overall testing burden
would be the same between the multi-

[[Page 55105]]

metric approach and the current UEC approach.
The CA IOUs further recommended that DOE require manufacturers to
report values for different operating modes, and that DOE publish these
values in the CCD to allow calculations of UECs for specific products
in specific use cases. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2) The CA IOUs stated
this performance data would be essential for assessing the impacts of
the new test procedure metrics. Id. DOE notes that the performance
values are already presented on the CCD, and DOE will make necessary
amendments to the reporting template to account for the reporting
changes under the multi-metric approach.
ITI also requested DOE to consider harmonizing and coordinating the
test procedure with Canada so they remain consistent. (ITI, No. 20 at
p. 6) DOE notes that Canada's Department of Natural Resources primarily
references DOE's existing test procedure for battery chargers, which
relies on the consolidated UEC metric. While there is an effort to
harmonize with widely and internationally adopted industry standards,
DOE is required by EPCA to ensure that its test procedure for a covered
product is representative. For the reasons stated above relating to
DOE's own UEC-based test procedure metric, DOE is therefore unable to
continue harmonizing with Canada's test procedure for battery chargers.
DOE notes however that the test procedure's conduct between the current
UEC approach and the adopted multi-metric approach still remains
largely the same; therefore, DOE does not anticipate there to be
significant difference between how tests are conducted in Canada and in
the US. DOE will work with international agencies to reduce
manufacturer burden to a reasonable extent, where doing so aligns with
DOE's statutory requirements under EPCA.
Based on the discussion presented in the November 2021 NOPR and in
the preceding paragraphs, DOE has determined that the adopted multi-
metric approach more fully meets the representativeness requirements of
EPCA without being unduly burdensome. Moving to a multi-metric approach
avoids DOE imposing an undue burden on manufacturers by requiring
frequent recertification and retesting due to frequent updates to an
integrated metric, updates that would be needed to maintain the
metric's compliance with EPCA's representativeness requirement in a
shifting market landscape. DOE reiterates that testing under the new
multi-metric approach would not be required until after DOE's battery
charger energy conservation standards have been amended. DOE will also
study the potential redesign needs and costs because of the multi-
metric approach in the separate standards rulemaking.
6. Active Mode Test
Battery charger active mode is the state (condition) in which the
battery charger system is connected to a main electricity supply (main
power source) and is actively delivering power to bring the depleted
battery to a fully charged state (the charger's main function), as
defined in section 2.1 of appendix Y.--(See also 42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(i)) Appendix Y currently tests the active mode power
consumption along with battery maintenance mode power \11\ 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, in the
new appendix Y1, DOE is replacing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ 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 November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed 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. 86 FR 66878, 66888.
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. Id. 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 provided in the manufacturer's materials. Id. 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 so that the battery discharge test is performed immediately
after this active mode test is completed, but prior to the 24-hour
charge and maintenance mode test that would then be used to determine
maintenance mode power. Id.
Joint Trade Associations commented that the November 2021 NOPR
preamble stated the battery discharge test would be performed
immediately after the active mode test, but the proposed appendix Y1
regulatory text appropriately included a wait period. The Joint Trade
Associations urged DOE to retain the wait periods, should DOE continue
with the amended test procedure. The Joint Trade Associations expressed
concern that going immediately from active mode testing to maintenance
mode testing \12\ would impact the test because the battery could be
hot and stated the wait times are important for reducing test
variation. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ As discussed in the following section, in this final rule
DOE has determined that energy use during maintenance mode is
appropriately assigned to standby mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE's proposed charge test would begin upon insertion of a depleted
battery and would end when the battery is fully charged and require
that the test be terminated when there is indication that the charge
test has ended. DOE's intent was to explain that manufacturers should
terminate charging immediately after the battery reaches full charge,
rather than wait for the original total charge and maintenance mode
test duration to complete. The proposal was not intended to remove the
wait period between the charge and discharge test. As such, DOE
clarifies in this final rule that it is not removing the wait period
between the charge and battery discharge test, and a wait period
continues to be included in the newly established appendix Y1.
ITI suggested that the proposed charging test would be challenging
to conduct for the following reasons: the maintenance mode power would
be difficult to measure under the new approach for products with
integrated battery; and if a battery charger does not have charge
status indicator, it would be hard to monitor when the battery is fully
charged as there many variables that can affect the total charging
time, which makes it difficult to develop an automated and consistently
accurate process. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3) ITI suggested DOE collect more
power data before proceeding with the new active charge test and
reiterated that separating

