31750 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0019] 

RIN 1904–AC03 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Consumer Appliances: Test 

Procedures for Battery Chargers and 

External Power Supplies 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is amending its test 

procedures for battery chargers and 

external power supplies. In particular, 

DOE is inserting a new active mode 

energy consumption test procedure for 

battery chargers, which is necessary to 

develop energy conservation standards 

for battery chargers as mandated by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA 2007). DOE is also 

amending portions of its existing 

standby and off mode battery charger 

test procedure by decreasing the 

required testing time. Further, DOE is 

amending its active mode single-voltage 

external power supply test procedure to 

permit the testing of certain types of 

external power supplies. Finally, DOE is 

inserting a new procedure to address 

multiple-voltage external power 

supplies, which are not covered under 

the current single-voltage external 

power supply test procedure. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 1, 

2011. After November 28, 2011, 

manufacturers may not make any 

representation regarding battery charger 

or external power supply energy 

consumption or efficiency unless such 

battery charger or external power supply 

has been tested in accordance with the 

final rule provisions in appendix Y (for 

battery chargers) and appendix Z (for 

external power supplies). 

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of 

all materials related to this rulemaking 

at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, 

(202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal Holidays. Please call Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at the above telephone 

number for additional information 

regarding visiting the Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–4549. E-mail: 

Victor.Petrolati@ee.doe.gov. 

For legal issues, contact Mr. Michael 

Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of the General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

A. Battery Charger Active Mode Test 

Procedure 

B. Review of Battery Charger and External 

Power Supply Standby Mode and Off 

Mode Test Procedures 

C. Review of Single-Voltage External Power 

Supply Test Procedure 

D. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply 

Test Procedure 

III. Discussion 

A. Effective Date for the Amended Test 

Procedures 

B. Battery Charger Active Mode Test 

Procedure 

1. Incorporation of the CEC Test Procedure 

2. Scope 

a. Battery Chargers versus External Power 

Supplies 

b. Input Voltage and Frequency 

c. DC Input Battery Chargers 

d. High-Power Battery Chargers 

e. Consumer Motive Equipment 

3. Definitions 

a. Deleting Existing Definitions 

b. Revising Existing Definitions 

c. Adding New Definitions 

4. Test Apparatus and General Instructions 

a. Confidence Intervals 

b. Test Laboratory Temperature 

c. Charge Rate Selection 

d. Battery Selection 

e. Non-Battery Charging Functions 

f. Battery Chargers With Protective 

Circuitry 

g. Charge Capacity of Batteries With No 

Rating 

h. Battery Conditioning 

i. Rest Period 

5. Test Measurement 

a. Removing Inactive Mode Energy 

Consumption Test Apparatus and 

Measurement 

b. Charge Test Duration 

c. Testing Order 

d. End-of-Discharge Voltages 

e. E 24 Measurement 

C. Review of Battery Charger and External 

Power Supply Standby and Off Mode 

Test Procedures 

1. Battery Charger Test Procedure Off Mode 

Definition 

2. Test Duration 

D. Review of the Single-Voltage External 

Power Supply Test Procedure 

1. External Power Supplies That 

Communicate With Their Loads 

2. External Power Supplies With Output 

Current Limiting 

3. High-Power External Power Supplies 

4. Active Power 

E. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply 

Test Procedure 

F. Test Procedure Amendments Not 

Incorporated in This Final Rule 

1. Incorporating Usage Profiles 

2. Measuring Charger Output Energy 

3. Alternative Depth-of-Discharge 

Measurement 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under 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 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq. (EPCA or the Act), sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part A of 

Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles,’’ which covers 

consumer products and certain 

commercial products (all of which are 

referred to below as ‘‘covered 

products’’), including battery chargers 

and external power supplies. 

Under EPCA, the overall energy 

conservation program for consumer 

products and commercial equipment 

consists essentially of the following 

parts: testing, labeling, and Federal 

energy conservation standards. The 

testing requirements consist of 

procedures that manufacturers of 

covered products must use to certify to 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

that their products comply with the 

required energy conservation standards 

and to rate the efficiency of their 

products. These test procedures would 

also be used during enforcement-related 

testing when determining whether a 

given product complies with the 

relevant standards. 

Today’s final rule provides, among 

other things, a new active mode energy 

consumption test procedure for battery 

chargers, which is necessary to develop 

energy conservation standards for 

battery chargers as mandated by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA 2007). Today’s rule also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31751 

1U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Products 

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for 

Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies. May 

2009. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www1.

eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

residential/pdfs/bceps_frameworkdocument.pdf. 

modifies the existing procedure found 

in appendix Y to 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B. In particular, the test 

procedure that DOE is adopting today 

provides a uniform method to test the 

energy efficiency of a battery charger, 

which is a necessary prerequisite to the 

setting of any energy conservation 

standard for these products. 

Consequently, DOE is promulgating 

today’s rule in anticipation of the final 

rule that will set standards for battery 

chargers. 

Additionally, today’s rule introduces 

other changes to the procedures found 

in 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix Z, 

which covers the energy efficiency 

testing of an external power supply. In 

particular, the rule amends aspects of 

the current procedure when measuring 

the energy consumption of a Class A 

external power supply. A Class A 

external power supply is one that is: 

designed to convert line voltage AC 

input into lower voltage AC or DC 

output; able to convert to only 1 AC or 

DC output voltage at a time; sold with, 

or intended to be used with, a separate 

end-use product that constitutes the 

primary load; contained in a separate 

physical enclosure from the end-use 

product; is connected to the end-use 

product via a removable or hard-wired 

male/female electrical connection, 

cable, cord, or other wiring; and has 

nameplate output power that is less 

than or equal to 250 watts. See 42 U.S.C. 

6291(36)(C). Today’s rule also adds a 

procedure to facilitate testing of a 

multiple-voltage external power supply. 

The test procedure requires loading the 

multiple-voltage external power supply 

at five separate loading levels and 

requires that these five outputs be 

reported individually. 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of such test 

procedures. See generally 42 U.S.C. 

6293. As part of these requirements, the 

procedures must be reasonably designed 

to measure the energy use, energy 

efficiency, or annual operating cost 

during a period that is representative of 

typical use and not be ‘‘unduly 

burdensome.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In 

addition, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(2) and Executive Order 12899, 

58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993), if DOE 

determines that a test procedure 

amendment is warranted, it must 

publish proposed test procedures and 

offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments on 

them, with a comment period of not less 

than 75 days. Finally, in any rulemaking 

to amend a test procedure, DOE must 

determine ‘‘to what extent the proposed 

test procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency as determined under 

the existing test procedure.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE 

discusses its consideration of the 

amendments to the test procedures for 

battery chargers and external power 

supplies in the section that follows. 

DOE published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) on April 2, 2010 (75 

FR 16958) in which it discussed in more 

detail many of the testing issues brought 

forward in the framework document and 

an accompanying public meeting to 

discuss the approach that DOE planned 

to use in setting energy conservation 

standards for battery chargers and 

external power supplies. See 74 FR 

26816 (June 4, 2009) (discussing the 

framework document for battery 

chargers and external power supplies).1

(The public meeting discussing the 

framework document was held on July 

16, 2009. That meeting also included 

discussions related to test procedure 

issues. A related meeting to discuss the 

preliminary analysis DOE performed in 

examining standards for these products 

also generated some discussion related 

to test procedure issues.) DOE held a 

public meeting to discuss its test 

procedure NOPR on May 7, 2010, where 

it also received comments on the 

proposals set forth in the NOPR 

(hereafter referred to as the NOPR 

public meeting). A 75-day comment 

period as prescribed by EPCA was 

afforded to interested parties. 

Battery chargers and external power 

supplies operate similarly in that they 

both take electricity from a power 

source, usually from a wall outlet, and 

convert it into a form that can be used 

either to power an application directly 

or to charge and maintain the energy in 

a battery. Specifically, they both take 

power at one voltage and current type, 

typically 120 volts alternating current 

(AC), and convert it to lower-voltage 

direct current (DC) power. Because 

these products operate in a similar 

manner, DOE is consolidating its 

evaluation of potential energy 

conservation standards for battery 

chargers and external power supplies 

together in a single rulemaking 

proceeding. Additional details related to 

the authority and background of this 

rulemaking can be found in section I of 

the NOPR. 75 FR 16958, 16959–16960. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

Today’s final rule does two key 

things. First, it adopts new test 

procedures for the active mode of 

battery chargers and all modes of 

multiple-voltage external power 

supplies. Second, it modifies existing 

parts of the battery charger and external 

power supply test procedures (for 

example, the duration of the battery 

charger standby and off mode tests). In 

doing so, it amends both appendices Y 

and Z in multiple places. Furthermore, 

although DOE is retaining the current 

language of certain sections of 

appendices Y and Z, in selecting 

amendments for inclusion in today’s 

final rule, DOE considered all aspects of 

the existing battery charger and external 

power supply test procedures. By 

examining these procedures in this 

comprehensive manner, this rulemaking 

satisfies the 7-year review requirement 

of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b). Subsequent 

amendments will, as needed, be made 

in a manner consistent with the 

schedule set out in that provision. 

As explained in greater detail in this 

notice, the final rule makes the 

following specific changes to the current 

regulations: 

(1) Inserts a new test procedure to 

measure the energy consumption of 

battery chargers in active mode to assist 

in the development of energy 

conservation standards; 

(2) Amends the battery charger test 

procedure to decrease the testing time of 

battery chargers in standby and off 

modes; 

(3) Amends the single-voltage external 

power supply test procedure to 

accommodate external power supplies 

with Universal Serial Bus (USB) outputs 

and other types of external power 

supplies that cannot be tested in 

accordance with the current test 

procedure; and 

(4) Inserts a new test procedure for 

multiple-voltage external power 

supplies, a type of non-Class A external 

power supply that DOE evaluated in its 

non-Class A determination analysis and 

that will be covered under the energy 

conservation standard. 

Table II.1 lists the sections of 10 CFR 

part 430 affected by the amendments in 

this rule. The left-hand column in the 

table cites the locations of the affected 

CFR provisions, while the right-hand 

column lists the changes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31752 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES AND AFFECTED SECTIONS OF 10 CFR PART 430 

Existing Section in 10 CFR Part 430 Summary of modifications 

Section 430.23 of Subpart B—Test procedures for the measurement of 

energy and water consumption.

• Modify ‘(aa) battery charger’ to include energy consumption in active 

mode. 

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers.• Renumber the existing sections to ease referencing and use by testing technicians. 

1. Scope ............................................................................................ • Limit scope to include only battery chargers intended for operation in 

the United States. 

2. Definitions ...................................................................................... • Add definitions for: 

Æ Active power or real power (P). 

Æ Ambient temperature. 

Æ Apparent power (S). 

Æ Batch charger. 

Æ Battery rest period. 

Æ C-rate. 

Æ Equalization. 

Æ Instructions or manufacturer’s instructions. 

Æ Measured charge capacity. 

Æ Rated battery voltage. 

Æ Rated charge capacity. 

Æ Rated energy capacity. 

Æ Total harmonic distortion (THD). 

Æ Unit under test (UUT). 

• Remove definitions for: 

Æ Accumulated nonactive energy. 

Æ Energy ratio or nonactive energy ratio. 

• Modify definitions for: 

Æ Active mode. 

Æ Multi-port charger. 

Æ Multi-voltage a` la carte charger. 

Æ Standby mode. 

3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions ..................................... • Insert apparatus and instructions to measure energy consumption in 

active mode. 

4. Test Measurement ........................................................................ • Insert procedures to measure energy consumption in active mode. 

• Modify 4(c) to change standby mode measurement time. 

• Modify 4(d) to change off mode measurement time. 

Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430—Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of External Power Supplies.

1. Scope ............................................................................................ • No change. 

2. Definitions ...................................................................................... • Modify definition of active power. 

3. Test Apparatus and General Instructions ..................................... • Modify 3(b) to accommodate multiple-voltage external power supplies. 

4. Test Measurement ........................................................................ • Modify 4(a) to accommodate external power supplies that communicate with the load, perform current limiting, or have output power 

greater than 250 watts. 

• Modify 4(b) to accommodate multiple-voltage external power supplies. 

In developing today’s amendments, 

DOE considered comments received 

from interested parties in response to 

the standby and off mode test 

procedure, framework document, 

NOPR, and NOPR public meeting. 

Although a part of the standards 

rulemaking, DOE also considered 

comments to the framework document 

insofar as these comments had any 

bearing with respect to test procedurerelated items. Numerous commenters 

sought to have DOE require testing in 

additional modes of operation in which 

products had not been tested under the 

current procedure, such as active or 

charge mode. DOE reviewed the existing 

test procedures for battery chargers and 

external power supplies and found that, 

with some modifications, they could be 

used as a basis for updating DOE’s test 

procedures to address some of the 

limitations identified by commenters. 

These modifications are discussed in 

greater detail below. 

Interested parties who commented on 

the NOPR consisted of manufacturers 

(Associate of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), Power Tool 

Institute (PTI), Euro-Pro, Phillips, Sony 

Electronics, Inc., Delta-Q Technologies 

Corp. and Wahl Clipper); an energy 

efficiency advocate (Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP)); 

and utility companies (Pacific Gas and 

Electric (PG&E) and Southern California 

Edison). 

DOE also examined whether the 

amendments to its test procedures 

would significantly change the 

measured energy consumption or 

efficiency of battery chargers or external 

power supplies. This question is 

particularly important for Class A 

external power supplies, which are 

subject to the EISA minimum efficiency 

standard that took effect on July 1, 2008. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(A)) 

The amendments to the single-voltage 

external power supply test procedure, 

which is used to test compliance with 

Class A external power supply 

standards, affect the measured 

efficiency of external power supplies 

with USB outputs and external power 

supplies that communicate with their 

loads—which together comprise the 

subset of Class A external power 

supplies to which these amendments 

would apply. The term 

‘‘communicating’’ with a load refers to 

an external power supply’s ability to 

identify or otherwise exchange 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31753 

2Ecos Consulting, Electric Power Research 

Institute (EPRI) Solutions, Southern California 

Edison (SCE). Energy Efficiency Battery Charger 

System Test Procedure. Version 2.2. November 12, 

2008. http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2008

rulemaking/2008-AAER-1B/2008-11-19_BATTERY_

CHARGER_SYSTEM_TEST_PROCEDURE.PDF. 

3 Devices of this type include cellular telephones 

and portable media players such as MP3 players. 

information with its load (i.e., the enduse product to which it is connected). 

This technique is used to tailor the 

operation of the external power supply 

to the needs of the load as well as to 

prevent the possibility of the supply 

being used with incompatible loads, 

which could damage the product. While 

most external power supplies provide 

power at a fixed output voltage 

regardless of what load is connected to 

their outputs, some external power 

supplies will only provide power once 

they have ‘‘communicated’’ with the 

load and identified it as the intended 

load. 

The remaining amendments included 

in today’s final rule have the following 

impacts on measured energy 

consumption or efficiency: 

(1) The battery charger active mode 

test procedure amendment changes the 

measured energy consumption of 

battery chargers by eliminating the 

nonactive energy ratio metric and 

replacing it with a new metric that 

measures energy consumption in active 

mode; 

(2) The standby and off mode test 

procedure amendment changes the 

measured energy consumption of 

battery chargers or external power 

supplies when operating in these 

modes; and 

(3) The multiple-voltage external 

power supply amendment inserts a new 

test procedure for these products. 

The procedure being adopted today 

will be used to help DOE in establishing 

the energy conservation standards for 

these products through a separate 

rulemaking that is currently underway. 

A. Battery Charger Active Mode Test 

Procedure 

Prior to this final rule, the DOE 

battery charger test procedure, first 

created by the EPACT 2005 En Masse 

final rule (71 FR 71340 (December 8, 

2006)) and amended by the standby and 

off mode test procedure final rule (74 FR 

13318 (March 27, 2009)), did not 

measure battery charger energy 

consumption in all modes. Instead, it 

excluded the energy consumed by the 

battery charger while charging a battery 

(i.e. active mode energy consumption). 

The procedure measured energy 

consumption only in standby (or no 

battery) and off modes (i.e. inactive 

mode energy consumption). DOE had 

adopted this earlier approach because 

the timing of the rulemaking did not 

permit an addition of an active mode 

test procedure at that time. 71 FR 71340, 

71360. 

The battery charger active mode test 

procedure in today’s final rule removes 

the inactive mode calculation. This 

calculation, found in section 4(a) of 

appendix Y, is a composite of different 

operational modes that, under the 

changes introduced by today’s final 

rule, are to be measured separately. 

The final rule also makes three 

additional key changes to the battery 

charger test procedure. First, it adds an 

active mode measurement to section 

4(b) to account for the energy consumed 

by a battery charger while it is charging 

a battery. Second, it amends the scope, 

definitions, and test apparatus and 

general instructions (sections 1, 2, and 

3) to address the changes brought about 

by the introduction of the new active 

mode test procedure. Third, it 

reorganizes the battery charger sections 

to enhance their readability and ease of 

use to help reduce the prospect of 

differing interpretations while 

conducting the test. 

The active mode amendment that 

DOE is adopting today is based in large 

part on the battery charger system test 

procedure already adopted by the 

California Energy Commission (CEC).2

DOE, however, has modified that 

procedure to help decrease the overall 

testing burden faced by manufacturers 

when testing these products and by 

increasing the procedure’s clarity. 

Examples of how DOE has 

accomplished these goals include 

modifying the procedure to use terms 

consistent with other DOE rulemakings 

and dividing more complex procedures 

into simpler, discrete steps for testing 

technicians to follow. These changes are 

discussed further in section III.B. 

B. Review of Battery Charger and 

External Power Supply Standby Mode 

and Off Mode Test Procedures 

DOE addressed the EPCA 

requirements to prescribe definitions 

and test procedures for measuring the 

energy consumption of external power 

supplies and battery chargers in standby 

and off modes (42 U.S.C. 6298(gg)(A) 

and (B)) in its March 27, 2009, test 

procedure final rule. That final rule 

incorporated standby and off mode 

measurements as well as updated 

definitions into appendices Y and Z. 74 

FR 13318. 

In today’s final rule, DOE amends the 

battery charger test procedure by 

requiring the use of a 30-minute warmup period followed by a 10-minute 

measurement period. Previously, the 

DOE test procedure required a 1-hour 

measurement period. This amendment 

harmonizes DOE’s standby and off mode 

measurement requirement for battery 

chargers with the requirement contained 

in section IV of part 1 of the CEC battery 

charger test procedure. DOE is 

harmonizing its procedure with the CEC 

battery charger test procedure to 

produce a less burdensome procedure 

while preserving testing accuracy. No 

changes are being made to the standby 

and off mode test procedures for 

external power supplies. Detailed 

discussion of the changes can be found 

in section III.C. 

C. Review of Single-Voltage External 

Power Supply Test Procedure 

DOE is amending the test procedure 

for single-voltage external power 

supplies to accommodate several classes 

of external power supplies that cannot 

be tested in a representative or 

repeatable manner under the current 

test procedure. These external power 

supplies include those devices that (1) 

communicate with their loads through 

USB and other protocols (e.g. I2C and 

TCP/IP),3 (2) limit their output current 

below the maximum current listed on 

their nameplates, and (3) have output 

power in excess of 250 watts. In its 

NOPR, DOE presented a general outline 

for a possible test method for these 

products, but stated that because these 

types of external power supplies did not 

exist in significant numbers in the 

market, DOE was unable to analyze 

them in depth and develop a testing 

approach using the single-voltage 

external power supply procedure. 75 FR 

16958, 16962. DOE received generally 

supportive comments on its proposals 

for dealing with the three different 

external power supply types, especially 

those proposals regarding external 

power supplies that communicate with 

their loads. The test procedure revisions 

adopted in this final rule are described 

in greater detail in section III.D. 

D. Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply Test Procedure 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), DOE performed a 

determination analysis and concluded 

that those external power supplies 

equipped with multiple simultaneous 

output voltages were appropriate 

candidates for separate energy 

conservation standards. 75 FR 16958, 

16974. Because DOE was unaware of 

any procedure that could be used to 

measure the energy consumption of 

these devices, DOE sought to develop 

such a procedure by modifying the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31754 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

4Calwell, C., Foster, S., and Reeder, T. Test 

Method for Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 

Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power 

Supplies, August 11, 2004, previously incorporated 

by reference into appendix Y. Ecos Consulting for 

the California Energy Commission; Sacramento, CA. 

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_

development/downloads/power_supplies/EPSupply

Effic_TestMethod_0804.pdf. 

5Mansoor, A., et al. and May-Ostendorp, P., et al. 

Generalized Test Protocol for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power Supplies, 

Rev. 6.4.3. October 22, 2009. EPRI and Ecos 

Consulting for the California Energy Commission; 

Sacramento, CA. http://efficientpowersupplies.epri.

com/pages/Latest_Protocol/Generalized_Internal_

Power_Supply_Efficiency_Test_Protocol_R6.4.3.pdf. 

procedures currently used by the CEC 

when measuring the energy 

consumption of single-voltage external 

power supplies 4 and internal power 

supplies.5 73 FR 48054, 48058 (August 

15, 2008). DOE looked to the CEC’s test 

procedure as the starting point for 

creating a multiple voltage external 

power supply procedure because of the 

aforementioned positive determination. 

DOE also believed that the CEC test 

procedure was the most accurate and 

appropriate of all the test procedures it 

examined and that adopting the CEC 

test procedure would allow DOE to 

maintain consistency with DOE’s singlevoltage external power supply test 

procedure, which was also based on a 

CEC test procedure. DOE’s 73 FR 48064. 

In today’s final rule, DOE is adopting 

a test procedure generally consistent 

with both its earlier approach from its 

August 2008 proposal to address 

multiple-voltage external power 

supplies within the context of its 

standby mode test procedure and its 

more recent proposal. See 73 FR 48054, 

48064 and 75 FR 16958, 16974. 

Although DOE had initially considered 

the adoption of a multiple-voltage 

external power supply procedure as part 

of its August 2008 NOPR, it declined to 

include such a procedure in the March 

2009 final rule because of the 

substantial number of issues raised by 

commenters and the limited time 

provided by EISA 2007 to fully consider 

all of these concerns. 74 FR 13322. 

These concerns have since been 

resolved in light of additional 

comments, data, and information 

developed as part of today’s final rule. 

Incorporating this amendment into 

the external power supply test 

procedure will enable DOE to evaluate 

power consumption for multiple-voltage 

external power supplies in all modes of 

operation: active, standby (or no-load), 

and off. A detailed discussion of DOE’s 

test procedure for multiple-voltage 

external power supplies can be found in 

section III.E. 

III. Discussion 

Commenters raised a variety of issues 

related to DOE’s proposal. These issues 

are addressed in greater detail in the 

sections that follow. 

A. Effective Date for the Amended Test 

Procedures 

The April 2010 proposal provided for 

an effective date of 30 days after 

publication of the final rule. That notice 

also indicated that the amendments to 

the battery charger and non-Class A 

external power supply test procedures 

would be required to be used once DOE 

sets standards for these particular 

products. 75 FR 16958, 16963. 

Commenters voiced concerns with the 

30-day effective date set forth in the test 

procedure NOPR. AHAM and PTI 

specifically asked for clarification on 

the language regarding the effective 

date. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at 

p. 220; PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 

236) AHAM specifically voiced that 

clarification is important to prevent the 

need for relabeling products and 

avoiding possible conflicts with 

applicable State and ENERGY STAR 

specifications. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at p. 223) 

In addition to clarity, commenters 

requested more time to comply. EuroPro commented that it is difficult to relabel products, update all associated 

paperwork and advertisements, and sell 

the product in the marketplace within 

30 days. (Euro-Pro, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 

2 at p. 224) Euro-Pro further commented 

that it is difficult to comply with the 

new test procedure, whether given 30 or 

180 days, and that DOE should provide 

a calendar date by which the procedure 

would go into effect. (Euro-Pro, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 233) Finally, 

AHAM urged DOE to make the test 

procedure effective, including the 

ENERGY STAR test procedure, when 

the standard becomes effective, to avoid 

confusion and issues with nonconformance. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) 

Commenters indicated that providing 

a lead time of 30 days would be 

insufficient to transition to a new test 

procedure. DOE notes that, any 

representations of energy use or 

efficiency made by a manufacturer must 

be based on the test procedure 

established by DOE. Manufacturers have 

180 days from the establishment of that 

procedure to ensure that any such 

representations are based on that DOEestablished test procedure. 42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(2) 

Currently, there are no energy 

conservation standards for battery 

chargers and non-Class A external 

power supplies. To clarify the timing of 

the test procedure requirements that 

DOE is adopting today, DOE is 

amending the regulatory text to address 

this issue. Because of the 180-day 

requirement, as a practical matter, 

manufacturers have a full six months to 

adjust to the new procedure before 

having to make representations based on 

that procedure. Manufacturers would 

need to use the new procedure for 

battery chargers and non-Class A 

external power supplies once the this 

date for making representations is 

reached. Any written representations, 

such as those prescribed by the Federal 

Trade Commission in accordance with 

42 U.S.C. 6294, would need to be made 

consistent with the test procedure as 

amended by today’s final rule. 

Accordingly, although today’s rule 

becomes effective 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register, 

manufacturers have 180 days from the 

publication of today’s final rule to use 

the test procedure for any written 

representation of energy efficiency or 

use. And since such requirements are 

not likely to be established until after 

DOE sets energy efficiency standards for 

these products in mid- to-late 2011, 

manufacturers will have considerable 

time to adjust to the new procedure 

before they are required to use this 

procedure to certify compliance with 

those new standards. (Given that today’s 

rule does not prescribe any substantive 

changes that would affect the measured 

energy efficiency or use of Class A 

external power supplies, DOE does not 

anticipate any difficulties for 

manufacturers who are certifying these 

products.) 

Finally, interested parties asked DOE 

to clarify how products that cannot be 

tested can be sold in the United States. 

(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 12; SCE, No. 13 at 

p. 12; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 12) They 

commented that DOE should disallow 

the sale of products that cannot be 

tested by the test procedure, but wanted 

to ensure that a product that must be 

tested under the procedure does not 

provide a path for manufacturers to 

avoid the energy conservation standard 

requirements. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 12; 

SCE, No. 13 at p. 12; PG&E, No. 12 at 

p. 12) DOE acknowledges the interested 

parties’ concerns and clarifies that, in 

general, products that cannot be tested 

in accordance with the DOE test 

procedure will not be permitted to be 

sold in the United States. However, a 

process is available to permit 

manufacturer to seek a waiver from the 

test procedure in special circumstances. 

As part of this process, an alternative 

test procedure must be provided by the 

manufacturer seeking the waiver in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31755 

6The inactive mode energy consumption 

measurement consists of the energy measured over 

36 hours while the battery charger is in 

maintenance mode, followed by 12 hours in 

standby (no-battery) mode, with the possibility of 

abbreviating the measurement to 6 hours and 1 

hour, respectively under certain conditions. 

7Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Test 

Methodology for Determining the Energy 

Performance of Battery Charging Systems. 

December 2005. Washington, DC. http://www.

energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/

downloads/Battery_Chargers_Test_Method.pdf. 

8California Energy Commission (CEC), ‘‘2009 

Appliance Efficiency Regulations,’’ August 2009. 

order to provide a means to measure the 

energy use or efficiency of that product. 

See 10 CFR 431.27 (detailing 

requirements for obtaining a waiver 

from the required test procedure). 

B. Battery Charger Active Mode Test 

Procedure 

Prior to today’s final rule, the battery 

charger test procedure consisted of four 

parts: (1) Scope, (2) definitions, (3) test 

apparatus and general instructions, and 

(4) test measurement. The test 

measurement section included four 

subparts to address the measurement of 

four separate energy consumption 

modes—inactive mode,6 active mode, 

standby mode, and off-mode. Inactive 

mode energy consumption is measured 

for purposes of evaluating battery 

charger performance under the 

voluntary ENERGY STAR testing 

program.7

During the standby and off mode test 

procedure rulemaking from 2008, 

numerous interested parties commented 

that the current DOE test procedure is 

insufficient for the development of 

energy conservation standards because 

it does not measure energy consumption 

during active (i.e., charging) mode. 

Many of these interested parties also 

recommended that DOE adopt the 

optional battery charger test procedure 

then under consideration in draft form 

at the CEC. As mentioned in the standby 

and off mode test procedure final rule, 

74 FR 13318, DOE was unable to act on 

these comments, as it had not 

contemplated the inclusion of any 

active mode changes in the standby and 

off mode test procedure NOPR and there 

was insufficient time to consider this 

option in light of the statutory deadline 

for that rulemaking. 73 FR 48054 

(August 15, 2008). 

1. Incorporation of the CEC Test 

Procedure 

On December 3, 2008, CEC adopted 

version 2.2 of the test procedure 

developed by Ecos Consulting, EPRI 

Solutions, and Southern California 

Edison (SCE), as an optional test 

procedure for the measurement of 

battery charger energy consumption 

during charging (active), maintenance, 

no-battery (standby), and off modes. The 

test procedure was incorporated by 

reference into section 1604(w) of title 20 

of the California Code of Regulations,8

alongside the DOE test procedure from 

appendix Y. Details of the CEC test 

procedure can be found in section III.1 

of the NOPR. 75 FR 16964. See also 20 

Cal. Code 1604(w) (referring to the 2008 

DOE test procedure and the California 

test method for battery chargers). 

In both the framework document and 

NOPR, DOE stated its intention to 

amend the battery charger test 

procedure in appendix Y to include an 

active mode measurement. See 74 FR 

26818 and 75 FR 16958. Commenters 

supported the active mode 

measurement, and encouraged DOE to 

adopt the CEC test procedure in this 

regard. At the NOPR public meeting and 

in written comments, AHAM generally 

supported the proposed test procedure 

based on the CEC procedure and noted 

that its inclusion of an active mode 

energy measurement made it an 

improvement over the procedure 

already in place. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 25; No. 10 at p. 2) 

AHAM further commented that the CEC 

test procedure provides a good method 

for testing active mode. (AHAM, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 65–66) PTI 

agreed with DOE’s decision to 

incorporate elements from the CEC test 

procedure into the NOPR. (PTI, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 249–250) PG&E 

was supportive of DOE adopting an 

active mode that largely follows the CEC 

test procedure because that procedure, 

in PG&E’s view, is a solid base for 

performing battery charger testing. 

(PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 14) 

PG&E, Delta-Q and AHAM also 

supported DOE’s decision to drop the 

inactive mode procedure in favor of an 

active mode one. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at pp. 51–52; AHAM, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 47; Delta-Q, No. 

5 at p. 2) 

As described in section III.B of the 

NOPR, DOE examined three other 

procedures that are used world-wide to 

measure battery charger energy 

consumption—the EPA-developed 

procedure used for ENERGY STARqualification, Canadian Standards 

Association (CSA) C381.2, and the CEC 

test procedure on which DOE based its 

proposal. 75 FR 16964. After examining 

these procedures and conducting tests 

using them, DOE decided that the CEC 

test procedure provided all of the 

necessary outputs with reasonably good 

accuracy and minimal variability. The 

EPA-developed procedure and the CSA 

test procedure both lacked a method for 

measuring active mode energy 

consumption, a measurement that DOE 

and interested parties believe is 

necessary to establish meaningful 

energy conservation standards. 

Therefore, for these reasons, and in light 

of the general support that interested 

parties gave to the prospect of 

incorporating a CEC-based test 

procedure, DOE is basing its battery 

charger test procedure on the 

methodology of the CEC procedure but 

with some modifications to help 

increase its clarity and repeatability, 

and minimize the testing burden. 

(Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) 

These modifications are outlined in the 

following sections. 

2. Scope 

a. Battery Chargers Versus External 

Power Supplies 

As discussed in the NOPR, the battery 

charger test procedure applies to: 

‘‘battery chargers operating at either DC 

or United States AC line voltage (120V 

at 60Hz).’’ 75 FR 16958, 16979. In 

written and verbal comments, interested 

parties noted that the proposed battery 

charger test procedure did not clearly 

explain how DOE would distinguish a 

battery charger from an external power 

supply for purposes of testing 

requirements. 

AHAM expressed numerous concerns 

regarding the proposal’s scope. In its 

view, the procedure should have a 

scope that clearly outlines what the test 

procedure covers. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 42) AHAM also 

asserted that any differences between 

the scope of coverage of the DOE and 

CEC test procedures stemming from the 

treatment of the battery charger’s wall 

adapter (i.e., whether it is tested 

separately as an external power supply 

or as part of the battery charger) may 

cause problems once the DOE test 

procedure for battery chargers becomes 

effective. Manufacturers may not know 

which procedure to use with their 

particular product since the DOE and 

CEC definitions of battery chargers and 

external power supplies differ. As a 

result, in its view, manufacturers will be 

unsure how to test and label their 

products. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 

2 at p. 228) As an example, AHAM 

argued that non-Class A, motor-operated 

or detachable battery external power 

supplies that use charge control 

circuitry should be viewed as part of a 

battery charging system and be tested as 

part of the overall battery charger. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 37) 

It also suggested that to avoid confusion 

and allow for greater accuracy, DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31756 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

9 2009 EPA–DOE Memorandum of 

Understanding: http://www.energystar.gov/ 

index.cfm?c=partners.mou. 

should specify that the battery charger 

test procedure should be the only test 

procedure used to test battery chargers 

and all parts of battery chargers. 

DOE notes that the approach 

suggested by AHAM would eliminate 

the possibility of regulating external 

power supplies packaged with battery 

chargers under the external power 

supplies standard. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 

4) This approach, however, also 

contains some inherent problems. 

Because an external power supply can 

provide power to one or more parts of 

an application simultaneously, limiting 

the procedure in the manner suggested 

by AHAM would similarly limit DOE’s 

ability to capture certain aspects of the 

energy consumption characteristics of 

these products. For certain products, 

such as a power tool, the external power 

supply might only provide power to the 

battery charger. However, for products 

such as laptops, the external power 

supply might simultaneously provide 

power to the battery charger and other 

functions, such as the screen and 

processor. If DOE were to follow 

AHAM’s suggestion, it would be unable 

to capture the potential energy savings 

from the external power supply to parts 

of an application other than the battery 

charger. 

AHAM also stated that it is difficult 

to comment on the test procedure 

without knowing how energy standards 

will apply to these products and 

believed it would be inappropriate to 

separate the testing of any portions of 

the battery recharging circuit as part of 

the test procedure. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 

2) 

Separately, AHAM asserted that, in its 

view, DOE has not clearly explained 

how the battery charger test procedure 

schedule integrates with the test 

procedure for Class A or non-Class A 

external power supply devices, or any 

combination thereof. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 27) AHAM also stated 

that manufacturers are currently 

‘‘required to report their energy usage to 

California to indicate by a Roman 

numeral (‘IV’ or ‘V’) the level of external 

power supply that the wall adapter may 

utilize.’’ In its view, DOE has not yet 

clarified how a wall adapter would be 

treated—i.e., as a separate and distinct 

Non-Class-A external power supply or 

as part of a battery charger— 

manufacturers would not know which 

energy conservation standard would 

apply. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) Finally, 

AHAM commented that as a result of a 

recent memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) reached between DOE and EPA, 

ENERGY STAR may be obligated to use 

the DOE test procedure if it is available. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 

236) 9

Wahl recommended that DOE should 

have one test procedure and regulation 

for an individual product. Products 

should be classified as an external 

power supply or as a battery charger and 

regulated to one standard or the other 

but not both. (Wahl Clipper, No. 9, at p. 

1) 

DOE acknowledges that interested 

parties have a number of concerns about 

the scope of the battery charger test 

procedure. DOE will address these 

issues and explain its approach in 

greater detail concerning how to 

delineate which products are battery 

chargers and which are external power 

supplies in the standards rulemaking. 

b. Input Voltage and Frequency 

As proposed in the NOPR, the scope 

of the DOE test procedure encompasses 

products that use DC or AC input 

voltages of 115 volts (V) at 60 hertz (Hz). 

75 FR 16958, 16965. This scope differs 

from that of the CEC test procedure, 

which requires, when possible, the 

testing of units that accept AC linevoltage input at two voltage and 

frequency combinations: 115 V at 60 Hz 

and 230 V at 50 Hz. At the NOPR public 

meeting, commenters expressed 

different opinions concerning the 

rulemaking’s scope. 

Delta-Q, AHAM, and Sony believed 

that the scope should be limited to 

cover only products that use DC or AC 

115 V at 60 Hz. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1; 

Sony, No. 6 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 10 at 

p. 8) Delta-Q cautioned ‘‘against some 

overlap with any solar industry 

standards that may apply to battery 

chargers operating with DC input.’’ 

(Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1) Sony further 

supported DOE’s proposal by stating 

that limiting testing to a single input 

voltage would reduce test costs and time 

and would be consistent with the 

external power supply test procedure. 

(Sony, No. 6 at p. 2) 

Alternatively, ASAP, PG&E and SCE 

encouraged DOE to allow for input 

voltages higher than 115 V, such as 230 

V at 60 Hz, because there are some highpower consumer battery chargers that 

operate at 230 to 240 V at 60 Hz. These 

chargers include charger/inverter units 

that connect between the electrical grid 

and the battery of many consumer 

photovoltaic (PV) and wind energy 

systems, as well as rapid chargers for 

lead acid batteries. (ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 

1–2; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 1–2; SCE, No. 

13 at pp. 1–2) These commenters 

indicated that power at 230 V is 

available in most U.S. households, and 

products that use this higher voltage 

may become more prevalent as the 

Federal government provides tax 

incentives for residential PV systems 

that employ these higher output voltage 

devices. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) To 

account for testing at either input 

voltage and frequency combination, 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE urged DOE to 

adopt language indicating that if the 

unit under test (UUT) is intended (i.e., 

designed) for operation on AC line 

voltage-input of 110 V to 125 V 60 Hz, 

it shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. 

Similarly, these commenters added that 

if the UUT is not intended for operation 

at 110 V to 125 V at 60 Hz, but is 

intended for operation at 220 to 240 V 

at 60 Hz, it should be tested at 230 V 

at 60 Hz. In the case of a UUT that is 

designed for operation on AC linevoltage input but cannot be operated at 

either of these voltages, this unit should 

not be tested under the procedure. See 

generally, ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2. 

Further, these commenters argued 

that when testing products of the same 

voltage at both 50 and 60 Hz, switch 

mode power supplies showed negligible 

difference in power consumption, and 

products with line-frequency 

transformers showed higher power 

consumption at 50 Hz. (ASAP, No. 11 at 

p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 

at p. 2) In their view, if DOE included 

higher voltage products in its scope, 

DOE could assume that if a product 

tested at 230 V at 50 Hz demonstrates 

compliance, it would also comply at 230 

V at 60 Hz because at 50 Hz, it would 

be, presumably, consuming more power. 