[[Page 55106]]

active charge test with maintenance mode test would require
significantly longer testing time, and the maintenance mode power would
not be possible to measure after battery discharge test for products
with integrated batteries. (Id.) ITI suggested that DOE also consider
the cost associated with potential redesign of battery charger
products. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
ITI and the Joint Trade Associations stated that the multi-metric
test would either require active technician monitoring or additional
special equipment for monitoring, which adds significant time and cost.
(ITI, No. 20 at p. 6; (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp. 5-6) The
Joint Trade Associations opposed the proposed active mode test
procedure, stating it would significantly increase test burden and
incur undue burden. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 5) The
Joint Trade Associations stated that because the test takes longer,
fewer tests can be conducted. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at pp.
5-6)
CSA commented that the current appendix Y allows laboratory
technicians leave the battery charger unattended for 19 hours before
having to check on the charging status to determine total test
duration, and the batteries will usually be charged within 19 hours for
the test to be terminated at the 24-hour mark; this test can be left
running overnight and requires very little time and effort from the lab
technician. (CSA, No. 12 at p. 1) CSA further commented that if the
active charge test needs to be terminated immediately after indication
of battery is fully charged, the lab technician would need to
continuously monitor the charge indicator and immediately terminate the
charge when the fully charged indicator turns on. (CSA, No. 12 at pp.
1-2) Although CSA conceded this could be done by implementing sensors
and other controls, CSA stated that it would be more burdensome than
the appendix Y test method. Id. Similarly, Delta-Q argued that the
proposed test procedure change adds test complexity and duration with
the addition of the separate maintenance mode test. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at
p. 2) Delta-Q also noted that the active mode test procedure was
problematic both because it appeared to require constant monitoring and
because it reduces battery rest time, which can increase test-to-test
variation. Id.
NEEA recommended DOE test a wide variety of battery chargers to
evaluate appropriateness of the active mode test. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp.
7-8) NEEA asserted that relying on a battery charge indicator may
result in different charge levels at the end of the active mode tests,
because not all chargers indicate charge status and those that do may
signal full charge at different thresholds, which could result in
unfair comparisons. (NEEA, No. 27 at pp. 7-8)
DOE notes that battery chargers are typically designed for a
specific battery or combination of batteries. Therefore, manufacturers
should already have an understanding of the full charge time for each
battery and charger combination, making it unlikely that a technician
would need to monitor a unit under test during the entire test period.
However, DOE also stated in the November 2021 NOPR that in its
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: the active mode energy and maintenance mode
power. 86 FR 66878, 66888. DOE therefore considered this alternative
approach, in which 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 stated that it
would consider the discussed alternate approach in the development of
the final rule. Id. Under this approach, lab technicians do not need to
rely on charge status indicator to determine when the battery reaches
the full charge, which would ensure that the test battery would always
be fully charged at the end of the combined charge and maintenance mode
test.
CA IOUs agreed that calculating energy in active mode as the
integral of applied power during the charge period is a practical and
reasonable approach based on sound physics. (CA IOUs No. 25 at p. 2)
The Joint Trade Associations stated the alternative active mode test
would not work because battery chargers may have points at which the
battery power is turned off, such as a series of pulses at the end
where the battery attempts to get full charge. The Joint Trade
Associations stated that such instances could be misinterpreted at the
end of the appendix Y1 active test, and for products with complex
charge profiles, it is difficult to detect the end of active mode given
different battery sizes. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 7)
NEEA similarly commented that analyzing charge status based on AC
input power is difficult for slower trickle chargers because input
power may not indicate a transition from active to battery maintenance
mode. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 8) NEEA also suggested that although
additional instrumentation can be used to monitor battery charger
output and more accurately determine the state of charge, measuring
additional charger DC output may interfere battery and charger
communication signals, impacting testing safety; affect the measurement
directly; and increase test burden. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 8-9) NEEA
claimed that determining charge status by using AC input power may
result in different charge levels for fast chargers because these
chargers transition from fast to slow charging with different
algorithms. (Id.) NEEA encouraged DOE to investigate the issues it
identified, and to retain its current appendix Y active and maintenance
mode testing approach if the challenges prove difficult to overcome.
(Id.) NEEA stated that advantages of the appendix Y 24-hour active mode
test include reduced test burden for technicians, the ability to
address both slow and fast chargers through a uniform approach and
eliminating the need to determine/define charge status. (Id.)
WPC supported DOE's alternate approach of conducting a single 24-
hour charge and maintenance mode test and determining active charge
energy based on the data generated. (WPC, No. 22 at pp. 2-3) WPC also
commented however that it may be difficult to define the actual
transitioning point between active mode and maintenance mode. (Id.)
To minimize any potential additional burden that may be associated
with an active-mode only test as noted by commenters, DOE is adopting
the alternative active charge energy approach discussed in the November
2021 NOPR, under which active mode energy is calculated from the
combined charge and maintenance mode test, similar to the test procure
in appendix Y. DOE notes that battery chargers may have different
charging profiles. Based on DOE's testing, most battery chargers
exhibit a distinctive drop off in power indicating a transition to
maintenance mode. In certain limited instances, the battery charger
shows unstable power consumption towards the end of charging phase.
However, such periods would be classified as active charging because
the battery is pining the charger to get full charge, and as stated in
section 2.1 of appendix Y and the new appendix Y1 active mode is when
``the battery charger is delivering current,