Therefore, DOE could accept a test 

result at 230 V at 50 Hz as a substitute 

for 230 V at 60 Hz. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 

2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at 

p. 2) However, these commenters 

provided no data in support of these 

claims. 

Although some interested parties 

were concerned with the scope of the 

battery charger test procedure, DOE is 

retaining the scope as it was presented 

in its NOPR. DOE acknowledges that 

consumer products operate at different 

voltage and frequency combinations. 

However, DOE has not encountered 

consumer products that operate only at 

input voltages other than 115 V 

throughout this rulemaking process. 

Commenters provided no evidence of 

such products being available. For this 

reason, DOE believes that, to the extent 

that any such products exist, these 

products comprise, at most, an 

extremely small portion of the battery 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31757 

10The comments listed in this paragraph come 

from administrative record for the parallel 

rulemaking on energy conservation standards for 

battery chargers and external power supplies. The 

reference docket number is EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0005 (RIN: 1904–AB57). 

charger market. Consequently, DOE has 

decided at this time not to require the 

use of a separate voltage in addition to 

115 V. DOE does not anticipate that its 

decision to exclude them from this 

rulemaking will have a significant 

impact on the annual energy 

consumption of battery chargers as a 

whole. However, DOE may revisit this 

decision in subsequent rulemakings. 

c. DC Input Battery Chargers 

In this rulemaking, DOE covers both 

AC- (as discussed, above) and DC-input 

battery chargers. In its comments, 

AHAM questioned whether DOE has the 

authority to regulate DC-input battery 

chargers, particularly within the context 

of those devices that have automotiverelated applications—and how the 

proposed regulation of such products 

relates to the need for reducing power 

demanded from utilities. (AHAM, No. 

10 at p. 5) AHAM added that if this 

approach relates to battery charging 

energy consumption from other 

electronics sources (i.e. charging a cell 

phone from a laptop computer), it 

suggested that DOE explain how it will 

segregate the energy from the functions 

of the laptop to the battery charger. 

(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) AHAM also 

stated that DOE should not focus on DC 

input battery chargers, but rather focus 

only on non-Class A power supplies and 

AC input battery chargers. (AHAM, No. 

10 at p. 5) 

Additionally, in response to the 

preliminary analysis for the 

corresponding battery charger and 

external power supply energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE received other comments regarding 

in-vehicle chargers.10 CEA and Motorola 

both stated that DOE’s test procedure 

should clarify its stance regarding invehicle chargers while also 

recommending that such chargers be 

dropped from the scope of coverage for 

both the test procedure and the energy 

conservation standards rulemakings. 

(CEA, No. 48 at p. 3 and Motorola, No. 

50 at pp. 2–3) Motorola commented that 

the CEC test procedure does not have a 

clear stance for in-vehicle electronics 

because the stated scope of the test 

procedure excludes battery chargers that 

do not connect to the utility grid, yet 

there are stipulations for testing devices 

that connect to cigarette outlets in 

automotive equipment and USB ports. 

(Motorola, No. 50 at pp. 2–3). CEA 

commented that the ‘‘stated scope of the 

DOE test procedure clearly excludes invehicle ‘DC-in, DC-out’ battery charging 

systems which are not connected to the 

utility grid. However, there are 

instructions in the test method for 

testing these types of battery charging 

systems.’’ (CEA, No. 48 at p. 3) 

Under EPCA, DOE has the authority 

to cover a wide variety of consumer 

products, excluding those consumer 

products ‘‘designed solely for use in 

recreational vehicles and other mobile 

equipment’’. 42 U.S.C. 6292(a). In DOE’s 

view, this exclusion does not apply to 

any of the DC-input devices that would 

likely be affected by the procedure being 

promulgated today. While some of these 

products may be designed to work in 

conjunction with certain mobile 

equipment, such as for the purpose of 

recharging the battery of a golf car, DOE 

has found that none of the products that 

were considered within the context of 

this rulemaking—or of any related 

standards rulemaking activities— 

involved products that were designed 

solely for use in recreational vehicles 

and other mobile equipment. For 

example, cell phone chargers that work 

with DC current (as would be available 

in a recreational vehicle) also come 

equipped (or are designed to work) with 

wall adapters. As a result, such devices 

are not ‘‘designed solely’’ for use in a 

recreational vehicle and other mobile 

equipment. 

However, as a result of the 

aforementioned provision, DOE is 

modifying its procedure for determining 

how a product should be tested. If a 

manufacturer packages its product with 

a wall adapter or the manufacturer 

recommends or sells a wall adapter for 

use with its product, the battery charger 

shall be tested with that wall adapter. If 

this is not the case and the product, 

such as a GPS device, only works with 

a DC input through either a car charger 

or a USB port, that device will be tested 

with the 5 V DC input that corresponds 

to the USB port configuration. 

Consistent with this view, DOE plans 

to proceed with the scope proposed in 

the NOPR, which includes testing DCinput battery chargers. While EPCA 

specifies the input voltage that applies 

to an external power supply as part of 

that product’s statutory definition, it 

does not place similar limitations with 

respect to the input voltage of battery 

chargers that DOE may regulate. 

Further, while many DC-input battery 

chargers may be designed to work with 

a recreational vehicle or other mobile 

equipment, these chargers are not 

‘‘designed solely for use’’ in these 

applications since many, if not all, of 

these chargers are designed to work in 

conjunction with wall adapters, USB 

ports, or through other electrical 

connections to obtain AC mains power. 

In light of the absence of any specific 

language that would otherwise prevent 

DOE from regulating battery chargers 

that operate with a DC-input, and the 

fact that these devices are not designed 

exclusively for use in recreational 

vehicles or other mobile equipment, 

DOE believes it has the authority to 

regulate such products. Whether DOE 

opts to regulate these products is a 

decision based on whether energy 

conservation standards for these 

products achieve the maximum energy 

savings, are technologically feasible, 

and are economically justified. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2). As part of the energy 

conservation standards setting process, 

DOE plans to separately evaluate those 

DC-input battery chargers and 

determine whether it is technically and 

economically feasible to set standards 

for them in a manner consistent with 

the applicable statutory requirements. 

d. High-Power Battery Chargers 

DOE sought comment on how it 

should address the treatment of highpower battery chargers. In comments, 

Delta-Q expressed concern with the 

approach contained in the current 

version of appendix Y, which tests all 

battery chargers in the same manner, 

irrespective of the amount of power they 

use. Delta-Q stated that they are very 

concerned about how the test procedure 

would measure the energy use of higher 

power (750–1500W) chargers on larger 

(>200Ah) batteries, because the 

potential variability in the batteries is 

greater than in smaller batteries. This 

greater variability can impact the entire 

system and the calculated energy 

efficiency. To address this issue, DeltaQ suggested the use of an electronic 

load to simulate a battery pack, a 

standard battery make/model with a 

certain age range or excluding batteries 

above a certain size from the test 

procedure (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1). 

As proposed in the NOPR, today’s 

final rule specifies that both the battery 

charger and its battery shall be new 

products of the type and condition that 

would be sold to a customer (i.e. enduser). 75 FR 16958, 16981. DOE is aware 

of the potential benefit that exists from 

using a battery simulator and testing 

with an electronic load, namely, 

decreased variability in test results for 

large lead-acid batteries. However, DOE 

is unaware of any existing test 

procedures that rely on this particular 

method, but is aware of test procedures 

for battery chargers that require testing 

with the physical batteries that are 

associated with the charger being tested. 

The fact that there are no currently 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31758 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

11Chapter 3 of the technical support document 

contains the Market and technology Assessment, 

which includes additional details on all products 

that may be affected by DOE’s energy conservation 

standards rulemaking effort. The docket number for 

this parallel rulemaking is EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0005 (RIN: 1904–AB57). 

recognized standard test procedures that 

rely on simulators suggests that testing 

with physical batteries rather than 

simulators is not only preferable but an 

appropriate and acceptable means to 

accurately test battery chargers, 

including those products that charge 

extremely large batteries (i.e. those used 

in forklifts or golf cars). 

Additionally, because DOE is 

unaware of test procedures that use 

battery simulators, DOE would need to 

develop such procedures on its own, 

which would require considerably more 

testing and analysis and potentially 

involve additional uncertainty given the 

absence of any currently existing 

protocols. Potential concerns include 

determining how such a device would 

be used in a test procedure and how 

representative such a device would be 

of an actual battery, as well as other 

considerations, all of which would need 

to be vetted publicly. DOE is confident 

that today’s final rule will result in 

repeatable test results for all battery 

chargers, including those that use large 

batteries, because of the requirements 

that are being added when selecting a 

battery to test and from DOE’s 

experience testing various battery 

chargers. (Battery Charger Test Data, No. 

18.3) As a result, the procedure will 

permit performance comparisons across 

all battery charger types with respect to 

energy usage. Upon the receipt of 

further information, DOE may consider 

using a battery simulator in a future 

revision to the test procedure. In the 

absence of this information, however, 

DOE is opting to incorporate its 

proposed method into the battery 

charger test procedure—i.e. specifying 

that high-powered battery chargers be 

tested using the same method as used to 

test all battery chargers; that is, by using 

the associated battery. 

e. Consumer Motive Equipment 

The CEC test procedure includes two 

parts: part 1 covers the energy 

consumption of consumer products 

with input power under 2 kilowatts, 

whereas part 2 covers the energy 

consumption of larger industrial 

chargers, which are generally larger in 

size and capacity. Briefly, part 1 

measures the input energy to the battery 

charger when recharging a battery that 

had previously been conditioned (if 

necessary). Part 2 requires this same 

measurement but includes charger 

output energy measurements and tests 

the charger with the battery at three 

different depths-of-discharge. The 

NOPR provided a more detailed 

discussion of these parts. See 75 FR 

16958, 16964–66 (section III.B.1 and 

section III.B.2). 

DOE proposed testing all battery 

chargers, including large battery 

chargers for golf cars and other 

consumer motive equipment, according 

to part 1 of the CEC test procedure. 

PG&E, ASAP, and SCE agreed with 

DOE’s approach for testing the battery 

chargers used with golf cars and other 

consumer motive equipment. (ASAP, 

No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, 

No. 13 at p. 2) PG&E informed DOE that 

golf cars can be satisfactorily tested 

under either part 1 or part 2 of the CEC 

test procedure. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at p. 76) ASAP, PG&E and SCE 

informed DOE that the main drawback 

of using part 1 to test golf cars is that 

only the worst energy performers are 

identified under this approach. (ASAP, 

No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2; SCE, 

No. 13 at p. 2) They suggested that when 

DOE revisits the test procedure, DOE 

should carefully consider the data on 

the efficiency of current golf car battery 

chargers, and consider amending the 

test procedure to use part 2 at that time. 

(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 2; PG&E, No. 12 at 

p. 2; SCE, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Not all interested parties were 

supportive of using part 1 of the CEC 

test procedure to measure battery 

chargers for golf cars and other 

consumer motive equipment. In 

AHAM’s view, DOE’s proposal 

oversimplifies the issue because these 

products differ from other battery 

chargers in terms of battery chemistry, 

usage, and charging equipment. Because 

of these complexities, AHAM argued in 

favor of adopting a separate test 

procedure section for these products. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 

74–75; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) Delta-Q 

reiterated this point but did not believe 

that there was any reason to exclude 

these 750–1000W size battery chargers 

from efficiency standards (Delta-Q, No. 

5 at p. 1). 

Contrary to the comments made by 

AHAM, there are similarities between 

battery chargers for golf cars and other 

consumer products, such as motorized 

wheelchairs, since they all require leadacid batteries and use battery chargers 

with similar technologies. For more 

information on these products and their 

technical similarities, please refer to 

chapter 3 of DOE’s preliminary 

technical support document for energy 

conservation standards for battery 

chargers and external power supplies. 

See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

residential/battery_external.html.11

The technical similarities between 

these types of products allow them to be 

tested in a similar fashion. DOE has also 

considered PG&E’s experience in 

developing the CEC test procedure on 

which DOE’s proposal is largely based. 

In developing the CEC procedure, PG&E 

tested golf cars using the methods that 

are currently prescribed in both Part 1 

and Part 2 of the CEC test procedure. 

DOE has given careful consideration to 

PG&E’s statement that golf cars and 

other consumer motive equipment can 

be accurately tested under either part 1 

or part 2 of the test procedure. 

While DOE agrees with PG&E’s 

overall assessment regarding the 

potential limitations applicable to part 1 

of the CEC test, the additional testing 

requirements and complexity of part 2, 

which was intended for industrial 

applications, suggest that the adoption 

of part 2 for consumer products would 

constitute an unnecessary testing 

burden that would not be likely to 

increase the accuracy of the test results 

that would otherwise be gleaned from 

part 1. The test procedure provisions in 

part 2 may be necessary to accurately 

measure the energy efficiency of large 

industrial battery chargers but for golf 

cars and other types of consumer motive 

equipment (collectively, consumer 

motive equipment) that fall at the lowpower end of the lead-acid battery 

charger range, the need for a specialized 

test procedure is not as clear. For 

example, part 2 requires a series of tests 

under various conditions to detect any 

differences in energy consumption. The 

greater comprehensiveness to this 

approach is better suited to high-power 

industrial chargers, which are already 

very efficient when compared to the 

consumer products that could be tested 

under part 2. Moreover, since consumer 

products that could be tested under part 

2 have greater variations in efficiency 

than industrial chargers, requiring 

manufacturers to test these products 

using the simpler test method outlined 

in part 1 should generate sufficiently 

accurate results without imposing the 

greater burden that would likely be 

posed by requiring part 2. Therefore, in 

consideration of this situation, today’s 

final rule specifies that part 1 be used 

for these products. 

3. Definitions 

DOE proposed to make a number of 

changes to the definitions in the battery 

charger test procedure contained in 10 

CFR, subpart B, appendix Y. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to delete 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31759 

two definitions from the current battery 

charger test procedure, modify four 

definitions, and add 15 new definitions 

to appendix Y. 75 FR 16966. After 

reviewing the comments submitted in 

response to this proposal, DOE has 

decided to apply certain terms used in 

the CEC procedure as part of the revised 

set of battery charger-related definitions. 

To implement these changes, DOE is 

amending section 2 of appendix Y by 

amending, deleting, and incorporating 

new definitions to make appendix Y 

consistent with the CEC procedure. DOE 

is also removing definitions used only 

in section 4(a) of appendix Y (inactive 

mode energy consumption 

measurement), which DOE is removing 

with today’s final rule (see section 5.a 

of this final rule). 

a. Deleting Existing Definitions 

The specific changes in today’s final 

rule consist of a series of deletions, 

amendments, and additions. These 

changes include removing the 

definitions of ‘‘accumulated nonactive 

energy’’ and ‘‘energy ratio or nonactive 

energy ratio’’ from the regulations, as 

they are relevant only to the nonactive 

mode measurement of the procedure. 

That portion of the procedure is being 

removed as part of this final rule. 

Details of these deletions can be found 

in section III.B.3.a of the NOPR. 75 FR 

16958, 16966. Commenters did not 

oppose the proposed deletions. 

DOE received comments suggesting 

the removal of two definitions from its 

current test procedure. ASAP, PG&E, 

and SCE recommended the removal of 

definitions of ‘‘detachable’’ and 

‘‘integral’’ batteries, which are contained 

within the definition of ‘‘battery or 

battery pack’’ in the current DOE test 

procedure. These commenters argued 

that these particular definitions are not 

required when carrying out the test 

procedure and that their inclusion 

within the regulation could create 

confusion since some batteries are 

neither detachable nor integral. 

Commenters cited as an example 

products that use AA or AAA 

rechargeable batteries to power a device, 

but recharge those batteries in a device 

external to the product. They also added 

that some lead-acid batteries for 

automotive and marine applications 

may also not meet either definition. 

(ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 10–11; PG&E, No. 

12 at pp. 10–11; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 10– 

11) These commenters further stated 

that the terms are only used for the 

battery selection process, and ‘‘[t]he key 

element is not whether the batteries are 

integral or detachable, but rather 

whether or not they are packaged with 

the charger and therefore constitute 

‘typical’ batteries.’’ (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 

11; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 

at p. 11) 

DOE’s test procedure will continue to 

define detachable and integral batteries. 

Although commenters indicated that 

these terms are only used for the battery 

selection process, they are also used in 

the standby and off mode tests, which 

remain as part of the amended test 

procedure. Both of these tests require 

the disconnection of the battery from 

the end use product except in cases 

where an integral battery, which, by 

definition, cannot be disconnected from 

the end use product, is used. See 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y. 

The continued use of these terms and 

their definitions helps provide clarity to 

these procedures. 

b. Revising Existing Definitions 

DOE had also proposed to modify the 

definitions of ‘‘active mode,’’ ‘‘multi-port 

charger,’’ ‘‘multi-voltage a` la carte 

charger,’’ and ‘‘standby mode’’ found in 

appendix Y. The proposed changes were 

minor and designed to clarify the 

wording of those definitions. DOE 

received no comments regarding these 

definitions in response to the NOPR. For 

‘‘active mode’’ and ‘‘standby mode,’’ DOE 

is clarifying that these terms can be used 

interchangeably with the terms ‘‘charge 

mode’’ and ‘‘no-battery mode’’ 

respectively. Additionally, the terms 

‘‘multi-port charger’’ and ‘‘multi-voltage 

a` la carte charger’’ are being revised to 

be consistent with the corresponding 

CEC definitions and are expanded to 

encompass a batch charger. Details of 

these proposed revisions can be found 

in section III.B.3.b. of the NOPR. 75 FR 

16958, 16966. 

c. Adding New Definitions 

Finally, because DOE proposed 

adding procedures to measure energy 

consumption in active mode for a 

battery charger, DOE also proposed the 

inclusion of a number of new 

corresponding definitions. In particular, 

DOE proposed to add definitions for 

‘‘active power or real power (P),’’ 

‘‘ambient temperature,’’ ‘‘apparent power 

(S),’’ ‘‘batch charger,’’ ‘‘battery rest 

period,’’ ‘‘rated energy capacity,’’ ‘‘Crate,’’ ‘‘equalization,’’ ‘‘instructions or 

manufacturer’s instructions,’’ ‘‘measured 

charge capacity,’’ ‘‘rated battery voltage,’’ 

‘‘rated charge capacity,’’ ‘‘total harmonic 

distortion (THD),’’ and ‘‘unit under test 

(UUT).’’ See 75 FR 16958, 16967. 

Commenters provided feedback on 

DOE’s proposed definitions for 

‘‘instructions or manufacturer’s 

instructions,’’ ‘‘power factor,’’ ‘‘rated 

charge capacity,’’ and ‘‘total harmonic 

distortion,’’ as discussed in the sections, 

below. No other comments were 

provided regarding the other proposed 

definitions. 

Instructions or Manufacturer’s 

Instructions 

DOE proposed to define the term 

‘‘manufacturer’s instructions’’ as ‘‘the 

documentation packaged with the 

product in printed or electronic form 

and any information about the product 

listed on a Web site maintained by the 

manufacturer and accessible by the 

general public at the time of the test.’’ 

75 FR 16958, 16967. Commenters 

expressed concern with the proposed 

definition for manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

PG&E referred DOE to the CEC test 

procedure, which defines the term 

‘‘manufacturing instructions’’ broadly to 

permit testing labs to use information 

that is unavailable to consumers. (PG&E, 

Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 23) PG&E 

also supported DOE’s decision to 

expand the definition of manufacturer 

instructions to include information 

provided on manufacturers’ Web sites. 