[[Page 55107]]

equalizing the cells, and performing other one-time or limited-time
functions in order to bring the battery to a fully charged state.''
Therefore, by defining the state that would be classified as active
mode and by determining when the charger enters maintenance mode, lab
technicians can precisely identify the transition point from active
mode to maintenance mode and calculate the active charge energy from
this alternative approach, as prescribed in sections 3.3.9 and 3.3.10
of appendix Y1.
Schumacher commented that the best way to calculate the efficiency
of an automotive battery charger with non-integrated batteries is
similar to the calculation used for UPSs. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 1)
Schumacher further noted that including a non-integrated battery into
the efficiency calculation is not an effective measure of the charger's
efficiency because different batteries have different losses, and the
charger has no control over these batteries. Id. Schumacher therefore
stated that it is better and more accurate to measure the efficiency of
the charger directly, by itself, so that the chargers would not be
affected by the battery efficiencies. Id. Schumacher stated that lower
quality batteries can result in manually reduced charge cycles just to
pass the standard, which causes faster battery degrading and adds user
costs with greater environmental impact. (Id.)
DOE understands that for battery chargers designed for large-
capacity lead-acid batteries, manufacturers are less involved in the
end use product design and usually cannot pick which battery will be
used with their chargers. However, battery performance is a crucial
part for measuring battery charger efficiencies. Different battery
chemistries have different self-discharge rate, affecting the charge
and maintenance modes algorithms. DOE's battery charger test procedure
also determines the amount of ``useful energy'' by measuring how much
energy the fully charged battery can output.
In this final rule, DOE is adopting the alternate active charge
energy approach discussed in the November 2021 NOPR, in which active
mode energy is calculated from the combined charge and maintenance mode
test that is similar to the test procure in appendix Y.
7. Standby Mode Tests
Standby mode is the condition in which an energy-using product is:
(1) Connected to a main 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.
Section 2.25 of appendix Y. 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 test procedure in appendix Y relies on a metric
that integrates active mode, standby mode, and off mode, it is less
critical in that context 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 tentatively determined in the
November 2021 NOPR that maintenance mode is also appropriately
characterized as a standby power mode. 86 FR 66878, 66888. 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, DOE
referenced power tool chargers in the November 2021 NOPR, which in
residential environments routinely spend an indefinite amount of time
maintaining batteries that are not regularly used but are required to
be fully charged. Id. 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.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that these
continuous functions in maintenance mode satisfy both EPCA's and IEC
62301's definition of standby. 86 FR 66878, 66888-66889. To better
account for these conditions, DOE proposed to first 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). Id. DOE proposed to then define in appendix Y1 the term
``standby mode'' to include both no-battery mode and maintenance mode.
Id. Specifically, DOE proposed 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>). Id.
The Joint Efficiency Advocates supported DOE's proposal to regulate
no-battery mode and maintenance as standby mode. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 23 at p. 3) NEEA supported DOE's proposal to include
both battery maintenance mode and no battery mode within standby mode
but encouraged DOE to require reporting of these two modes separately
to support more accurate standards analysis. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 3)
NEEA also supported DOE's proposal to regulate standby power mode as
the sum of maintenance mode power and no battery mode power, as this
metric gives manufacturers greater design flexibility. (NEEA, No. 27 at
pp. 3-4)
ITI stated that the new proposed test procedure would prolong the
maintenance mode test until maintenance mode power has been captured
representatively, and that it does not make sense to combine no-battery
mode power and maintenance mode power as products spend different time
in each of these states. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3) The CA IOUs, while
otherwise supportive, stated that the proposed integrated standby
metric does not clearly delineate no-battery and maintenance modes
power. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 2) The CA IOUs recommended that the no-
battery and maintenance modes power be reported separately as unique
values, especially in the case of combination products that provide
battery charging in addition to other functions. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p.
2) The CA IOUs also reiterated their support of using IEC 62301 to
develop a no-load standby measurement so that DOE's test procedure can
harmonize with industry practices and improve

[[Page 55108]]

low power factor treatment. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 3) DOE notes that
the no-battery mode test procedure was indeed developed based on IEC
62301 test procedure, with resolution parameters for power measurements
and uncertainty methodologies, including input crest factor tolerance
parameters, referenced directly from IEC 62301.
Honda disagreed with DOE's approach of combining maintenance mode
power and no-battery mode power under standby mode power, stating that
the approach would not properly evaluate standby power and would result
in double evaluation of the power to boot up the battery charger.
(Honda, No. 26 at pp. 1-2) Honda additionally asked DOE to monitor the
current supply in maintenance mode when calculating standby power,
because there can be differences when the charger is ``providing
limited charge'' and when the charger is ``not charging''. (Id.) DOE
reiterates that in maintenance mode operation, the battery charger is
only continuously monitoring the fully charged battery's voltage to
facilitate limited charging, if the voltage drops below a certain
threshold. In no-battery mode, the battery charger is constantly
``scanning'' to determine if a battery has been inserted, or connected,
to activate charging. The actual power to boot up the battery charging
function to charge the depleted battery would be regulated in active
mode itself. Therefore, combining maintenance mode power and no-battery
mode power would not be double evaluating the power to boot up the
battery charger.
WPC stated that it may be more accurate to determine the start of
maintenance mode by measuring the decrease in power rather than using a
charge indicator or timed rate of charge, as some device charge
indicators may show a premature full charge state when compared to the
rated capacity or after a period of maintenance mode charging. (WPC,
No. 22 at p. 2) WPC, however, did not agree with DOE's proposal to
combine no-battery mode and maintenance mode power into standby mode
power for fixed-location wireless chargers, and suggested that focusing
on ``no battery'' or ``no receiver'' mode would let DOE focus on
standby power reduction. (WPC, No. 22 at p. 3)
DOE is aware of some instances in which battery chargers may enter
a low power mode similar to no battery mode prior to entering
maintenance mode, which exhibits higher power consumptions in
comparison. Therefore, to ensure test procedure repeatability and
representativeness, DOE adopts the proposal that the maintenance mode
testing period should continue until 5 hours after true maintenance
mode has been captured. This ensures that the consumption in the
alternate low power mode described above is not being inadvertently
captured as maintenance mode. For example, if a battery charger does
not enter maintenance mode until the 50th hour of being in the active
charge and maintenance mode test, then the total active and maintenance
mode test period should be 55 hours, which ends at 5 hours after the
charger enters maintenance mode.
EPCA requires DOE to include standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, taking into consideration the most current versions of
Standards 62301 and 62087 of the IEC, and to integrate such energy
consumption into the overall descriptor for each covered product,
unless technically infeasible, such as here. However, where integration
into an overall metric is infeasible, EPCA directs DOE to 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))
The operation of a battery charger in maintenance mode meets the
definition of ``standby mode'' as that term is defined by EPCA. (See 42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii)) As discussed, maintenance mode provides the
continuous function of maintaining a battery at full charge following
active mode until such time as the fully charged battery is removed
from the charger by the user. (Id.) The energy used during this
continuous (and potentially indefinite) mode is distinct from energy
use during active mode, the discrete period following placement of a
depleted battery on the charger, as the energy used in maintenance mode
does not contribute to direct battery charging. Further, because it is
providing a user-oriented or protective function, maintenance mode does
not meet the definition of off mode, which is defined as the condition
in which an energy-using product is connected to a main power source;
and is not providing any standby or active mode function. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(ii))
As noted in section III.B.5 of this document, most energy losses
happen during maintenance mode and no-battery mode, with the battery
charger not doing any useful work to transfer energy into the battery.
As these modes can last indefinitely based on different consumer usage
and product types, calculating the energy losses based on a weighting
factor would not be representative, which is also why DOE is
discontinuing the integrated UEC approach. By combining the power draw
of battery charger in maintenance mode and no-battery mode, DOE would
be able to representatively capture the energy usage metrics for
battery chargers in these states regardless of how much time the
battery charger spends in each state, while still giving manufacturers
freedom in design flexibility. Unlike with the overall UEC metric, DOE
would not be reliant on usage profiles and the requisite updates here;
therefore, it is not infeasible to combine maintenance mode and no-
battery mode. Furthermore, because maintenance mode power computes the
average power during at least the last four hours of maintenance mode
period, it would not be necessary to separately measure the power of
when the battery charger is providing limited charge.
As stated in section III.B.6 of this document, DOE is adopting the
NOPR discussed alternative approach that calculates the active mode
energy and maintenance mode power analytically from the combined charge
and maintenance mode test. DOE reiterates that from extensive internal
testing, DOE found that by monitoring battery charger input power, most
battery chargers would exhibit a distinctive drop off in power,
indicating a clear transition to maintenance mode. In rare instances
when the battery charger shows unstable power consumption towards the
end of charging phase, DOE notes that technically, they would still be
considered as active charging phase as the battery is pining the
charger to get full charge. Therefore, DOE does not anticipate there to
be obstacles that prevents stakeholders from identifying the
maintenance mode power under the alternative approach.
DOE is adopting the NOPR proposal to combine both maintenance mode
and no-battery mode under battery charger standby mode. DOE further
clarifies that for open-placement chargers, only no-battery mode power
would need to be tested, as prescribed in section 5 of appendix Y1.
8. 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