However, it stated that service 

instructions should be included to 

enable manufacturers to provide 

information not generally available to 

consumers. Service instructions may 

include detailed information to 

technicians that explain how to 

disassemble the product to gain access 

to an integral battery or a battery that 

has protective circuitry. (PG&E, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 246–247) PTI 

indicated that such information would 

not ordinarily be provided to consumers 

in light of the potential safety hazard 

posed by the disassembly of the product 

by an untrained individual. (PTI, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 247). PTI 

supported the inclusion of service 

instructions as part of the definition so 

long as the testing is carried out by 

professional technicians and those 

detailed instructions do not become 

public. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at 

pp. 248–249) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE 

encouraged DOE ‘‘to expand the 

definition of ‘manufacturer’s 

instructions’ to include both consumer 

instructions and service instructions.’’ 

(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 at 

p. 3; SCE, No. 13 at p. 3) They 

recommended that DOE should take one 

of the following approaches: (1) utilize 

the original CEC language or (2) adopt 

alternative language in which DOE 

would define ‘‘manufacturer’s service 

instructions to consumers’’ separately 

from ‘‘manufacturer’s service 

instructions.’’ By defining them 

separately, DOE can specify that only 

the consumer instructions should be 

used when setting up a product in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

12Pacific Gas and Electric, California Energy 

Commision-Pulic Interest Energy Research (PIER) 

Program, and Southern California Edison Energy 

Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure. 

Version 2.2, November 12, 2008, page 6. 

13Pacific Gas and Electric, California Energy 

Commission-Pulic Interest Energy Research (PIER) 

Program, and Southern California Edison Energy 

Efficiency Battery Charger System Test Procedure. 

Version 2.2, November 12, 2008, page 8. 

preparation for the charge test, but 

either can be used to access the battery 

for the discharge test, since disassembly 

to reach the battery will never be 

needed for the charge test but may be 

necessary for the discharge test. (ASAP, 

No. 11 at p. 3; SCE, No. 13 at p. 3; PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 3) Finally, AHAM 

commented that the test procedure 

should not encourage a test technician 

to open a sealed battery pack or 

compartment. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) 

PG&E and PTI both suggested that 

service instructions should be included 

in the definition of manufacturer 

instructions, and permit these 

documents to be used to perform 

testing, according to the CEC definition. 

The CEC defines that term to include 

‘‘any service manuals or data sheets that 

the manufacturer offers for sale to 

independent service technicians, 

whether printed or in electronic 

form.’’ 12

After considering these comments, 

DOE has decided to modify its initial 

proposal and to adopt the CEC 

definition for manufacturer’s 

instructions, which includes service 

instructions in its definition. DOE is 

taking this step to ensure that testing 

technicians have adequate information 

on how to access the battery. DOE will 

also specify that if service instructions 

are used to perform testing, it should 

clearly be stated in the certification 

report to avoid potential confusion if the 

particular product is subjected to 

verification testing. A copy of the 

instructions should be provided to DOE 

for verification purposes. 

Power Factor and Crest Factor 

DOE proposed to include definitions 

for both power factor and crest factor as 

part of the battery charger test 

procedure. 75 FR 16958, 16967. The 

term ‘‘power factor’’ denotes the ratio of 

the power consumed by a device 

relative to the power drawn by a device 

from mains. The term ‘‘crest factor’’ 

refers to the ratio of the instantaneous 

peak voltage relative to the root-meansquare value, measured when charging 

a device. These definitions are not 

currently used as part of the test 

procedure. DOE received comments 

both in favor and against these proposed 

definitions. 

ASAP, PG&E and SCE supported 

DOE’s inclusion of power factor and 

crest factor. In their view, the inclusion 

of these terms in the test procedure 

would broaden its scope and 

applicability. These commenters also 

believed that even though DOE may not 

be using these measurements and 

definitions within the context of the 

current rulemaking activities to set 

energy efficiency standards for battery 

chargers, their inclusion in this test 

procedure will allow other agencies, 

such as the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), to reference 

this test procedure and develop future 

policies regarding energy efficiency 

related performance features. (ASAP, 

No. 11 at p. 13; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; 

SCE, No. 13 at p. 13) 

AHAM disagreed with these proposed 

definitions as well as the proposed 

method by which to measure them. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 85; 

AHAM, No. 10 at p. 4) It argued that 

measuring power factor for the purpose 

of regulation represents a significant 

departure from most other DOE 

appliance energy efficiency standards. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 

85–86; AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 4) AHAM 

continued, stating that the test 

procedure provides no method for 

taking a power factor measurement and 

that part of the problem is that the 

procedure lacks a definition of source 

impedance. The source impedance is an 

important factor because its definition 

affects the accurateness of the real world 

losses that would stem from power 

factor in a consumer product. (AHAM, 

Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 86–87; 

AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 4–5) For consumer 

products, like those that use battery 

chargers covered by this rulemaking, the 

source impedance is an electrical 

description of the wiring within a house 

that has a direct impact on apparent 

power and thus, constitutes the power 

factor measured for a device. AHAM 

also suggested that DOE should conduct 

studies to establish the range of 

impedance and the possible impacts of 

power factor. (AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 4– 

5) 

Additionally, PTI was concerned that 

DOE has not provided any details on 

how to measure power factor. PTI, like 

AHAM, argued that to obtain consistent 

and meaningful results, DOE must 

define the source impedance and 

provide a method for how the 

measurement is taken. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 

3) PTI also stated that DOE should not 

include the power factor and crest factor 

test procedure measurements and 

definitions in its final rule. PTI also 

commented that including these 

definitions and measurement methods 

in the test procedure would imply that 

DOE has evaluated the merit of 

measuring power factor and crest factor, 

which it has not; therefore PTI believes 

that DOE should not define or require 

the measurement of power factor and 

crest factor. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 3) 

In today’s final rule, DOE has decided 

to drop its proposal regarding power 

factor and crest factor. At this time, DOE 

has not conducted an analysis on the 

benefits that could be gained from 

regulating power factor or crest factor 

for consumer products that use battery 

chargers and commenters offered no 

data in support of such an approach. 

Although DOE acknowledges that other 

agencies, such as EPA, may have an 

interest in using these measurements, 

DOE currently has no plans to 

incorporate either of them for 

compliance purposes. Accordingly, 

although DOE may revisit this issue at 

a later date, DOE is declining to 

incorporate power factor and crest factor 

into today’s final rule. 

Rated Charge Capacity 

DOE proposed to define ‘‘rated charge 

capacity’’ in its regulations. Specifically, 

DOE proposed to define this term as 

‘‘the capacity the manufacturer declares 

the battery can store under specified test 

conditions, usually given in amperehours (Ah) or milliampere-hours (mAh) 

and typically printed on the label of the 

battery itself * * * ’’ 75 FR 16958, 

16968. The proposed definition was 

consistent with the CEC test procedure’s 

definition.13

DOE received a single response to this 

proposal. Sony recommended that DOE 

adopt the current CEC definition for 

rated charge capacity, which allows the 

option of using a rated charge capacity 

unit of either milliampere-hours (mAh) 

or ampere-hours (Ah). Sony opposed 

what it believed was a proposal by DOE 

to use only Ah. (Sony, No. 6 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that its proposed definition 

includes the use of both Ah and mAh. 

75 FR 16958, 16980. 

In light of the absence of any 

objections to its proposed approach, 

DOE will adopt its proposed definition 

for rated charge capacity. 

Total Harmonic Distortion 

In its NOPR, DOE defined ‘‘total 

harmonic distortion’’ as: 

‘‘the root-mean-square (RMS) value of 

an AC signal after the fundamental 

component is removed and interharmonic components are ignored, 

divided by the RMS value of the 

fundamental component.’’ 75 FR 16980. 

Responding to this proposal, AHAM 

suggested that DOE consider the 

language of International 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31761 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

Standard 62301, section 1.1.1 ‘‘Supply 

voltage waveform’’ with respect to total 

harmonic distortion, but did not provide 

reasoning for this recommendation. 

(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) 

DOE is adopting the proposed 

definition. DOE notes that this language 

is based on those definitions that are 

already in use by the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(IEEE) through standard 1515–2000—as 

well as DOE’s own regulations for 

external power supplies. See 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix Z. As a 

result, the industry already follows this 

definition. Adopting a different 

definition would conflict with DOE’s 

intent to harmonize the approaches 

contained in the battery charger and 

external power supply test procedures, 

as well as with the industry standard 

currently in place. Therefore, DOE is 

adopting its proposed definition for this 

term. 

4. Test Apparatus and General 

Instructions 

a. Confidence Intervals 

DOE proposed incorporating 

confidence qualifiers to the confidence 

intervals in its test procedure. The 

proposed confidence intervals were 

different from the CEC intervals in that 

they added a 95% confidence qualifier 

to the CEC intervals. As a result DOE’s 

proposal provided for a margin of ≤ 2% 

at the 95% confidence level for active 

power measurements of 0.5 W or greater 

and a margin of ≤ 0.01 W at the 95% 

confidence level for active power 

measurements of 0.5 W or less. 

AHAM supported adding the 95% 

confidence qualifier to the confidence 

intervals, stating that it is ‘‘an important 

addition to the standard.’’ (AHAM, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 91) PTI left the 

use of a confidence level for error 

analysis to DOE by stating that ‘‘[s]ince 

the Department alone is aware of their 

intention with respect to future use of 

the data provided by the test procedure, 

they should evaluate, through an error 

analysis, the impact of the error in the 

test data, particularly in the case of 

battery capacity.’’ (PTI, No. 8 at p. 3) 

AHAM recommended that DOE 

consider the IEC 62301 Second Edition 

FDIS document for methods of dealing 

with uncertainty, specifically for 

measurements under 1 watt. (AHAM, 

Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 91–92; 

AHAM, No. 10 at p. 6) AHAM also 

suggested that the Department consider 

the language in section 4.2 ‘‘Measuring 

equipment’’ of the Canadian Standards 

Association’s (CSA) test method for 

battery chargers for confidence limits. 

(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 6) Additionally, 

AHAM recommended that DOE add a 

requirement that laboratories publish 

the error analysis for their automated 

equipment because manufacturers may 

obtain different results than verification 

laboratories as a result of different 

sampling rates and instrument accuracy. 

(AHAM, No. 10 at pp. 5–6) 

PTI also supported DOE’s proposal, 

noting that DOE was correct to address 

the uncertainty of the measurements 

rather than the equipment, as the test 

equipment may not be able to deliver 

the same uncertainty with different 

UUTs. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 4) PTI 

recommended that DOE include 

requirements that test laboratories, 

particularly in the case of verification 

testing, provide a suitable error analysis 

that demonstrates that they have met the 

uncertainty requirements of the test 

procedure. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 4) PTI also 

stated that DOE should establish overall 

error requirements rather than only 

equipment requirements because 

elements other than equipment 

introduce error. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at pp. 95–96) 

PTI added that DOE should consider 

the sampling rate and sampling interval 

during the measurement of the energy 

use of a charger that performs pulse 

charging—which is when a unit that 

sends periodic bursts of current to the 

battery rather than a continual stream of 

current—because these factors will 

affect the overall uncertainty of the 

measurement (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 

2 at p. 94). 

After taking into account these 

comments, which generally expressed 

support for DOE’s proposed inclusion of 

the specified confidence intervals into 

the test procedure, DOE decided to 

adopt its proposed approach. Regarding 

these specific intervals and the various 

recommendations offered by AHAM, 

DOE notes that its proposal matches the 

requirements set out in IEC 62301 and, 

although the language is not identical to 

what appears in the CSA test method, 

its requirements are similar. As for PTI’s 

concerns with respect to pulse charging, 

DOE is not persuaded that any extra 

consideration or change is needed. By 

specifying a 95% confidence level for 

the measurement, the technician must 

ensure that the sampling rate is fast 

enough to capture any pulses in order 

to maintain the specified statistical 

accuracy of his measurement. Thus, the 

requirements that DOE is incorporating 

are aligned with the commenters’ 

recommendations. They also will result 

in a more robust and repeatable test 

procedure because all results must be 

expressed with a high level of 

confidence, which will permit less 

variance in the measurements recorded 

for a tested device. 

b. Test Laboratory Temperature 

DOE proposed raising the ambient 

temperature during testing from 20 

degrees to 25 degrees plus or minus 5 

degrees Celsius in its NOPR. DOE 

proposed this change because it 

believed 25 degrees Celsius was more 

easily achievable across diverse climates 

and more typical of testing 

environments. 75 FR 16968–69. Several 

commenters responded to this aspect of 

the proposal. 

PG&E recommended leaving the 

temperature range as it was. The basis 

for the CEC temperature range, which 

has already gained industry acceptance, 

stems from the applicable IEC standards 

for batteries. If DOE were to alter the 

temperature range, it would need to 

conduct additional testing to verify that 

the end-of-discharge voltages are still 

appropriate at the high end of the range 

of temperatures because the higher 

temperatures will have unknown effects 

on the chemistries of batteries. (PG&E, 

Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 97). AHAM 

agreed with PG&E and, in its view, 

raising the ambient temperature during 

testing would be acceptable only if DOE 

had first considered the end-ofdischarge voltages when making the 

change. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 

at p. 98) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE urged 

DOE to adopt the industry standard 

room temperature of 15 to 25 degrees 

Celsius. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 3; SCE, No. 13 at p. 3). 

These commenters noted that the 15 to 

25 degrees Celsius temperature range is 

the industry standard and because the 

chemical reactions taking place in 

batteries are temperature sensitive and 

the end-of-discharge voltages are based 

on this range, DOE should not change 

the temperature range. Altering the 

temperature range could have 

unintended and unknown consequences 

on the end-of-discharge voltage. It is 

possible that changing the temperature 

range could increase or decrease the 

end-of-discharge voltage, so doing so 

would require testing to determine if the 

end-of-discharge voltages for various 

battery chemistries are still appropriate 

at the higher temperature range. (ASAP, 

No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 3; SCE, 

No. 13 at p. 3) 

AHAM alternatively recommended in 

its written comments that DOE consider 

incorporating the IEC 62301 

requirement that ‘‘[t]he ambient 

temperature shall be maintained at 

(23±5)° C through the test.’’ (AHAM, No. 

10 at p. 7) Although this was a 

departure from its statements at the 

NOPR public meeting, AHAM stated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31762 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

14The comments listed in this paragraph come 

from administrative record for the parallel 

rulemaking on energy conservation standards for 

battery chargers and external power supplies. The 

reference docket number is EERE–2008–BT–STD– 

0005 (RIN: 1904–AB57). 

that it believed this value had support 

in the International Standards 

community and would be very 

attainable. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) 

After evaluating the comments 

received on this issue, DOE has decided 

not to increase the temperature range 

and to continue requiring an ambient 

temperature of 20 degrees plus or minus 

5 degrees Celsius. This approach is 

consistent with the CEC test procedure. 

The lower temperature range is widely 

accepted and currently used by the 

industry. Adopting this approach, based 

on information presented to DOE, 

should not impose a new burden on 

manufacturers to alter their testing 

laboratories since the appropriate 

operating temperature range remains the 

same. Additionally, this temperature 

range, which served as the basis for the 

development of the end-of-discharge 

voltages specified, ensures that 

consistency and the validity of those 

voltages is maintained. For these 

reasons, DOE is incorporating this range 

into the final rule. DOE notes that while 

AHAM suggested DOE consider the IEC 

62301 range of 23 degrees plus or minus 

5 degrees Celsius, all other 

commenters—including AHAM— 

indicated that a departure from the 

original temperature range, 20 degrees 

plus or minus 5 degrees Celsius has the 

potential to invalidate the end-ofdischarge voltages that have been 

established for the various battery 

chemistries used in battery chargers. 

Accordingly, DOE is opting not to make 

such a change and will harmonize its 

test procedure with other industry 

standards to the extent feasible to help 

ensure the validity of all measured endof-discharge voltages. 

c. Charge Rate Selection 

DOE proposed to require that when 

testing a battery charger equipped with 

user controls that enable the user to 

select from two or more charge rates that 

the test be conducted using the fastest 

charge rate that is recommended by the 

manufacturer for everyday use. 75 FR 

16958, 16969. Commenters had varying 

opinions on this approach. 

Delta-Q ‘‘mildly disagreed’’ with 

DOE’s proposal for selecting the charge 

rate for testing, as a charger could be 

significantly less efficient at lower 

power levels, but they did not provide 

data or other support for their reasoning. 

(Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 1) Alternatively, 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE supported DOE’s 

proposed approach. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 

10; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 10; SCE, No. 13 

at p. 10) No other pertinent comments 

were submitted on this issue. 

In light of these comments, and the 

absence of any supporting data or 

information that would support Delta 

Q’s assertion that a charger would 

operate less efficiently at lower power 

levels, DOE is adopting its proposed 

approach. DOE believes that, given a 

choice, users are more likely to opt for 

the fastest charge that does not impact 

the battery’s long-term health, as 

evidenced by the popularity of 

successively faster chargers in the 

market. (Battery Charger Test Data, No. 

18.3) DOE presented this view during 

the NOPR public meeting and received 

no comments disputing this view. 

Consequently, DOE is requiring that 

testing occur at the fastest charge rate 

that is recommended by the 

manufacturer for everyday use. Doing so 

will reduce the test procedure burden 

on manufacturers while producing 

representative measurements of energy 

use. 

d. Battery Selection 

DOE proposed to require testing with 

a battery or combination of batteries, 

depending on the charger type—i.e. 

multi-voltage, multi-port, or multicapacity. This approach is consistent 

with the CEC test procedure. 75 FR 

16958, 16969. For those battery chargers 

that come either with no batteries or 

multiple batteries, DOE also sought 

comment on an alternative approach 

that would require the testing of only 

the configuration of batteries most 

commonly used with the device, but no 

comments or data were received on this 

approach. 75 FR 16969, 16979. 

AHAM commented that if the 

manufacturer recommends a battery for 

use with the product, the Department 

should consider using only that battery, 

and not any others, for measuring 

energy consumption during testing. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 

112–113) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE 

supported DOE’s proposal to test the 

battery charger with only the typical 

battery configuration but suggested a 

change to improve the repeatability of 

the battery selection process. (ASAP, 

No. 11 at p. 10; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 10; 

SCE, No. 13 at p. 10) Specifically, these 

commenters suggested changing section 

4.3 (3) of appendix Y to be more 

restrictive than the proposed ‘‘any 

[battery] suitable for use with the 

charger’’-approach set forth in the 

NOPR. These commenters suggested 

that DOE’s test procedure recommend 

searching within brand name batteries 

that are readily available in the region 

where the product is sold or being 

tested. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 10; PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 10; SCE, No. 13 at p. 10) 

DOE is incorporating its proposed 

approach because it received no 

comments suggesting alternative 

approaches that would allow a battery 

charger to be tested with a single battery 

that would generate a result that is ‘‘a 

representative average use cycle.’’ See 42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). Under this approach, 

if the battery is packaged with the 

charger, then the charger is tested with 

only this battery. Alternatively, if the 

charger is not packaged with a battery, 

and is multi-port, multi-capacity, or 

multi-voltage in configuration, testing 

with a single battery, as recommended 

by interested parties, may not be a 

representative average use cycle and 

more than one test is needed to 

accurately assess the average use of that 

product. Although DOE’s proposed 

approach can require up to three tests, 

which is potentially burdensome, it 

ensures that the test procedure fulfills 

this statutory requirement. See 42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3). This approach should also 

enable DOE to account for all possible 

battery combinations that can be used in 

the charger rather than just the most 

typical configurations. 