[[Page 55109]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE reviewed the market and initially
determined that the products subject to the waivers granted to Dyson
are no longer available; therefore, DOE proposed to not amend the test
procedure to include instructions regarding disabling power to
functions not associated with the battery charging process that are not
consumer controllable, or to allow adders for such functions. 86 FR
66878, 66889-66890. DOE noted that this proposal would also terminate
the existing Dyson waivers consistent with 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3) and 10
CFR 430.27(l). Id.
In response to DOE's proposal, the Joint Efficiency Advocates
supported DOE's proposal to maintain the current approach for disabling
power to non-battery-charging related functions, and supported DOE's
proposal to terminate Dyson's waivers as these products are no longer
available on the market. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 23 at p. 3)
NEEA supported maintaining the present approach to waiver petitions,
auxiliary functions in the test procedure, and DOE's decision to
terminate the existing waiver granted to Dyson. (NEEA, No. 27 at 11)
The Joint Trade Associations asked DOE to provide additional
clarity on requirements regarding disabling power to non-battery-
charging related functions, because although some functions do not
contribute to battery charging, they cannot be disabled directly by the
user. The Joint Trade Associations stated that DOE and stakeholders
have struggled with how to address these functions in the past and
suggested a proposal to allow disabling of these functions but with
non-circumventing language. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 10)
The Joint Trade Associations suggested DOE to include a publicly
viewable column with the CCD so that the public can know when an
alternative means is used to isolate the charging function. The Joint
Trade Associations further suggested DOE to add a confidential column
so manufacturers can report instructions on how to disable the non-
battery-charging related functions or set them to the lowest power
consuming state. The Joint Trade Associations also proposed to DOE that
anti-circumvention language should be added to make the intent that
battery-charging related circuit or function cannot be changed in the
test procedure clear, as such language has been successful in other
appliances categories. (Id.) ITI and Delta-Q also supported the joint
comments. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 4-5; Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2) Delta-Q
further expressed their support of the existing Dyson waiver approach
and suggested that DOE integrate allowances to more battery charger
models, because it is not always practical or desirable for the user to
have the ability to manually disable non-charging-features or reduce
their consumption. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2)
STIHL commented that when STIHL's lawn mower battery is charging,
there are some non-battery-charging related functions still running,
such as connected functions or safety functions. (STIHL, No. 16 at p.
1) STIHL inquired if these functions can be deactivated or be given
appropriate power adders when calculating for energy consumption during
testing, because they do not relate to the charging process. Id.
DOE's current battery charger test procedure specifically requires
non-battery-charging functions to be turned off during testing, unless
manufacturers did not provide ways for end user to disable these
functions. Section 3.2.4 of appendix Y. DOE notes that, due to the
intricate nature of battery charger products, disabling non-battery-
charging related functions through non-user-accessible ways can have
unexpected effects on the battery charging circuitry, which raises
repeatability and reproducibility concerns. Therefore, DOE is not
amending the test procedure to allow disabling of non-battery-charging
related functions through alternative means. In the case suggested by
STIHL's comment, the same requirements would also apply, and the
battery charger would only be tested with these non-battery-charging
functions on if they cannot be switched off by the end user. Due to the
huge variety of non-battery-charging related functions and different
ways they can be implemented, DOE is not prescribing power adders for
these non-battery-charging related functions.
Schumacher added that there is new automotive battery charger
technology that uses internal super capacitors or Li-Ion batteries,
which charges the standalone (end-use product's) battery normally, and
then the internal battery or supercapacitor, if needed, after charge is
complete. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 6) Schumacher asked if the charging
of these internal batteries should be included into E24 or Pm or some
other parts of the standard that are yet to be described. (Schumacher,
No. 21 at p. 6) DOE's notes that its battery charger test procedure
only measures the energy consumption at the input of the charger. Based
on when charging of these super capacitors occur, it could be regulated
either under active charge mode or maintenance mode of DOE's test
procedure.

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 with
this final rule.
1. Certification Flowcharts
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to include certification
flowcharts in the docket upon publication of the final rule, shown in
Figure III.C.1 and Figure III.C.2,\14\ to

[[Page 55110]]

help manufacturers better understand the battery charger testing and
certification process. The flowcharts 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, the difference between a rated value, a
represented value, and a certified rating, and the statistical criteria
for determining compliance with energy conservation standards. The
flowcharts 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
flowcharts 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 flowcharts as substantive guides for testing and
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 55111]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.000

[[Page 55112]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08SE22.001

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
The Joint Trade Associations suggested that DOE consistently update
the flowcharts as needed and make it clear that the regulatory text
would override anything in the flowcharts because many manufacturers
will rely on these flowcharts, if finalized. (Joint Trade Associations,
No. 24 at p. 11) ITI also supported this comment. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Appendix Y1 test procedure would not be effective until
after energy conservation standards have been amended to account for
the multi-metric approach.

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

[[Page 55113]]