In response to the preliminary 

analysis for energy conservation 

standards for battery chargers and 

external power supplies, DOE received 

related comments. Motorola commented 

that the CEC test procedure, upon which 

DOE based its test procedure, is not 

completely clear in defining how to 

select batteries for testing and that DOE 

should clearly define how to select 

batteries for testing. They added that 

DOE should define the terms ‘‘lowest 

voltage’’ and ‘‘highest voltage.’’ 

(Motorola, No. 50 at p. 2) 14

As mentioned, DOE is incorporating 

its proposed approach for selecting 

batteries with which a technician 

should test a unit under test. Although 

the procedure does not define the terms 

‘‘highest voltage’’ and ‘‘lowest voltage,’’ 

DOE believes that these terms clearly 

refer to the rated battery voltage because 

that is the pertinent information that 

manufacturers will provide when they 

package or recommend batteries to use 

with their devices. The other voltages 

that Motorola references in its comment 

(e.g. desired end-of-discharge battery 

voltage) are voltages that must be 

monitored after the testing has 

commenced and are not pertinent for 

selecting batteries to test. Accordingly, 

DOE is declining to define these 

particular terms at this time. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31763 

15The language adopted in the CEC test 

procedure states: ‘‘Some products may include 

protective circuitry between the battery cells and 

the remainder of the device. In some cases, it is 

possible that the test battery cannot be discharged 

without activating protective control circuitry. If the 

manufacturer provides a description for accessing 

connections at the output of the protective circuitry, 

the energy measurements shall be made at the 

terminals of the test battery, so as not to include 

energy used by the protective control circuitry.’’ See 

part 1, section II.F of CEC test procedure. 

e. Non-Battery Charging Functions 

DOE proposed to implement a 

procedure for testing battery chargers 

with non-battery charging functions that 

would be consistent with the CEC 

approach. The CEC method requires the 

tester to turn off any user-controlled 

functions and disconnect all auxiliary 

electrical connections to the battery 

charger. 75 FR 16958, 16969. 

Commenters had mixed views 

regarding non-battery charging 

functions. PG&E, Delta-Q, ASAP and 

SCE agreed with DOE’s approach. PG&E 

stated that it agreed that the test 

procedure should not provide any 

energy allowances for battery chargers 

with extra functionality and agreed that 

any such functionality should be turned 

off during testing. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 15) Delta-Q agreed 

with DOE’s approach for non-battery 

charging functions. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 

2) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE stated that 

testing conducted for the development 

of the CEC test procedure found that 

turning off or disconnecting additional 

functions is the only approach that 

results in accurate measurements of 

standby power while providing a means 

to compare the energy consumption of 

products with and without additional 

functionality against each other. (ASAP, 

No. 11 at p. 3; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 3– 

4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) Sony asked for 

clarification on how the additional 

functionality section in the proposal 

would pertain to video products (Sony, 

No. 6 at p. 2). 

In contrast, PTI commented that since 

battery charging is often secondary to 

the main function of the product, 

requiring the non-battery charging 

functionality to be turned off during 

testing would be inconsistent with the 

general approach of trying to satisfy the 

user’s requirements. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 119) In response, 

PG&E offered a solution to 

manufacturers and stated that 

manufacturers could design additional 

functionality into their products to 

ensure that the additional functionality 

will not consume enough power to 

prevent a battery charger from meeting 

any energy conservation standards that 

DOE might set. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at p. 120) 

PTI suggested an alternative method 

to account for non-battery charging 

functions. It suggested conducting the 

battery charger test with and without 

the battery; the difference between the 

two measurements would be the energy 

used to charge the battery. Although this 

method excludes the standby 

component, PTI believed that the error 

associated with its exclusion is less 

significant than the error that would 

result from treating all of the products 

as if they were augmented battery 

chargers. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at 

pp. 123–124) 

When developing its test procedure, 

DOE considered how to isolate the 

energy consumption of the battery 

charging circuitry in cases where the 

charger is embedded inside another 

product that provides additional 

functionality, such as video products 

and notebook computers. The test 

procedure must ensure that 

measurement of energy use for these 

types of products accounts for the 

energy used by this additional 

functionality. DOE believes that its 

proposed method is best suited to 

capture these measurements compared 

with the other methods suggested by 

commenters because it does not 

discount power consumption in other 

modes of operation, as the suggested 

approach by PTI would do. 

The method in this final rule is 

consistent with that of the generally 

accepted CEC test procedure, which 

applies equally to all products, 

including video products. By requiring 

that any switches controlling the 

additional functionality be turned off, 

and any auxiliary cables or connections 

be disconnected, this method provides 

manufacturers with a cue to shut down 

the additional functionality. As a result, 

only the battery charging portion of the 

battery charger is measured during 

testing. DOE notes that if a manufacturer 

does not equip its product with a switch 

to shut off non-battery charger 

functions, it may continue to do so. 

During testing, the energy consumption 

of these functions would still be 

calculated as part of a given product’s 

total energy consumption. For this 

reason, DOE believes that it is likely that 

manufacturers of these types of 

products, in order to continue to 

maintain the added functionality, would 

be encouraged to minimize the energy 

consumed by these non-battery charger 

functions when designing their 

products. 

f. Battery Chargers With Protective 

Circuitry 

DOE proposed to incorporate text 

from the CEC test procedure related to 

protective circuitry. 75 FR 16958, 

16982. Incorporating this change would 

allow technicians to accurately measure 

the discharge energy of a battery 

without including energy from the 

protective circuitry. This measurement 

is important for the test procedure 

because it is equivalent to the useful, or 

non-lost, energy consumed during a 

charge cycle. The text was proposed for 

incorporation as part of DOE’s overall 

adoption of the CEC test procedure. 

DOE did not propose to change the 

language of the CEC test procedure 

pertaining to protective circuitry in its 

NOPR. However, commenters provided 

feedback on the language in the CEC test 

procedure, stating that it contained an 

error. 

Commenters asserted that the 

language that DOE proposed to 

incorporate from the CEC-based test 

procedure contained an error that the 

CEC has not yet corrected. These 

commenters recommended that DOE 

adopt the language that the CEC had 

apparently intended to use in its 

procedure when testing battery chargers 

equipped with protective circuitry, 

rather than the language that CEC 

ultimately adopted.15 In the view of 

these commenters, the procedure should 

have stated that when protective 

circuitry is present, the technician 

should take the measurement at the 

leads of the battery cells after the 

protective circuitry rather than at the 

terminals of the test battery to ensure 

that the energy consumption of the 

protective circuitry is accurately 

measured. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 

2 at p. 23, 181–184) ASAP, PG&E and 

SCE also recommended incorporating 

language that matched the language that 

CEC had intended to incorporate into its 

test procedure. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 11; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 at 

p. 11) PTI also agreed with the 

suggested revision. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 184) ASAP, PG&E and 

SCE indicated that their collective belief 

is that CEC will adopt the corrected 

language in their next test procedure 

revision, although this revision has yet 

to occur. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 11; PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 at p. 11) 

PG&E and SCE are two of the primary 

consulting firms that helped develop the 

CEC test procedure. DOE received no 

comments opposing the revision 

recommended by ASAP, PG&E, and 

SCE. Additionally, commenters 

mentioned how the new methodology 

will increase safety in the test labs 

because technicians will not be required 

to dismantle battery packs and create 

connections between the battery and its 

protective circuitry. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31764 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

11; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 11; SCE, No. 13 

at p. 11) 

In light of the new information 

presented by PG&E regarding the CEC 

test procedure and the noted safety 

benefits, DOE is altering its proposal to 

incorporate language that will require 

testing to occur at the output of the 

protective circuitry, rather than at the 

test battery terminals. As noted, the 

primary benefit of this approach is 

increased safety within the testing 

laboratory. The protective circuitry that 

is used in battery chargers is usually 

found in cases where a battery charger 

works with a lithium-ion chemistry 

battery. Due to their chemistry, these 

batteries can be unstable, which is why 

the protective circuitry is used. 

Consequently, DOE believes it is 

prudent that such circuitry should be 

used, and not dismantled, when 

measurements are taken for this test 

procedure. 

g. Charge Capacity of Batteries With No 

Rating 

The battery charger test procedure 

currently requires the use of a battery 

capacity rating in order to determine the 

rate at which the discharge test is 

performed. This section describes how 

DOE decided to address batteries that 

have no rating. DOE proposed a method 

for determining the capacity of batteries 

with no ratings. That method was an 

iterative process requiring the use of an 

initial 0.5 amp (A) trial current 

(hereafter referred to as the 0.5 A test 

method). 75 FR 16970. The proposed 

process would require that the user 

iteratively adjust the initial 0.5 A, until 

he or she reaches a discharge current 

that could discharge that battery at a 0.2 

C rate (‘‘C rate’’ refers to the amount of 

time in hours it would take to discharge 

the battery relative to its capacity), 

which corresponds to an approximately 

5-hour discharge. DOE proposed that so 

long as the battery was discharged 

within 4.5 to 5.5 hours, or an hour-long 

window of time, the result of the 

discharge test could be accepted as 

valid. 75 FR 16983. Commenters had 

mixed opinions on both the time frame 

acceptance window and the 0.5 A test 

method. These comments are addressed 

below. 

Acceptance Window 

An acceptance window is the time 

frame in which a measurement of 

battery energy can be taken and 

considered appropriate for the UUT. It 

is critical for testing purposes because it 

ensures consistency and repeatability. 

Commenters generally urged DOE to 

decrease its acceptance window to a 

range of 4.5 to 5 hours, which would 

decrease the proposed acceptance 

window of 1-hour down to 30 minutes. 

(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; PG&E, No. 12 at 

p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 4) PG&E claimed 

that the proposed 1 hour window causes 

unacceptable errors and recommended a 

half-hour maximum window to decrease 

the likelihood of measurement errors. 

(PG&E, No. 2 at p. 20) It explained that 

a half-hour time window for the 

discharge time of unrated batteries 

introduces a 2-percent error in the 

energy use measurement, while a 1-hour 

time window introduces an error of 

about 4 to 5 percent. However, a 15- 

minute time window would, in its view, 

be preferable. (PG&E, No. 2 at p. 106; 

ASAP, No. 11 at p. 6; PG&E, No. 12 at 

p. 6; SCE, No. 13 at p. 6) Manufacturers 

provided no comments regarding the 

proposed time window. 

Commenters agreed that a shorter 

acceptance window of 4.5 to 5 hours is 

more appropriate than the 4- to 5-hour 

time window that DOE proposed. DOE 

believes that a 15-minute window 

would be unduly burdensome since it 

reduces the originally proposed time 

period by one-fourth and will require 

more iterations to accomplish. DOE 

recognizes, however, the merit of using 

a shorter acceptance window and is 

adjusting this element in its procedure 

to cover a 30-minute window as 

suggested by the commenters. The 

tighter acceptance window will produce 

more precise results than what the 

proposed 1-hour window would have 

yielded and will not be unduly 

burdensome to perform. 

Method for Determining the Capacity of 

Batteries With No Rating 

As mentioned above, DOE proposed 

using the 0.5 A test method to 

determine the capacity of batteries with 

no ratings as a method to achieve a 

current that would discharge the battery 

within the time acceptance window. 

Properly discharging a battery is 

necessary to ensure that the useful 

energy that was transferred from the 

battery charger to the battery is 

accurately measured and not 

misconstrued as lost energy. However, 

commenters were generally critical of 

DOE’s proposal. 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE strongly 

encouraged DOE to remove its proposed 

instructions for determining the 

discharge current for batteries without 

capacity labels. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 

4) They commented that for batteries 

with no rated capacity, the 0.5 A initial 

trial current is not always appropriate. 

Specifically, in their view, a current of 

0.5 A works well primarily for batteries 

with capacities from about 0.5 Ah to 4 

Ah. However, for products that cannot 

accept currents of 0.5 A (i.e. smaller 

batteries with lower capacities, such as 

those used with Bluetooth headset 

batteries) or that have large capacities 

(i.e. batteries with capacities in the 

range of 35 to 50 Ah, such as those used 

with electric scooters), a 0.5 A current 

would either not be possible or require 

an amount of time well in excess of the 

5 hour maximum proposed by DOE— 

potentially, multiple days in duration. 

(PG&E, No. 2 at p. 20; ASAP, No. 11 at 

p. 7; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 7; SCE, No. 13 

at p. 7) PTI also stated that it believed 

the 0.5 A starting current may be 

inappropriate and they believed that 

better results may come from trial and 

error as is suggested in the CEC test 

procedure. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 

at p. 102) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE added 

that DOE’s proposed method does not 

always produce repeatable results, 

particularly when the results of the 

protocol for determining discharge time 

push the discharge time near the 

boundaries of the acceptance discharge 

time window. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 

4) 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE proposed an 

alternative to the 0.5 A test method. 

Their method bases the initial discharge 

current on battery weight. (ASAP, No. 

11 at pp.18–19; PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 18– 

19; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 18–19) ASAP, 

PG&E, and SCE suggested that if DOE 

considers it necessary to include 

instructions regarding the determination 

of the capacity of unrated batteries, DOE 

should consider adding the following 

steps: 

1. Pick an initial trial current which 

is deliberately too low. A reasonable 

step is to weigh or measure the battery 

and divide the number of cells to obtain 

grams per cell or cm3 per cell. 

2. Be sure the battery is fully charged 

and discharged at the current selected in 

step 1 for up to 2 hours. If the end-ofdischarge voltage is reached before 2 

hours, stop the discharge and go to step 

5. If not, after 2 hours of discharge go 

to step 3. 

3. Double the current. 

4. Discharge the battery at the new 

current for up to 1 hour. If the end of 

discharge voltage is reached before 1 

hour, stop the discharge and go to step 

5. If not, after 1 hour of discharge, repeat 

steps 3 and 4. 

5. For the first discharge, compute the 

total charge capacity as the sum of the 

capacities of each step to discharge. For 

each step, the partial capacity is the 

product of the current and the time for 

which that current was drawn. (The 

total charge is defined as the integral of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31765 

the current over time.) Call this [value 

the] total charge capacity Q0.

6. The last discharge current is called 

I0 and let Tm be the center of the 

acceptable time window, (perhaps 4.75 

hours). Calculate the next trial current 

as: 

I1=(Q0/Tm) * (1.0 + 0.2 * 1n (I0 * Tm/Q0)) 

where ln() is the natural logarithm function. 

7. Discharge at this current I1 until the 

end-of-discharge voltage is reached. Call 

the time required for this discharge T1. 

If T1 is within the acceptable window, 

use I1 as the discharge current. If not, 

continue with step 8. 

8. Compute the next trial current I2: 

a. I2=(I1*T1/Tm) * (1.0 + 0.2 * 1n (Tm/ 

T1)) 

b. Repeat step 7. 

(ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 18–19; PG&E, No. 

12 at pp. 18–19;; SCE, No. 13 at pp. 

18–19;) 

Adopting such a method would 

address the concern raised by Delta-Q, 

who requested that a provision be 

included for batteries with no rated 

capacity that allows (1) a larger starting 

current and (2) current steps to be 

estimated based on the battery size and 

weight. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE added that the 

instructions in DOE’s proposal, or any 

instructions generally, would not 

improve the repeatability or accuracy of 

the CEC method to select a discharge 

current, but would instead complicate 

the details of the test method and limit 

the flexibility of test labs and 

manufacturers to determine their own 

discharge rate by requiring that they 

obtain that rate using the specific DOE 

instructions. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 4; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4; SCE, No. 13 at p. 

4) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE urged DOE to 

not require steps to determine discharge 

current and instead to require only that 

the discharge current satisfy the time 

acceptance window. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 

5; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 5; SCE, No. 13 at 

p. 5) 

After carefully considering all of the 

comments, DOE is modifying the 

approach it proposed. In particular, 

DOE will incorporate a specific time 

acceptance window but not specify at 

this time the method for manufacturers 

to follow when discharging an unrated 

battery. By adopting this new approach, 

the measured efficiency of the battery 

charger will not be affected because 

technicians will have the freedom to 

rely on their expertise and will not be 

required to use a method that may be 

inappropriate for very large or very 

small batteries contained within a 

battery charger. DOE is declining to 

incorporate the suggested battery weight 

method offered by ASAP, PG&E, and 

SCE. In evaluating this method, which 

included conducting actual tests using 

this suggested approach, DOE found 

that it took many iterations—as many as 

eight in some cases—to obtain the 

proper discharge current. (Battery 

Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) DOE 

believes that sufficiently accurate 

testing can occur because the test 

procedure requires that the discharge 

test be completed within a half an hour 

acceptance window. This requirement 

will ensure that technicians discharge 

their battery at a rate close to the 0.5 Crate that is required when the charge 

capacity of the battery is known. 

Battery Capacity Listings 

The final comment pertaining to 

unrated batteries related to the manner 

in which manufacturers communicate to 

end users and technicians the charge 

capacity specifications of a battery. DOE 

had proposed that the technician refer 

to a manufacturer’s instructions to 

obtain a rated charge capacity. 75 FR 

16982. Subsequently, AHAM 

commented that Web pages are an 

effective way to allow the manufacturer 

to communicate this information. 

(AHAM, No. 2 at p. 126) DOE notes that 

its proposal already permits 

manufacturers to communicate the 

specifications in this manner because its 

definition of ‘‘instructions or 

manufacturer’s instructions’’ includes 

Web page information. 75 FR 16958, 

16980. Accordingly, in the absence of 

any objections to its proposal, DOE is 

adopting its proposed approach to refer 

technicians to manufacturer’s 

instructions for information regarding 

battery capacity. 

h. Battery Conditioning 

DOE proposed to require conditioning 

of the battery by performing two charges 

and two discharges, resulting in two 

conditioning cycles. Battery 

conditioning is the process by which the 

battery is cycled several times prior to 

testing in order to permit the battery to 

reach its specified capacity. DOE 

proposed these conditioning cycles to 

prepare the battery for testing while 

ending on a discharge of the battery. 

This step was necessary within the 

context of the proposed testing order. 

The proposal reversed the testing order 

from the one currently prescribed under 

the CEC testing provisions. 75 FR 16958, 

16971. 

Responding to this proposal, ASAP, 

PG&E, and SCE collectively 

recommended that DOE require three 

cycles of battery conditioning to 

maintain repeatability. (ASAP, No. 11 at 

p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, No. 13 

at p. 8) Although nickel-based batteries 

(e.g. NiCd or NiMH) can take between 

5 and 100 cycles to ‘‘develop their full 

capacity,’’ these commenters pointed out 

that interested parties reached a 

consensus during the CEC rulemaking 

that 3 cycles is an acceptable 

compromise between accuracy and 

repeatability. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at p. 22; ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, No. 13 at p. 

8) In golf cars and similarly-sized 

applications with large battery packs, 

Delta-Q noted that testing for several 

cycles could take several weeks if 

different manufacturers and models are 

considered. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) 

The CEC test procedure requires that 

the batteries requiring conditioning be 

prepared by performing three charges 

and two discharges. DOE proposed to 

remove the final preparatory charge and 

replace it with a measured charge as 

would have been required by the 

proposed reversed testing order. 

However, because of the concerns raised 

by commenters in response to DOE’s 

proposal, and the potential risk 

identified by the commenters that such 

an approach may decrease the accuracy 

of the test, DOE is dropping its proposed 

testing order and is adding a final 

preparatory charge as suggested by 

interested parties. Although PG&E, 

ASAP, and SCE commented that some 

nickel-based batteries need 5 to 100 

cycles to develop their full capacity, 

they also stated that the three cycles 

specified in the CEC method was an 

acceptable compromise between 

accuracy and repeatability. Other 

commenters did not dispute the 

sufficiency of using three cycles. 