DOE acknowledges these comments and will ensure that the flowcharts
are updated as necessary. DOE also reemphasizes that the regulatory
text would override anything in the flowcharts.
2. Testing and Certification Clarifications
DOE's current battery charger UEC calculation is prescribed in
section 3.3.13 of appendix Y, with product specific certification
requirements prescribed in 10 CFR 429.39. DOE proposed clarifications
in the November 2021 NOPR, based on stakeholder comments.
a. 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 429.39(a)(1). The calculation of UEC in
section 3.3.13 of appendix Y is based in part on the tested (measured)
battery energy.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to further clarify 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>''. As for the proposed appendix Y1, DOE
noted that all of the instructions rely on measured E<INF>batt</INF>,
making it unnecessary to distinguish between measured and rated
E<INF>batt</INF>. 86 FR 66878, 66893.
Delta-Q supported the extra clarifications on measured and
nameplate nomenclature. (Delta-Q, No. 28 at p. 2)
The Joint Trade Associations stated that it is not clear whether
measured or rated values for battery energy should be used, and they
would support DOE's proposal to update the nomenclature if coupled with
an enforcement provision that allows for tolerance, as there could be
inherent variations in test and production that affect how standard and
product class applies. The Joint Trade Associations stated that their
proposed approach is consistent with DOE's enforcement approach for
other appliances, such as measured volume for refrigerators, freezers,
clothes washers, dehumidifiers, etc. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 24
at p. 11) ITI supported this comment and further requested DOE to
continue using the term ``rated'' instead of ``represented'', unless
DOE can provide a clear definition on when should the ``represented''
term be used. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 5)
DOE recognizes the inherent variations in testing and production,
especially for tested battery energies. However, DOE notes that due to
the nature of how battery energy differs even for the same models from
the same batch, when determining compliance through enforcement testing
DOE would be looking at the individual sample performance more closely
and determine compliance based on per sample basis, if necessary. DOE
will also ensure that its battery charger energy conservation standards
would show comparable standards for battery chargers that fall on the
border of two neighboring product classes.
DOE notes that under the term ``rated'', some manufacturers might
confuse it with ``nameplate'' values, which can differ for batteries.
Therefore, to ensure test procedure repeatability and reproducibility,
DOE is avoiding using the term ``rated'', and is updating the terms to
``represented'', ``nameplate'', and ``measured'' instead.
b. Other Nomenclatures
Schumacher stated that appendix Y's specified 5-hour discharge time
resulted from the 0.2 C-rate, and conflicts with real world automotive
battery ratings which are usually based on 10-to-20-hour rates.
Schumacher stated that the 5-hour discharge time results in a much
lower rating than the nameplate rating because of energy loss through
heat. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 2) Schumacher proposed DOE to clarify
the 0.2C C-rate means a 5-hour discharge rate to ensure manufacturers
are conducting the tests correctly and reporting correctly.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp.2-3)
DOE notes that discharge rates will vary by end-use application. It
would be infeasible and add burden if DOE was to prescribe a unique
discharge rate for each type of application in the test procedure.
DOE's specified 0.2C discharge rate offers a practical and repeatable
solution for different applications with either slow or fast discharge
rates. By maintaining the same discharge rate, it would also improve
comparability in results. For batteries that serve the same end-use
application, although the tested value may differ from manufacturer
designed ratings, they would still be comparable to other batteries
from the same application.
The definition for C-rate is prescribed at section 2.10 of appendix
Y, which specifies that the C-rate is calculated by dividing the charge
or discharge current by the nameplate battery charge capacity of the
battery. DOE has not received stakeholder comments suggesting that the
current 0.2 discharge C-rate causes confusion prior to Schumacher's
comment. DOE is also unaware of any manufacturer discharging the
batteries differently than the prescribed 0.2C discharge rate. However,
to further improve test procedure language clarity, DOE will amend the
C-rate definition in both appendix Y and appendix Y1 to give an example
that time needed to charge or discharge with a 0.2 C-rate would equal 5
hours.
Schumacher stated that the term used to refer to ``Product
Classes'' and ``wall adapters'' are not consistent between the
standard, test procedure, and CCD report template. (Schumacher, No. 21
at pp. 4-5) Schumacher commented that making consistent use of terms
would avoid ambiguity and DOE should clarify that wall adapters indeed
refer to EPSs. Id.
DOE's mention of wall adapters in the test procedure was to
facilitate understanding and readability of the test procedure. In most
cases, the term ``wall adapter'' can be used interchangeably with
``EPS''. To further improve language consistency, DOE is changing the
``wall adapter'' terms used in appendices Y and Y1 to the more
technically appropriate term ``EPSs''. As for the term ``Product
Classes'', DOE notes that in the CCD reporting template, they are
referred to as ``Product Group Codes'', which should not cause
confusion as the ``Product Group Codes'' worksheet details the product
groups with matching product classes.
c. Alternate Test Method for Small Electronic Devices
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE did not propose to amend the test
procedure to rely on the measured battery energy value for the purpose
of the testing and certification, because DOE has observed several
occasions in which the measured battery energy was lower than the
marked nameplate energy, which could lead to unrepresentative value of
UEC or active energy consumption. 86 FR 66878, 66893.
ITI reiterated their recommendation for DOE to simplify the test
procedure for small electronics by relying on the nameplate battery
energy so that testers would not need to obtain special standalone
battery samples or solder on tiny terminals. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 6-7)
ITI suggested DOE to reconsider its stance on these devices because
inconsistencies caused by these small energy batteries would have
negligible impact on overall results. (Id.) ITI also requested DOE to
review data from

[[Page 55114]]

small electronics as they normally have passed the UEC standard with
large margins, but with maintenance mode energy contributing to
majority of energy consumption. (Id.) NEEA expressed general support
for DOE's assertion that rated and measured battery capacities can
differ substantially, and that requiring measurement ensures fair
competition under the standard. (NEEA, No. 27 at p. 11)
DOE reemphasizes that DOE's battery charger test procedure relies
on the tested battery energy to carry out UEC calculation. DOE has
encountered several occasions where the actual battery energy differs
from the rated battery energy. Relying on the rated battery energy to
test the product therefore would result in inaccurate measurements and
certifications, contrary to EPCA's requirement that DOE adopt test
procedures reasonably designed to produce representative results.
Therefore, DOE is not prescribing any alternative test methods for
small electronics.
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 proposed 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. 86 FR 66878, 66893. DOE did not receive comments on this
topic and is adopting the proposed changes in this final rule.
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 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.
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend Table 3.3.3 of
appendices Y and Y1 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. 86 FR 66878, 66893-66894. The Joint Trade
Associations supported DOE's proposal to clarify that the highest
nameplate battery voltage should be used in determining product class.
(Joint Trade Associations, No. 24 at p. 12)
In this final rule, DOE is adopting the proposed editorial change
on battery voltage specification in Table 3.3.3.
f. UEC and Reporting Discrepancies
Schumacher noted that Ebatt and UEC allow 3 decimal places for
entry, while the other measured, calculated, and determined values only
allow 2 decimal places, which sometimes creates calculation errors.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 3) Schumacher proposed that DOE change all
finished calculated values to 3 decimal places, except for UEC and max
UEC which should be 2 decimal places; and all the constants provided by
DOE to change from 2 decimal places to 5 or with fractions to reduce
rounding errors, which sometimes prevents submission. (Schumacher, No.
21 at p. 3) Schumacher claimed that the UEC calculation selection
formula can have discrepancies from the use of only 2 decimal places.
For example, a battery charger with 64.271 hours of total charge time
can use either UEC equation (i) or (ii) from the selection formula.
(Id.) Schumacher stated that increasing the decimal places to 5 for
constants and rounding the finished results to 3 decimal places or
keeping the constants in fractions would reduce these discrepancies.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at pp. 3-4)
DOE's CCD already allows manufacturers to report values with
multiple decimal places. DOE notes that it cannot change the constants
provided in appendix Y to more decimal places or fractions, as doing so
could affect the currently CCD reported basic models. For example, even
a slight change in usage profiles or threshold charge time could cause
numerous currently reported basic models to have slightly different
UEC. This change would also result in unnecessary need for
manufacturers to recertify their basic models. DOE's CCD reporting form
does not specifically look for rounding errors, and it was not clear
from Schumacher's comment on how the submission rejection occurred.
However, if stakeholders continue to have submission related questions,
stakeholders can contact DOE's Compliance Certification Management
System directly for help.
Schumacher also included a chart to illustrate that there is a 5-
hour transition shift between UEC formula (i) and (ii), which does not
lead to a smooth transition and asked DOE to provide some explanation.
(Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 4) UEC equation (i) was developed based on
usage profiles. To account for chargers that takes significantly longer
to charge than DOE's threshold charge time, DOE developed UEC equation
(ii) with close reference to equation (i). Because DOE's UEC equation
(ii) accounts for the prolonged charge time that exceeds DOE's standard
threshold charge time, it could negatively impact a battery charger's
UEC in very limited cases.
g. Testing Setup
Schumacher suggested that the DOE battery charger test procedure
should reference appendix Z or add greater detail on test measurement
setup with proper connection sequence, to provide a more uniform
standard and ensure reproducibility. (Schumacher, No. 21 at p. 5)
Schumacher suggested that the sense leads should be placed directly on
the battery terminals and not the charger terminals to ensure voltage
loss of the

[[Page 55115]]

charger terminals are measured and should be repeated for discharge
measurement so that the terminal connection losses can be accounted
for, which ensures a more uniform standard. (Schumacher, No. 21 at pp.
5-6)
Battery charger testing setup can vary significantly depending on
different product configurations. DOE has already prescribed language
in section 3.2.1 for manufacturers to set up the battery chargers
according to manufacturer instructions or the default settings. DOE
notes that the measurement setup figure used in appendix Z is for
reference only and has language indicating that actual test setup may
vary pursuant to appendix Z requirements. DOE has not encountered
scenarios in which manufacturers cannot successfully set up measurement
for battery charger testing; therefore, DOE is not providing greater
detail on how manufacturers should set up test measurement.
DOE's battery charger test procedure measures the charging
efficiency as a whole. Therefore, DOE is not adding requirements for
manufacturers to measure the charger input at battery terminals,
because adding the battery input terminal measurements would not
representatively measure the useful energy being put into the battery
and would add undue burden. Furthermore, battery chargers can have
different designs that impact how discharge tests can be performed. As
such, DOE is not prescribing additional requirements on where the
battery output connections should be made for measurement to avoid
undue burden.
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 proposed 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 proposed 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. 86 FR 66878, 66894.
Honda suggested that the proposed Table 3.1.1 for appendix Y1
includes incorrect subsection references. (Honda, No. 26 at p. 1) Honda
also stated that the proposed Table 4.3.1 of appendix Y1 appears to
have a typographical error and that it should remain the same for
current appendix Y Table 4.3.1. (Honda, No. 26 at p. 2)
DOE appreciates Honda's comment. The incorrect subsection
references were unintentional typographical errors. For the proposed
Table 4.3.1 of appendix Y1, it was incorrectly formatted upon
publication. Table 4.3.1 should still remain the same as the one in
appendix Y. DOE is correcting these two typographical errors in this
final rule. DOE is also adopting the rest of the proposed cross-
reference corrections.
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 in the November 2021 NOPR proposed 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. 86 FR 66878, 66894. 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. 86
FR 66878, 66894.
ITI requested DOE to further explain how sections 3.3.11 and 3.3.12
will be reorganized. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 6)
In the November 2021 NOPR, DOE stated in the preamble and in the
proposed appendix Y and Y1 regulatory text section that subsections
3.3.11.(b) through (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. 86 FR 66878, 66894. These would improve
readability and DOE does not anticipate any impacts to current test
procedure from these reorganizations. Therefore, DOE is adopting the
proposed subsection corrections.