A battery must be stable during 

testing to ensure the repeatability of 

measurements related to capacity. 

Because the battery becomes more stable 

as additional charge-discharge cycles 

are performed, more than one cycle 

must be used. Adopting a requirement 

that provides for three cycles should be 

sufficient to ensure the stability of the 

battery because most battery chemistries 

will reach a relatively steady state at 

this point and three tests will not 

impose an excessive testing burden. 

Accordingly, DOE is adopting a three 

cycle approach to ensure battery 

stability is achieved during testing. 

Additionally, DOE is incorporating a 

conditioning section into the test 

procedure, as requested by ASAP, 

PG&E, SCE, and Sony. Commenters had 

noted that the proposed regulatory text 

did not include a section regarding 

battery conditioning. (ASAP, No. 11 at 

p. 8; PG&E, No. 13 at p. 8; SCE, No. 12 

at p. 8; Sony, No. 6 at p. 2). To address 

this issue, DOE is incorporating a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31766 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

conditioning section that is consistent 

with the approach followed by the CEC. 

This new requirement will be inserted 

into 5.3 of amended appendix Y of 

subpart B of part 430 and will help 

ensure the completeness of the test 

procedure. 

i. Rest Period 

DOE proposed to permit a rest period 

for both charged and discharged 

batteries from 1 to 24 hours. 75 FR 

16958, 16984. A rest period is the 

period between the preparation of a 

battery and the battery discharge test. It 

also includes the period between the 

battery discharge test and the charge 

and maintenance mode tests. 75 FR 

16958, 16967. A rest period is required 

to enable the battery to return to the 

ambient temperature, which is a 

necessary prerequisite to ensure 

consistent testing conditions. This 

proposal differed from the rest period in 

the CEC test procedure, which 

prescribes a period of 1 to 4 hours for 

charged batteries and 1 to 24 hours for 

discharged batteries. See III.C and III.E 

of part 1 of the CEC test procedure. 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE asserted that 

the proposed rest period ‘‘is inconsistent 

with the CEC-adopted test procedure as 

well as industry standards.’’ (ASAP, No. 

11 at p. 14; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 14; SCE, 

No. 13 at p. 14) The interested parties 

further commented that ‘‘regardless of 

the test order, the rest periods should be 

1 to 4 hours for charged batteries and 1 

to 24 hours for discharged batteries.’’ 

The shorter rest period for charged 

batteries would minimize the selfdischarge effect that occurs in NiCd and 

NiMH batteries. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 14; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 14; SCE, No. 13 at 

p. 14) 

In this final rule, DOE is adopting the 

language from the CEC test procedure, 

in part to maintain consistency with 

industry testing protocols. Providing a 

shorter rest period for charged batteries 

also ensures that certain types of 

batteries (such as the NiCd and NiMH 

batteries discussed above) do not selfdischarge, making the test results more 

consistent. Incorporating a 1 to 4 hour 

rest period for charged batteries will 

help harmonize the DOE test procedure 

with these widely accepted industry 

standards, as well as minimize the 

possibility of self-discharging of 

batteries with NiCd or NiMH 

chemistries. 

Additionally, in its NOPR, DOE also 

proposed that ‘‘for batteries with flooded 

cells, the electrolyte temperature shall 

be less than 33 degrees Celsius before 

charging.’’ 75 FR 16958, 16984. DOE had 

intended to adopt the language from the 

CEC test procedure, which specifies an 

under 30 degree Celsius requirement. 

No comments were received regarding 

this issue. In this final rule, DOE is 

incorporating the corrected temperature 

requirement, which is consistent with 

that retained in the CEC test procedure. 

See part 1, sections II.C and II.E of the 

CEC test procedure. 

5. Test Measurement 

a. Removing Inactive Mode Energy 

Consumption Test Apparatus and 

Measurement 

DOE proposed removing its inactive 

mode energy consumption test. 75 FR 

16958, 16970. The inactive mode energy 

consumption measurement in section 

4(a) of appendix Y prior to today’s final 

rule prescribed a method for calculating 

a nonactive energy ratio. Both industry 

and non-industry commenters 

responded to this proposed change. 

PG&E, Delta-Q and AHAM supported 

DOE’s proposal to drop its inactive 

mode procedure and to replace it with 

one that measures active mode energy 

consumption. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at p. 51; AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at p. 47; Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2) 

However, PTI did not agree with 

removing the nonactive mode metric 

because, in its view, the removal of this 

metric would remove an aggregate 

measure of the energy use of the product 

in a variety of modes. (PTI, No. 8 at p. 

1) Commenters also raised concerns 

related to usage profiles, noting in 

particular that they are necessary to 

determine how a product is truly used 

and what energy savings potential 

actually exists. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at p. 48, PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 

2 at p. 49) (Usage profiles are 

assumptions, based on a variety of 

sources, including manufacturers, 

surveys, and other publicly available 

data, about the amount of time products 

spend in each mode of operation. These 

assumptions represent the manner and 

frequency with which a product is used. 

Usage profiles are valuable in that they 

help show how a product is used, which 

can be helpful in determining its energy 

consumption during typical consumer 

usage in all modes of operation.) 

Performing the inactive mode test 

procedure requires integrating the input 

power of the battery charger in 

maintenance mode and no battery 

mode. That value is divided by the 

battery energy measured during 

discharge, resulting in a nonactive 

energy ratio. However, today’s final rule 

incorporates an active mode test, which 

will, collectively, with the other 

portions of the amended test procedure, 

result in a battery charger test procedure 

that measures battery charger energy in 

all four modes (i.e., active, maintenance, 

standby, and off). Consequently, there is 

no need for the continued use of a 

nonactive mode metric since the energy 

that was previously captured by this 

metric will be captured by these other 

modes. As for concerns about 

aggregation and usage profiles, DOE 

notes that it will address these issues in 

greater detail in the related standards 

rulemaking that is currently underway. 

See 75 FR 56021 (Sept. 15, 2010). 

b. Charge Test Duration 

Charge test duration issues involved 

two primary areas. First, commenters 

provided feedback on DOE’s proposal to 

shorten the procedure for certain 

products. Second, commenters also 

provided feedback on DOE’s proposal to 

have indicators to help provide some 

means for a tester to determine the 

appropriate duration of a test. These 

issues are discussed in greater detail 

below. 

Shortened Test Procedure 

In the NOPR, DOE considered 

permitting a shortened test procedure 

for those products that stabilized (i.e. 

reached steady-state in maintenance 

mode) in less than 24 hours. This 

approach would have modified the 

procedure contained in the CEC test 

procedure. See part 1, section II.E of the 

CEC test procedure. Shortening the 

active mode test by terminating it once 

the charger has entered steady state 

operation could result in decreased 

testing time and decreased burden on 

manufacturers. DOE proposed this 

approach to reduce the testing burden 

faced by at least some manufacturers 

from the 24-hour charge test. 75 FR 

16958, 16970. 

PG&E stated that the 24-hour test is 

not more burdensome than the proposed 

shortened test. Under the longer 24-hour 

test, technicians would be able to leave 

the test setup over night and begin a 

new test the next day, which is likely to 

be the same even if the test is shortened. 

(PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 

167–168) PTI commented that while it 

may be convenient for DOE to offer a 

shortened test procedure, the full test 

procedure will need to be used for 

verification purposes. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 162) ASAP, PG&E, and 

SCE argued that a 24-hour active and 

maintenance mode test is the shortest 

permissible period that should be 

employed because it will allow the 

technician to see additional shifts in 

battery charger behavior that may have 

otherwise been missed because the 

charger entered a steady-state that was 

not necessarily maintenance mode early 

on during the test period. (ASAP, No. 11 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31767 

at p. 7; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 7; SCE, No. 

13 at p. 7) 

Alternatively, some interested parties 

supported the shortened test method 

approach. AHAM argued that the 

shortened test is acceptable if the test 

record shows that it was used, and 

manufacturers understand that the 24- 

hour test will be used for verification. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 

169–170) AHAM further stated that if a 

manufacturer knows that the shortened 

test procedure will accurately test their 

product, it should be able to use it so 

long as the manufacturer clearly states 

in the test record that it was used. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 

164–165) For manufacturers with 

products that have short charge times, 

the shortened test can provide value by 

enabling a tester to complete multiple 

testing cycles within a normal testing 

day. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at 

pp. 168–169) AHAM noted that if the 

shortened test procedure yields the 

same results as the 24-hour test 

procedure, manufacturers should be 

permitted to use that procedure so long 

as the 24-hour test procedure will be 

used for verification purposes. (AHAM, 

No. 10 at pp. 6–7) AHAM emphasized 

that it is crucial that the test procedures 

be accurate, and that there be no 

opportunity for a certifying laboratory to 

conduct a test one way, and a verifying 

laboratory to conduct it a different way, 

with the two laboratories obtaining 

different results. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 26) Delta-Q, in general, 

agreed with the proposed shortened test 

procedure. It noted that more advanced 

chargers may be programmed to pass the 

shortened test by inhibiting any energyconsuming modes for the duration of 

the test. (Delta-Q, No. 11 at p. 2). Sony 

opposed the 24-hour charge test 

duration, stating that it is neither cost 

effective nor efficient. It suggested 

adding the following statement: ‘‘If the 

battery charger has an indicator to show 

that the battery is fully charged, [the 

discharge] test can begin as soon as the 

indicator shows that the battery is fully 

charged.’’ Alternatively, Sony 

recommended that DOE shorten the 

charge test duration from 24 hours to 12 

hours. (Sony, No. 6 at p. 2) 

DOE is dropping its initial proposal 

for a shortened test period. 

As indicated by the submitted 

comments, manufacturers were wary of 

the proposal since it could cause issues 

with verification testing of products. In 

particular, not all battery chargers 

behave the same way in maintenance 

mode. Some chargers may ‘‘wake up’’ 

and have periods of high input current 

to top off the battery’s charge level if the 

battery has self-discharged after sitting 

without being used for an extended 

period of time. Measuring the energy 

consumption of products employing 

this type of feature under these 

conditions could miss these ‘‘wake up’’ 

periods if a shortened test duration is 

used. When DOE conducted testing 

according to the shortened test 

procedure, it also found that it can be 

difficult to determine when the product 

reaches steady state, which serves as the 

point at which the test should end. 

(Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) 

Furthermore, adopting the shortened 

test procedure could lead to 

complications due to the necessity of 

reconciling two differing measurement 

results. Therefore, to ensure there are no 

potential discrepancies or confusion, 

and in light of the reliability and 

accuracy of a test with a longer 

duration, DOE is declining to 

incorporate a shortened test procedure 

in this final rule. 

Indicators 

DOE proposed to have indicators, if 

present, to serve as a means to help 

determine the length of the charge test. 

DOE proposed this approach because it 

is consistent with the CEC test 

procedure (see section II.E of part 1 of 

the CEC test procedure) and provides a 

clear means for technicians to determine 

when the battery has been fully charged. 

In using this approach, DOE proposed 

that if the indicator shows that the 

battery is fully charged after 19 hours of 

charging, the test shall terminate once 

24 hours have elapsed. Conversely, if 

the full-charge indicator does not 

indicate that a full charge has been 

reached after 19 hours of charging, the 

test shall continue up until 5 hours after 

the indicator has illuminated or 

otherwise indicates that the battery has 

been fully charged. 75 FR 16958, 16983. 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE commented 

that charger indicator lights are not 

reliable and consistent sources of 

information about the state of charge of 

the battery. They added, though, that 

these lights are useful for general 

guidance on the state of charge for the 

purpose of determining a charger’s 

active mode test length. (ASAP, No. 11 

at p. 13; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 

13 at p. 13) Despite their collective 

objection to DOE’s proposed approach, 

these interested parties did not suggest 

changing the proposed test duration 

selection process. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 

13; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 13 

at p. 13) 

After considering these comments, 

DOE is adopting its proposed approach 

to permit the use of indicators to help 

determine a battery’s state of charge. 

DOE notes that a testing technician is 

not restricted to the use of indicator 

lights, but may rely on any indicator 

that is a part of the UUT that would help 

in determining a battery’s state of 

charge. DOE believes that indicators are 

sufficiently informative to determine the 

charge test duration of a battery because, 

as commenters conceded, they are 

useful in providing information 

regarding the general state of a battery’s 

charge. Because the charge and 

maintenance mode test will not be 

shortened, DOE believes that the 

information conveyed by an indicator 

about the general state of a battery’s 

charge is all that is necessary for the 

purposes of testing. Furthermore, the 

vast majority of battery chargers 

currently available on the market will 

likely finish charging well before the 19 

hour mark that must be met in order to 

complete the test within 24 hours. 

(Battery Charger Test Data, No. 18.3) 

Therefore, up-to-the-minute precision 

regarding when the battery has reached 

its full charge state is not necessary for 

the vast majority of products. This 

change will not only provide testers 

with a straight-forward guide when 

determining a battery’s state of charge, 

but will also help to ensure consistency 

with the established CEC test procedure 

that the industry is already following. 

c. Testing Order 

The CEC test procedure requires that 

the test be conducted by performing first 

a preparatory discharge followed by a 

measured charge and then a measured 

discharge. See section III of part 1 of the 

CEC test procedure. DOE proposed to 

reverse this testing order by requiring a 

preparatory charge first, followed by a 

measured discharge and measured 

charge. 75 FR 16971. As explained 

below, interested parties generally 

opposed this proposed approach. 

PG&E stated that if DOE adopts its 

proposal to reverse the CEC testing 

order, the procedure will not accurately 

measure the energy consumption of 

battery chargers that take longer than 24 

hours to charge. If the battery is 

discharged completely during the 5 

hour discharge test, and then is not fully 

charged within 24 hours, the test does 

not account for a complete ‘‘round-trip’’ 

(i.e., a complete charge-discharge or 

discharge-charge cycle). PG&E 

recommended that DOE either prove a 

round-trip has been accomplished 

under its proposed approach or adopt 

the CEC method. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at pp. 16–18; PG&E, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 135–136) 

PG&E further stated that reversing the 

testing order creates a loophole that can 

encourage manufacturers to make slow 

charging products that will appear more 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31768 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

efficient than they actually are since the 

reversed testing order will account for a 

full discharge but only a partial charge 

for these products. PG&E encouraged 

DOE to ensure that its final procedure 

includes a valid method to measure the 

energy consumption of battery chargers 

that take longer than 24 hours to charge. 

(PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 

140–141; PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 

at pp. 143–144). ASAP objected to 

reversing the charge/discharge order 

detailed in the CEC procedure. (ASAP, 

No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, 

No. 13 at p. 8) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE 

added that the reversed testing order 

was found to give inaccurate and 

inconsistent results for a significant 

number of products that were tested. 

(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at 

p. 8; SCE, No. 13 at p. 8) In their view, 

the reversed testing order does not 

accurately test batteries that take longer 

than 24 hours to charge, which includes 

batteries used with emergency systems 

(e.g. computer uninterruptible power 

supplies, security systems, exit lighting, 

and other power backup applications), 

small automotive type chargers, and 

many universal chargers for C-size of Dsize batteries. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 8; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, No. 13 at p. 

8) These commenters also contended 

that retaining the proposed reversed 

CEC testing order may create an 

incentive for manufacturers to redesign 

their products to charge for longer 

periods of time rather than making the 

product more efficient, since the test 

procedure will record a full discharge, 

and only a partial charge. (ASAP, No. 11 

at p. 9; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 9; SCE, No. 

13 at p. 9) By doing so, manufacturers 

could inflate the efficiency of their 

products and effectively circumvent any 

energy conservation standards that DOE 

may establish. 

Similarly, AHAM commented that if 

reversing the testing cycle causes errors 

with accuracy, the Department should 

consider alternatives. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 139) However, AHAM 

also commented that DOE’s proposal to 

reverse the CEC testing order will result 

in some time savings without any loss 

of accuracy. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) 

Delta-Q expressed support for 

incorporating a reversed order from the 

CEC procedure and noted that it follows 

this reversed-order approach when 

conducting all battery cycle test 

measurements. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 2). 

Euro-Pro made an alternative 

suggestion, requesting that DOE 

consider modifying its proposal to 

permit the tester to monitor the battery 

voltage either during charging or at the 

end of the charge, and terminate the test 

when the battery is discharged, 

regardless of the time needed for a 

complete discharge to occur. (Euro-Pro, 

Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 142–143) 

Sony sought clarification on whether 

the proposed reversing of the CEC test 

procedure would impact the testing 

duration or burden. (Sony, No. 6 at p. 

2) 

DOE made its proposal to allow the 

preparatory step to be a charge rather 

than a discharge. By permitting this 

step, preparation could be conducted 

within the UUT, rather than using a 

battery analyzer, which would in turn 

reduce the amount of required testing 

equipment time that a manufacturer 

would need to allocate while testing. 

DOE had believed that following this 

approach would reduce the overall 

testing burden without impacting 

accuracy. 75 FR 16958, 16971. 

However, after considering the 

comments submitted on this issue, DOE 

recognizes the merits of the concerns 

expressed by interested parties that the 

proposed test procedure may not 

capture a full round-trip for some 

battery chargers. Completing a full 

round trip is critical to accurately 

measuring the energy consumption of a 

battery charger because it prevents the 

possibility of obtaining results that 

suggest that more energy came out of the 

battery then went into the battery, a 

physical impossibility with a full charge 

and discharge. As mentioned above, 

commenters indicated that this problem 

may be prevalent with numerous 

products such as an uninterruptible 

power supply or universal battery 

charger that takes longer than 24 hours 

to charge its battery. (ASAP, No. 11 at 

p. 8; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 8; SCE, No. 13 

at p. 8) Furthermore, the potential 

measurement error caused by the 

proposed change could be exploited by 

some manufacturers as a loophole, 

which could occur if the 5-hour 

discharge test recovered all energy from 

the battery and the subsequent charge 

test captured only the energy flowing 

into the battery during the first 24 

hours. Under this scenario, the test 

would capture only a portion of the 

energy consumed by the charger. 

Finally, DOE believes that preserving 

the proposed testing order while adding 

steps to ensure that a battery is not 

overcharged, like the steps suggested by 

Euro-Pro, would increase test procedure 

complexity and burden since it would 

require a technician to continuously 

monitor the battery for 24 hours or 

longer to determine when the battery 

has reached a fully charged state. For 

these reasons, DOE is modifying the 

approach presented in its proposal and 

adopting the order prescribed in the 

CEC test procedure—i.e. preparatory 

discharge, measured charge, measured 

discharge. 

d. End-of-Discharge Voltages 

DOE proposed end-of-discharge 

voltages for both popular and novel 

battery chemistries. 75 FR 16958, 16984. 

In its notice, DOE proposed that the test 

procedure incorporate an end-ofdischarge voltage of 2.5 volts per battery 

cell. DOE made this proposal in order to 

provide guidance on the recommended 

voltage to stop the discharging process 

to avoid damaging the battery. 

Responses to this aspect of the proposal 

were mixed. 

ASAP, PG&E and SCE offered support 

for ‘‘DOE’s effort to include battery 

charger systems with novel chemistries 

in the test procedure,’’ as well as ‘‘DOE’s 

effort to identify batteries that are in the 

lab now and might become 

commercialized over the coming years.’’ 

(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 9; PG&E, No. 12 at 

p. 9; SCE, No. 13 at p. 9) 

On the other hand, AHAM 

commented that the proposed end-ofdischarge voltages were not consistent 

with manufacturer specifications, noting 

in particular that most lithium ion 

battery manufacturers do not 

recommend discharging below 3.0 volts 

per cell. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 

2 at p. 147) AHAM further stated that 

some manufacturers do not design the 

battery with protective circuitry and 

discharging to too low of a level will 

damage the battery. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 151) Euro-Pro agreed 

with AHAM and noted that some 

products stop operating after a certain 

amount of time and do not reach the 

end-of-discharge voltage level. (EuroPro, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 150) 

PTI’s main concern was that if the test 

is terminated at a predetermined 

voltage, even if that predetermined 

voltage is set by surrounding circuitry, 

as long as the battery is returned back 

to that same voltage, this method would 

complete a round trip. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 sheet at p. 181) 

On the issue of novel battery 

chemistries, commenters stated that 

because the test procedure would likely 

be reviewed on a seven-year cycle, DOE 

should have an approach to address 

those battery cells that had not been 

previously contemplated. (PTI, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 152) PTI urged 

DOE to consider accepting ‘‘cell 

manufacturer published values for 

recommended cutoff voltages’’ and 

‘‘permitting future chemistries to be 

considered under the test procedure 

without having to revise it.’’ (PTI, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 154). AHAM also 

commented that the proposed end-ofdischarge voltages only apply to units 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31769 

without electronic cycle termination 

and that new battery chemistries were 

not included as part of the end-ofdischarge table. AHAM asserted that 

DOE’s proposed end-of-discharge 

voltage table should only be used as a 

guide and that testing should use the 

manufacturer’s stated end-of-discharge 

values, which usually stem from 

recommendations received from the 

battery manufacturer. Alternatively, 

AHAM also suggested that relevant IEC 

cell standards could be used as a 

reference. For example, it asserted that 

DOE should allow manufacturers to 

place battery capacity information on 

their Web sites, specification sheets, or 

instructions shipped with the product. 

In AHAM’s view, this flexibility would 

help better handle situations where new 

battery chemistries are introduced and 

appropriate end-of-discharge voltages 

are not known, without which, damage 

could be done to the battery during 

testing. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 6; AHAM, 

Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 156) 

In today’s final rule, DOE is opting to 

maintain its end-of-discharge voltage 

table as proposed in the NOPR. 75 FR 

16984. DOE believes that it is prudent 

to have a consistent cut-off voltage 

across chemistries because this voltage 

will affect the amount of energy that is 

measured coming out of the battery. 

This energy represents a fundamental 

measurement and key output of the test 

procedure. Given the outlined approach, 

deferring to a manufacturer’s stated endof-discharge values that are provided on 

an individual product basis may not 

provide this type of consistency. 

Accordingly, today’s final rule adopts 

the end of discharge voltages from the 

CEC test procedure, since they are 

widely accepted and already in use by 

the industry. In addition to the 

chemistries listed in the CEC table, DOE 

specified end-of-discharge voltages for 

two novel chemistries (Nanophosphate 

Lithium Ion and Silver Zinc). DOE is 

aware of the existence of these 

particular chemistries and their 

potential for more widespread use. DOE 

is including these two chemistries to 

ensure that its test procedure can 

adequately address products that 

employ batteries that rely on these 

chemistries. 

With respect to discharging, AHAM 

and Euro-Pro commented that 

manufacturers often do not discharge 

their products to the IEC specified endof-discharge voltage, which were used 

in the proposed test procedure. AHAM 

further commented that the test 

procedure should allow manufacturers 

to specify their own end-of discharge 

voltages during testing. 

DOE believes that adopting this 

approach would lead to inconsistent 

testing between similar batteries, since 

manufacturers will be more likely to 

specify different voltages of batteries 

that are of similar make and chemistry. 

Because of the potential problems that 

could result from having inconsistent 

testing methods between similar 

batteries, such as measuring vastly 

different amounts of energy coming 

from similar batteries, DOE is declining 

to adopt the particular measures 

suggested by AHAM. 

DOE notes, however, that some 

batteries, particularly those using the 

more unstable lithium-ion chemistry 

(compared to nickel-based batteries), 

should not be discharged past a certain 

voltage for safety reasons. (Discharging 

of these types of batteries beyond a 

certain point may result in the risk of 

fire.) For most products using these 

types of batteries, manufacturers will 

provide protection circuitry within the 

lithium-ion battery pack that will stop 

the discharge at a safe voltage, 

regardless of the end-of-discharge 

voltage, to ensure a safe discharge. DOE 

is aware that since these mechanisms 

are bypassed during the test procedure, 

an overly low end-of-discharge voltage 

could present a safety risk in this case. 

AHAM commented that most 

manufacturers do not recommend 

discharging lithium batteries below 3.0 

V. It identified Sony and Black & Decker 

as examples of manufacturers who make 

this recommendation. However, DOE 

has consulted with subject matter 

experts regarding this issue who believe 

that lithium-ion batteries will not 

experience safety issues if discharged to 

the end-of-discharge voltage of 2.5 V. 

(Comment pertaining to batteries being 

used as a part of the test equipment to 

test a charger, No. 18.1) While 

conducting tests on lithium-ion batteries 

over the years, including the tests done 

for the Department, DOE’s subject 

matter expert has not experienced any 

safety issues when discharging lithiumion batteries to 2.5 V. (Battery Charger 

Test Data, No. 18.3) Additionally, 

AHAM did not provide any data to 

support its claim. Consequently, DOE 

will adopt the 2.5 V end-of-discharge 

voltage, consistent with that proposed 

in its NOPR, in this final rule. This endof-discharge voltage is accepted in 

industry and should not create any 

appreciable testing burden for 

manufacturers. 

e. E24 Measurement 

DOE proposed measuring only the 

energy consumed during the first 24 

hours of charging, even if the test lasts 

longer than 24 hours. 75 FR 16958, 

16984. DOE proposed this approach 

because it believed that most products 

could be charged within the 24-hour 

time period, and for those products that 

took longer to charge, most of the energy 

consumption would likely have been 

accounted for within the first 24 hours. 

However, most commenters opposed 

this approach. PG&E commented that 

the proposal only accounts for the 

energy used during the first 24 hours of 

charging, which does not capture a full 

round-trip for batteries with charge 

times that exceed 24 hours. (PG&E, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 22; PG&E, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 144) Instead, 

PG&E strongly urged DOE to modify its 

test procedure to be consistent with the 

CEC procedure by including (1) total 

charger input energy (Charge and 

Maintenance Energy) accumulated over 

the entire duration of the test, reported 

in watt-hours (Wh) and (2) total time 

duration of the charging test (at least 24 

hours).’’ (ASAP, No. 11 at pp. 12–13; 

PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 12–13; SCE, No. 13 

at pp. 12–13) ASAP, PG&E, and SCE 

supported this view by commenting that 

batteries that take longer than 24 hours 

to charge will not reach a fully charged 

state during the 24-hour charge test, 

which will result in energy use 

measurements that significantly 

underestimate the energy required to 

charge the battery and can result in 

inflated efficiency levels exceeding 100 

percent. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 9; PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 9; SCE, No. 13 at p. 9) 

AHAM supported the proposed E24

measurement. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 5) 

No other comments were received on 

this issue. 

DOE’s proposed test method would 

have required measuring a full 

discharge and the energy consumed 

during the first 24 hours of the charge. 

As interested parties noted, if the test 

procedure only accounts for the energy 

to charge the battery over the first 24 

hours, it would not capture a full 

‘‘round-trip’’ for those battery chargers 

taking longer than 24 hours to charge. 

Even though the most common 

products that require more than 24 

hours to charge do not account for a 

large portion of shipments, these 

products will not be accurately tested 

and may result in reporting efficiencies 

greater than 100 percent if the 

measurement period is only 24 hours. 

While DOE acknowledges that varying 

the test duration may create a less than 

uniform approach as well as a 

potentially increased testing burden, the 

need to obtain accurate results is critical 

to ensure the viability of not only the 

procedure that DOE adopts for all 

manufacturers to use, but also to help 

ensure the integrity of whatever energy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31770 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

conservation standards that DOE may 

set for these products. Therefore, to 

make certain that accurate results are 

obtained, DOE is modifying its proposal 

by requiring that the full round-trip be 

accounted during testing and that the 

measurements are taken over the entire 

duration of the charge test, even if that 

time period exceeds 24 hours. 

C. Review of Battery Charger and 

External Power Supply Standby and Off 

Mode Test Procedures 

1. Battery Charger Test Procedure Off 

Mode Definition 

DOE sought comments on the existing 

standby and off mode test procedures 

for battery chargers. 75 FR 16958, 

16962. Section 2.k. of appendix Y 

defines off mode as: ‘‘The condition, 

applicable only to units with manual 

on-off switches, in which the battery 

charger is (1) connected to the main 

electricity supply; (2) is not connected 

to the battery; and (3) all manual on-off 

switches are turned off.’’ 

DOE received comments with regard 

to this proposed definition and how it 

applies to integral batteries in the off 

mode test procedure. PG&E suggested 

that the off-mode definition should be 

rewritten to allow off mode to be 

measured even if the battery is internal 

and cannot be removed. (PG&E, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at pp. 23–24) PG&E 

added that a large number of battery 

chargers can have an off mode even if 

the battery is still connected, noting that 

battery chargers can be equipped with 

an on/off switch. ASAP, PG&E, and SCE 

cited a computer UPS as an example of 

a such charger in which the battery is 

not usually removed, but is equipped 

with an on-off switch. (ASAP, No. 11 at 

p. 13; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 

13 at p. 13) PG&E added that the off 

mode of these types of chargers should 

be tested even if the battery cannot be 

disconnected. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at p. 188) Therefore, ASAP, PG&E, 

and SCE all recommended that off mode 

be tested for all battery chargers with an 

on-off switch. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 13; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 13 at 

p. 13). 

Section 310 of EISA 2007 defined ‘‘off 

mode’’ as ‘‘the condition in which an 

energy-using product–(I) is connected to 

a main power source; and (II) is not 

providing any standby or active mode 

function.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295 (gg)(1)(A)(ii)) 

For the purposes of this test procedure, 

the ‘‘energy-using product’’ is the battery 

charger itself and not the end-use 

product into which that battery charger 

is integrated. This distinction is 

important to note because on-off 

switches are frequently used for the 

end-use product and not the battery 

charger. Therefore, to be completely 

unambiguous and ensure that only off 

mode power for the battery charger. and 

not the end-use product, is being 

measured, DOE believes it is necessary 

that the battery must be detachable from 

the end-use product. By removing the 

battery from the battery charger, the 

technician can be certain that any power 

consumed by the battery charger is not 

attributable to any standby or active 

mode function that the battery charger 

may have otherwise still been providing 

despite turning off the end-use product. 

Consequently, DOE is declining to 

expand its definition of off mode to 

encompass products with nondetachable batteries. 

2. Test Duration 

DOE proposed to shorten the current 

warm-up period from one hour to 30 

minutes used in the standby and off 

mode test procedures. Compare 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix Y, sec. 

(c)(1) with 75 FR 16985 (proposed 

sections 5.11 and 5.12). Additionally, 

DOE proposed to have this 30-minute 

warm-up period followed by a 10- 

minute measurement period. DOE 

proposed this approach, in part, to help 

harmonize DOE’s standby and off mode 

measurement procedures with sections 

IV.B and IV.C in part 1 of the CEC test 

procedure and to reduce testing burden 

while maintaining accuracy. 75 FR 

16958, 16962. 

Commenters had varying opinions on 

the issue. Delta-Q ‘‘mildly agreed’’ with 

the proposed changes to standby and off 

mode duration and believed that there 

would be no significant impact from the 

proposed change. (Delta-Q, No. 5 at p. 

2) Alternatively, AHAM suggested that 

the warm-up period should last an hour 

to maintain the accuracy of the data. 

(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) 

As stated in the NOPR, abbreviating 

the measurement period from 1 hour to 

10 minutes will not affect the accuracy 

of the test because the amended test 

procedures would retain a 30-minute 

warm up period. Variations in 

component efficiency due to 

temperature are the most common 

reason for changes in battery charger 

energy consumption in standby and off 

modes, and the 30-minute warm-up 

period will remain sufficient to permit 

the input power of most battery chargers 

to stabilize. 75 FR 16958, 16962. DOE 

recognizes that further instabilities 

(pulses) in energy consumption in 

standby and off modes may be caused 

by periodic operation of certain battery 

charger functions, as when a battery 

charger occasionally checks its output 

for the presence of the battery. In 

general, there is always a potential for 

a time-limited test procedure to fail to 

capture a behavior occurring at an 

arbitrary time. DOE has conducted 

numerous tests to analyze this issue and 

has not encountered any cases where 

the product does not stabilize within the 

allotted 30-minute time period. (Battery 

Charger Standby Tests, No. 18.2) 

Accordingly, DOE believes that the 30- 

minute warm-up period is sufficient for 

testing battery chargers and is adopting 

its proposed approach in today’s final 

rule. 

D. Review of the Single-Voltage External 

Power Supply Test Procedure 

1. External Power Supplies That 

Communicate With Their Loads 

DOE requested comments on testing 

external power supplies that 

communicate with their loads, 

specifically with regard to allowing 

manufacturers to supply test jigs (i.e., 

physical connection adapters to permit 

testers to help identify which electrical 

leads to use when taking a 

measurement) to properly measure these 

products. 75 FR 16973 and 16979. 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE recommended 

that DOE create a standard test jig for 

external power supplies that 

communicate with their loads via USB 

protocol and that manufacturers supply 

test jigs for non-standard protocols. 

(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 14; PG&E, No. 12 

at p. 14; SCE, No. 13 at p. 14) They also 

recommended that for proprietary or 

custom communication protocols, 

manufacturers should submit an 

external power supply test jig so that the 

product can be tested and will not be 

exempt from the standard because it 

cannot be tested. In their view, if the jig 

is not supplied, the efficiency value 

should be zero, and the external power 

supply would not meet the standard. 

(ASAP, No. 11 at p. 14; PG&E, No. 12 

at p. 14; SCE, No. 13 at p. 14). 

Alternatively, Sony recommended 

excluding USBs from the external power 

supply test procedure because including 

them would result in additional burden 

and increased testing costs to 

manufacturers. (Sony, No. 6 at p. 2). 

DOE notes that to the extent that a 

particular product cannot be tested 

under the prescribed procedure, a 

manufacturer would be able to seek a 

test procedure waiver in order to be able 

to test and rate that product. See 10 CFR 

430.27. Without such a rating, a 

manufacturer would be unable to sell 

that product in the United States. 42 

U.S.C. 6302(a)(5). With respect to the 

final rule DOE is adopting today, the 

test procedure will permit 

manufacturers to supply test jigs that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31771 

can accurately measure the energy 

consumption of their external power 

supplies. It is DOE’s understanding that 

these jigs are straightforward adapters 

that would allow technicians to 

determine which output connectors 

from the external power supply are 

providing output power. These jigs 

would also allow the technician to 

simulate normal operating conditions if 

any communication with the device is 

necessary. DOE does not believe that the 

allowance of such devices will lead to 

gaming of the test procedure because the 

jig should be a simple, non-powered 

device. This approach is preferable to 

the approach suggested by Sony because 

it avoids the exclusion of products from 

coverage. This approach will also 

ensure that DOE obtains accurate and 

consistent test results and allows 

products to be tested that otherwise 

might have required waivers. 

2. External Power Supplies With Output 

Current Limiting 

DOE sought comment regarding the 

treatment of external power supplies 

with an output current limiting 

capability. ‘‘Output current limiting’’ is 

a mode of operation where an external 

power supply significantly lowers its 

output voltage once an internal output 

limit has been exceeded. These external 

power supplies cannot be loaded at 100 

percent of rated nameplate output 

current. 75 FR 16958, 16962. 

PTI offered two recommendations on 

this issue. First, it recommended that 

DOE require that the measurement be 

made and recorded at a 100 percent 

load. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 

196) Second, PTI recommended that if 

the external power supply cannot be 

loaded at the 100 percent load point 

then it should not be tested at that load 

point. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 

204) PTI did not offer an appropriate 

load point under that scenario. ASAP, 

PG&E and SCE recommended that DOE 

alter its proposal and require testing of 

external power supplies with lower than 

expected output current limiting levels 

at three standard load points (25, 50, 

and 75 percent) and include an option 

to modify the 100 percent load point to 

95 percent. These commenters believe 

that the 95 percent option will account 

for some manufacturer variation that 

might exist because of current limiting 

circuitry that is occasionally present in 

external power supplies to prevent a 

short circuit. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 15; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 15; SCE, No. 13 at 

p. 15) 

SAP, PG&E and SCE recommended 

that the following approach should be 

used (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 15; SCE, No. 

13 at p. 15; PG&E, No. 12 at p. 15): 

(1) After the warm-up, load the 

product at 100 percent of rated output 

current. 

(2) If the external power supply will 

not supply 100 percent of the nameplate 

output current (assumed because of the 

current limiting function), then the 

external power supply shall be tested at 

95 percent rated output current. 

(3) If the external power supply 

supplies current at 95 percent rated 

output current, then the efficiency at the 

100 percent loading point shall be 

recorded as the efficiency at the 95 

percent loading point to permit some 

variation. 

(4) If the external power supply will 

not supply 100 percent or 95 percent of 

the rated output current, then the 

efficiency measured at 100 percent shall 

be recorded as 0. 

(5) Move on to other loading points 

(75, 50, and 25) in the procedure. If the 

external power supply cannot supply 

current at the other loading points, they 

should all be marked 0. 

PTI commented that external power 

supplies that do not reach 100 percent 

load are likely designed to ensure that 

they are not affected by the early cutoff 

of the wall adapter. They likely only 

make excursions at those current levels 

on a transitory basis. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 203) PTI added that 

it is possible that wall adapters that are 

unable to meet 100 percent of nameplate 

output power had charge control and 

were not external power supplies. (PTI, 

Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at. 199) 

Alternatively, AHAM informed DOE 

that some external power supplies will 

not reach 100 percent because the 

manufacturer rates them higher to reach 

a maximum value for temperature 

purposes such that the product will 

never reach the value under the worst 

situations. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 

2 at p. 201) AHAM further commented 

that nameplate ratings are not used for 

energy efficiency purposes, but for 

safety certification. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at pp. 200–201) 

If an external power supply cannot 

sustain output current at 100 percent 

load during testing, then it will not 

operate at 100 percent load with its 

associated application. Incorporating 

the 100 percent loading point into the 

metric for these units would be 

inconsistent with how they are used in 

consumer environments. Therefore, 

DOE is not requiring an efficiency 

measurement at that loading point as 

part of the average efficiency metric. 

Instead, the average efficiency of 

products that cannot maintain 100 

percent output load will be the average 

of the efficiencies at 25 percent, 50 

percent, and 75 percent of full load 

only. Appropriate changes to section 

4(a)(i) of appendix Z to subpart B of part 

430 have been made for today’s final 

rule. 

3. High-Power External Power Supplies 

As mentioned above, the current 

external power supply test procedure in 

appendix Z requires the nameplate 

output current to be used to calculate 

the loading points for efficiency 

measurements. See section 4(a)(i) of 

Appendix Z to subpart B of part 430 

(referencing CEC’s ‘‘Test Method for 

Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 

Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc and AcAc Power supplies’’). DOE sought 

comments on what should be done in 

those instances where a manufacturer 

lists more than one maximum output 

power for a given high-power external 

power supply. In particular, DOE sought 

comment on whether it should modify 

the definition of ‘‘output power’’ to 

specify that the continuous output 

current should be used when more than 

one maximum output is provided. 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE recommended 

that DOE test both intermittent and 

continuous load conditions for high 

power external power supplies. They 

commented that when ham radios 

(amateur wireless radios) are 

transmitting, the higher (intermittent) 

rating is more applicable, and when the 

radio is receiving, the lower 

(continuous) rating is more applicable. 