D. Effective and Compliance Dates

The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendment will be
30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and
energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product
labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure,
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) EPCA provides an allowance for
individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension of the 180-
day period if the manufacturer would 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.) To the extent the
modified test procedure adopted in this final rule is required only for
the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, compliance
with the amended test procedure does not require use of such modified
test procedure provisions until the compliance date of updated
standards.
Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions in this final
rule, waivers that had been previously issued to Dyson (Case No. BC-001
and Case No. 2018-012) are terminated. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3). Because
these Dyson products are no longer distributed in the

[[Page 55116]]

market, DOE does not anticipate further testing for these products.

E. Test Procedure Costs

In this final rule, DOE incorporates some editorial changes in the
preceding 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 changes to appendix Y also include minor cross
reference corrections and test procedure organization improvements. DOE
is also terminating the existing Dyson test procedure waiver.
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
determined that these proposed amendments would not be unduly
burdensome for manufacturers to conduct.
Appendix Y Test Procedure Amendments
The amendments 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 amendments 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 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. Beginning 180 days following the final rule requiring the
use of appendix Y1, 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. 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 amendment 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
test procedure. DOE estimates that it would take approximately 40 hours
to conduct testing 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 2.5 hours to
test a fixed-location wireless charger unit and 1 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.\16\ 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.\17\
Therefore, DOE estimates that the total hourly compensation (including
all fringe benefits) of a technician performing these tests is
approximately $46.65.\18\ Using these labor rates and time estimates,
DOE estimates that it would cost wireless charger manufacturers
approximately $117 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ 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="https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes173023.htm">https://www.bls.gov/oes/2020/may/oes173023.htm</a>. Last accessed on July 22, 2021.
\17\ 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.
\18\ $32.84 / 0.704 = $46.65.
\19\ Fixed-location wireless charger: $46.65 x 2.5 hours =
$116.63 (rounded to $117).
Open-placement wireless charger: $46.65 x 1 hour = $46.65
(rounded to $47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE requires that at least two units be tested for each basic model
prior to certifying a rating. Therefore, DOE estimates that
manufacturers would incur testing costs of approximately $234 per
fixed-location wireless charger basic model and approximately $94 per
open-placement wireless charger basic model, when testing these
wireless chargers. However, this amendment to remove the ``wet
environment'' designation and increase the battery energy limit for
wireless battery chargers 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--EPS Selection
The 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, as required by EPCA. This update would
not create additional cost or require additional time as compared to
the prior test procedure, as these battery chargers

[[Page 55117]]

currently require a low voltage input; this change will only specify
how the low voltage input must be provided and is not expected to
result in additional costs. DOE also anticipates this update 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 amended test procedure would only apply to the 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 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.\20\ Should the 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 and therefore DOE does not
anticipate manufacturers needing to re-test those charger models.
Battery chargers introduced into the market after this test procedure
takes effect will have the option to test those models using the new
power supply selection criteria. 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. Any manufacturer seeking to avoid any risk of retesting
costs can choose to comply with the new selection criteria of a power
supply earlier than required. If a manufacturer chooses this option,
they would incur the same testing costs when using the new selection
criteria as they currently incur and would not have to retest those
battery chargers after appendix Y1 is required. DOE will examine the
potential retesting costs of manufacturers continuing to test battery
charger models that do not use the new power supply selection criteria
in any future energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 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 appendix Y1. Removing usage profiles and
switching the UEC metric to the active, standby, and off modes 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 recertified with the active charge energy
and standby power data analysis. For these battery charger basic
models, DOE estimates an extra labor time of 10 minutes would be needed
to reanalyze the test results. 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 $7.78 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 $15.56 per battery charger
basic model for these battery chargers.
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 of approximately 40 hours would be needed, with
2.5 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 $116.63 per unit. DOE
requires at least two units be tested per basic model. Therefore, DOE
estimates manufacturers would incur approximately $233.25 per battery
charger basic model to conduct the complete testing under appendix Y1.
All Other Test Procedure Amendments
The remainder of the final rule 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 amendments will not result in increased test burden.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is
consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly,

[[Page 55118]]

this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any
final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule 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>.
The following sections detail DOE's FRFA for this test procedure
final rule.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is amending the existi

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on September 8, 2022.

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.