They believe that the intermittent 

portion of the external power supply 

may be used from 20 percent to 50 

percent of the time, which, in their 

view, constitutes a significant portion of 

operating time. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 16; 

PG&E, No. 12 at p. 16; SCE, No. 13 at 

p. 16) 

DOE notes that testing a high-power 

external power supply at its advertised 

intermittent output power would be 

inconsistent with its typical use, since 

the external power supply test 

procedure requires operating the 

external power supply at full load for 30 

minutes, whereas the high-power 

external power supply only operates at 

intermittent output power for 

substantially shorter periods of time. 

Further, DOE believes that operating the 

external power supply for 30 minutes at 

its intermittent output power might 

damage the external power supply due 

to overheating, because the external 

power supply is only designed to 

operate at the higher level for brief 

intermittent intervals. Therefore, in the 

case where more than one output 

current is listed, DOE is requiring that 

the external power supply be tested at 

only the continuous loading conditions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31772 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

4. Active Power 

DOE proposed to incorporate a 

definition for battery charger ‘‘active 

power’’ into section 2 of appendix Y. 75 

FR 16958, 16973. This definition would 

provide that ‘‘active power’’ as meaning 

‘‘the average power consumed by a 

unit.’’ Id. at 16980. DOE proposed this 

definition because of related proposals 

to measure the power consumption of a 

battery charger during active mode. DOE 

did not receive any comments on the 

definition it proposed in its NOPR. 

Therefore, in the absence of any 

comments, and to ensure the viability 

and completeness of the active mode 

procedure, DOE is incorporating its 

proposed definition into its regulations. 

E. Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply Test Procedure 

In 2008, DOE first proposed a test 

procedure for multiple-voltage external 

power supplies as part of its NOPR test 

procedure for standby and off modes for 

single-voltage external power supplies. 

See 73 FR 48054. That proposal detailed 

an approach that would have required 

measuring efficiency levels at no-load, 

25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, and 

100 percent of nameplate output, but 

result in a single average efficiency 

measurement. Id. at 48082. In 2009, 

DOE finalized its test procedure for 

standby and off modes, but in light of 

substantial concerns raised by 

commenters, it did not incorporate a 

procedure to accommodate multiplevoltage external power supplies. See 74 

FR 13318, 13322. DOE re-proposed the 

incorporation of a multiple-voltage 

external power supply procedure as part 

of this rulemaking proposal. This more 

recent proposal specified an approach 

that would require measurements at 

each loading point. 75 FR 16958, 16974. 

PG&E supported the creation of a 

separate multi-voltage external power 

supply test procedure so long as it 

would not impact the current singlevoltage external power supply test 

procedure already in use. (PG&E, No. 2 

at p. 15) ASAP, SCE, and PG&E also 

accepted DOE’s proposed measurement 

and reporting method for multiplevoltage output external power supplies, 

but encouraged DOE to evenly weight 

the 25-percent, 50-percent, 75-percent, 

and 100-percent loading conditions in 

any forthcoming standards. (ASAP, No. 

11 at p. 16; SCE, No. 13 at p. 16; PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 16) 

AHAM objected to DOE’s proposal to 

report five efficiency metrics for 

external power supplies without 

aggregating them. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 

211) AHAM further commented 

‘‘* * * ‘a test procedure for covered 

products should measure energy 

efficiency,’ ’’ and that this action is 

inconsistent with the direction of 

section 323 of EPCA. (AHAM, No. 2 at 

p. 219). AHAM also commented that it 

may make more sense to measure 

multiple-voltage external power 

supplies at values representative of 

typical loading rather than 25, 50, 75, 

and 100 percent of full load. (AHAM, 

No. 2 at pp. 212–213) 

Although AHAM expressed concern 

over the multiple-voltage test procedure, 

outputting separate metrics creates a 

method similar to that for battery 

chargers. Adopting an approach that 

parallels the battery charger method is 

preferable because of the similar nature 

of these two products and the potential 

variation of use from consumer to 

consumer that can be expected. Again, 

as with the battery charger test 

procedure (see section III.B.5.a), DOE 

may combine them for purposes of 

determining compliance with any 

energy conservation standard that may 

be set. 

F. Test Procedure Amendments Not 

Incorporated in this Final Rule 

1. Incorporating Usage Profiles 

DOE proposed to amend the battery 

charger test procedure to measure 

energy consumption in each mode, 

which would more readily permit 

comparisons between a greater number 

of test results. 75 FR 16958, 16974. 

PG&E supported this approach and 

stated that DOE is moving in the right 

direction by outputting multiple 

measures rather than a single one 

because this allows the different usage 

of products to be taken into account. 

(PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 51). 

PG&E also commented that having 

multiple outputs may create a test 

procedure that can easily be harmonized 

across jurisdictions. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at pp. 14–15) Similarly, 

ASAP, PG&E, and SCE supported DOE’s 

approach. (ASAP, No. 11 at p. 13; PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 13; SCE, No. 13 at p. 13) 

Other commenters preferred that the 

test procedure combine all 

measurements into a single metric. 

AHAM stated that DOE should integrate 

energy consumption from active, 

maintenance, and no-battery mode 

through usage factors required by law. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 48) 

AHAM also supported incorporating 

usage profiles, stating that having one 

value will help a consumer to choose 

between product A and product B based 

on energy efficiency. (AHAM, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 56) AHAM commented 

that ‘‘it is incumbent upon DOE to make 

available an aggregate energy use 

number of the energy use or energy 

efficiency of a battery charger that is 

‘ * * * representative of typical use.’ ’’ 

(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 3) AHAM noted 

that, in reference to the periodic (sevenyear) review of a given test procedure 

that DOE must conduct in accordance 

with 42 U.S.C. 6293(b), the procedure 

should include usage factors in order to 

improve the current procedure and to 

allow the test procedure to stand for 

seven more years. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 

3) ‘‘All energy from active, maintenance, 

and no-battery modes should have 

factors of usage applied to them and 

then aggregated to arrive at one value.’’ 

(AHAM, No. 10 at p. 3) 

PTI commented that the disaggregated 

data do not represent the typical use of 

the product as accurately as a combined 

metric would. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 

2 at p. 48) PTI preferred that the test 

procedure result in a metric that tells 

the consumer something about the 

overall efficiency of the product, 

because, when it becomes effective, 

representations of energy use based on 

other test procedures will become 

invalid. (PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at 

p. 50) PTI commented that ‘‘[w]hile 

active mode must be included in the test 

procedure, it should be included in a 

manner that generates a proportioned, 

aggregated value, consistent with the 

philosophy expressed in the existing 

test procedure, and [be] in line with the 

Department’s obligation to produce a 

procedure that reflects typical use.’’ 

(PTI, No. 8 at p. 2) PTI further stated 

that an aggregation ‘‘will not reflect 

every particular user, but would rather 

represent an average of use. This 

[approach] would not be consistent with 

the requirement to have the test 

procedure reflect ‘typical’ use.’’ (PTI, 

No. 8 at p. 2) PTI suggested that DOE 

should ‘‘have a series of ratios, by 

product category, that can be used to 

aggregate the quantities in the proposed 

test procedure.’’ (PTI, No. 8 at p. 2) ‘‘By 

DOE issuing the current [proposed] test 

procedure as a national test, it permits 

entities to use a test procedure in a 

manner that does not reflect typical use 

or DOE’s intent.’’ (PTI, No. 8 at p. 2) 

Phillips stated that the ‘‘only way for 

the test procedure to be representative 

of typical use is to have the test 

procedure utilize use patterns of 

representative classes of battery 

chargers.’’ (Phillips, No. 7 at p. 2) 

Phillips also commented that it is 

essential that the test procedure require 

the typical energy use factors 

established by the Department for 

particular categories of products. 

(Phillips, No. 7 at p. 2) Phillips 

supported ‘‘AHAM’s position to have 

the test procedure aggregate energy use 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31773 

16A notation in the form ‘‘Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 

at pp. 162–164’’ identifies DOE’s explanation of this 

issue during the July 16, 2009, framework 

document public meeting. This explanation and 

comments received were recorded in the public 

meeting transcript in the docket of the BC and EPS 

energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket 

No. EERE–2008–BT– STD–0005, RIN 1904–AB57), 

maintained in the Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program and available at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/bceps_

standards_meeting_transcript.pdf. 

17U.S. Department of Energy–Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer Products 

Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking for 

Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies. May 

2009. Washington, DC. Available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/bceps_

frameworkdocument.pdf. 

18See id. 

data.’’ (Phillips, No. 7 at p. 3) According 

to Phillips, the ENERGY STAR 

specifications for battery charger do not 

require measuring output energy use in 

each mode, which it believes 

demonstrates that these measurements 

are not of significant interest to 

consumers. (Phillips, No. 7 at p. 3) 

Wahl Clipper stated that the test 

procedure should measure the energy 

consumption of products representative 

of typical use. This measurement, in its 

view, should be an aggregated number 

of the active, standby, and maintenance 

modes, which is representative of the 

typical use for that product category. 

(Wahl Clipper, No. 9, at p. 1) 

AHAM cited other test procedures 

and commented that for a number of 

appliances, the usage factors are in the 

test procedure such that they output one 

metric. Usage factors are used in this 

way in test procedures for washing 

machines and refrigeration cycling, and 

are being proposed for clothes dryers. 

(AHAM, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 58) 

AHAM specifically cited the clothes 

washer test procedure, from which a 

single MEF (modified energy factor) 

value is derived that is based on choices 

of cycles and percentage of wash loads 

going to a dryer. The standard is then 

set against the MEF value. (AHAM, No. 

10 at p. 3) 

PTI stated that the test procedure 

should indicate that it is intended to be 

used with usage profiles in the standard 

to ensure that the data are not misused. 

(PTI, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 172) 

Phillips suggested that the battery 

charger usage profiles should either be 

in the test procedure or the test 

procedure should include a reference 

explaining that the usage factors are in 

the standard. (Phillips, Pub. Mtg. Tran., 

No. 2 at p. 240) PTI added that DOE 

should ‘‘indicate clearly that the test 

procedure is only intended to be used 

with the suggested ratios and shall not 

be used until they become available. As 

soon as the ratios are developed, DOE 

should update its test procedure and 

reissue it with the ratios incorporated.’’ 

(PTI, No. 8 at p. 2) 

Commenters also expressed a variety 

of views regarding the disseminating of 

product usage information. PG&E 

commented that consumers know how 

they use their products. If the test 

procedure outputs a separate metric for 

each mode, consumers will know which 

number they should check when 

comparing energy consumption levels 

among products. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 54) AHAM was 

concerned that consumers may not 

know how their products are used and 

argued that DOE should give the 

consumer a single value representing a 

product’s average, or approximate 

average, usage pattern. (AHAM, Pub. 

Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 55) Usage factors 

applied against an aggregated value will 

give the consumer accurate information 

on how the product is used. (AHAM, 

Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 53) PG&E 

similarly stated that manufacturers may 

not be able to give accurate estimates of 

how much time their product spends in 

each mode annually. (PG&E, Pub. Mtg. 

Tran., No. 2 at p. 54) An aggregation 

based on calculated averages does not, 

in its view, help the consumer 

determine what amount of energy their 

particular usage pattern will consume. 

(PG&E, Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 54) 

AHAM emphasized that consumers 

need a single piece of information on 

energy efficiency so that products can 

be compared. (AHAM, No. 10 at p. 3) 

Phillips cited section 6 of the draft 

technical report that accompanied the 

battery charger and external power 

supply framework document and 

described the usage of its own products. 

Phillips generally supported the 

approach taken by DOE to examine 

usage patterns. It noted, in reference to 

its own products (notably, electric 

shavers), that there cannot be a 

meaningful energy reduction for 

products that ‘‘have limited usage 

patterns [that spend] most, if not close 

to all of their time in unplugged mode.’’ 

(Phillips, No. 7 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that the relevant statute 

permits DOE to promulgate a test 

procedure that either produces 

measurements of energy use or 

efficiency (neither of which would 

require usage profile data) or the 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

product (which would require usage 

profile data). Specifically, test 

procedures should ‘‘be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

measure energy efficiency, energy use, 

water use (in the case of showerheads, 

faucets, water closets, or urinals), or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product under a representative 

average use cycle or period of use 

***’’ 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) The 

procedure DOE is promulgating today 

satisfies this requirement by producing 

a measurement of energy usage. 

Accordingly, energy usage profiles, as 

suggested by some commenters, are 

unnecessary for DOE to use in 

developing this test procedure. 

2. Measuring Charger Output Energy 

During the framework document 

public meeting, DOE suggested the 

possible approach of including a 

procedure that would require measuring 

the charger output energy rather than 

the battery output energy in order to 

calculate the total energy consumed by 

the battery charger during charging 16

(Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at pp. 162–164). 

(DOE believed at the time that 

measuring energy consumption at the 

charger output, thereby bypassing the 

battery, could remove some of the 

variability from the measurement. 

Commenters were unified in opposition 

to this change and it was not proposed 

in the NOPR. During the NOPR public 

meeting, AHAM agreed with DOE’s 

decision to drop this approach. (AHAM, 

No. 10 at p. 7) 

3. Alternative Depth-of-Discharge 

Measurement 

In its NOPR, DOE discussed the 

possibility of requiring that battery 

chargers be tested with batteries at the 

100 percent depth-of-discharge level. 75 

FR 16958, 16975. DOE proposed this 

approach in response to comments that 

critiqued the initial approach DOE had 

considered using, which DOE described 

during the framework document public 

meeting (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at pp. 

162–164).17 During that stage, DOE 

discussed the possibility of testing 

battery chargers with batteries at 40 

percent depth-of-discharge, meaning 

that they would contain a 60 percent 

charge. Commenters opposed this 

earlier approach because it would 

unnecessarily complicate the test 

procedure and be an assumption of 

typical use that would be hard to 

substantiate. 75 FR 16958, 16975. See 

also Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 14 at pp. 195– 

196, 199–200, 201, 206; PG&E et al., No. 

20 at p. 16.18

AHAM agreed with DOE’s removal of 

the 40 percent depth-of-discharge 

measurement, saying that DOE should 

not require measurements at multiple 

depths of discharge. (AHAM, No. 2 at p. 

175; AHAM, No. 10 at p. 7) 

Alternatively, Euro-Pro noted that if 

batteries are only measured at 100 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31774 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

percent depth-of-discharge, the energy 

use of batteries with protective circuitry 

that prevents them from reaching that 

depth may not be able to be accurately 

measured. (Euro-Pro, No. 2 at p. 177) 

They also commented that products that 

will not permit a 100-percent depth-ofdischarge level when being used by 

consumers may achieve better energy 

use ratings than they deserve. This is 

because they will never be able to reach 

a 100-percent depth-of-discharge level, 

yet the test procedure will test them at 

this level. As a result, the test will 

measure the presence of more energy to 

be recovered from the battery than can 

be used by the consumer. (Euro-Pro, 

Pub. Mtg. Tran., No. 2 at p. 179) 

DOE acknowledges the comments 

from interested parties. DOE believes 

that by following the outlined test 

procedure, including the preparatory 

discharge step, products will not 

inadvertently achieve better energy use 

ratings than what they are capable of 

achieving when in actual use in the 

field. The UUT will be taken from a 

known state of discharge, charged, and 

then discharged back to the known 

state, which ensures that a product’s 

energy consumption will be appropriate 

for its design and capabilities. By 

following this procedure, it should be 

physically impossible to get more 

energy out of the battery during the 

measured discharge than what was put 

in during the measured charge and 

maintenance mode test. Therefore, as 

discussed in the NOPR, DOE will not 

incorporate testing at alternative levels 

of depths-of-discharge. Requiring testing 

at only 100 percent depth-of-discharge 

also promotes consistent testing across 

products, making it easy to compare 

products and reducing the testing 

burden on manufacturers. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996) requires 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis for any rule that, by 

law, must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. A 

regulatory flexibility analysis examines 

the impact of the rule on small entities 

and considers alternative ways of 

reducing negative effects. Also, 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 impact 

of its rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the DOE rulemaking 

process. 68 FR 7990. DOE made its 

procedures and policies available on the 

Office of the General Counsel’s Web site 

at http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE identified producers of products 

covered by this rulemaking that have 

manufacturing facilities located within 

the United States and could be 

considered small entities by searching 

the SBA Web site to identify 

manufacturers within the applicable 

NAICS code. After examining this 

information, DOE ascertained that many 

of the companies that manufacture these 

products are large multinational 

corporations with more than 500 

employees. DOE also identified some 

small businesses that could potentially 

be manufacturers of covered products. 

DOE notes that with respect to battery 

charger and multiple-voltage external 

power supply manufacturers, there are 

currently no standards in place for these 

products for manufacturers to meet. 

Accordingly, manufacturers are under 

no obligation to use these procedures 

until DOE prescribes standards for 

them. As for the changes to the singlevoltage external power supply 

procedure, these proposed amendments 

will reduce the overall burden to 

manufacturers and provide a means to 

test more complex devices. 

After reviewing its proposal, DOE had 

tentatively concluded that two aspects 

of the proposal may result in some 

increased testing burden for 

manufacturers generally: the revision of 

the battery charger test procedure to 

include a test for battery chargers 

operating in active mode and the 

addition of a test procedure for 

multiple-voltage external power 

supplies. 

DOE anticipates, however, that adding 

an active mode battery charger test 

procedure will not be likely to cause a 

significant burden to small 

manufacturers because the steps in the 

active mode test procedure that DOE is 

promulgating in this rule already exist 

in the current DOE test procedure. The 

additional step that this rule will 

require will be the recording of certain 

values during one of those steps. 

Additionally, this rule is based largely 

on procedures already implemented by 

the State of California that are already 

followed by the industry. By basing its 

rule on these established procedures, 

DOE anticipates little, if any, 

incremental increase in testing cost or 

burden from this rulemaking. 

Manufacturers are familiar with the 

steps detailed in the procedure being 

adopted today and should already have 

the necessary equipment to conduct 

these tests. 

Similarly, the addition of a multiplevoltage external power supply test 

procedure will not have a significant 

impact on small businesses since these 

devices are manufactured almost 

exclusively by businesses that exceed 

the small business size threshold for 

this category. Further, the multiplevoltage external power supply test 

procedure being adopted today is nearly 

identical to the single-voltage external 

power supply procedure already in 

place that manufacturers must follow. 

This procedure was not noted by 

interested parties as being burdensome 

by small businesses. 

In addition to the relatively modest 

changes introduced by today’s rule to 

the existing test procedure that 

manufacturers are already using, 

manufacturers will only be required to 

test products that are subject to energy 

conservation standards. Currently, there 

are no standards in place for battery 

chargers or multiple-voltage external 

power supplies. Until energy 

conservation standards are adopted, no 

entities, small or large, would be 

required to comply with the proposed 

battery charger and external power 

supply test procedures. As a result, in 

light of all of the above factors, DOE 

believes that today’s rule would not 

have a ‘‘significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.’’ 

The amendments discussed in this 

final rule affecting Class A external 

power supplies, which are covered by 

statutorily-set standards, do not 

significantly change the existing test 

procedure used to measure the energy 

output of these devices. DOE does not 

expect these amendments to impose a 

significant new testing and compliance 

burden. Therefore, these amendments 

also would be unlikely to have 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE has provided its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31775 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of battery chargers and 

external power supplies must certify to 

DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standard. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the applicable 

DOE test procedure, including any 

amendments adopted for that test 

procedure. DOE has adopted regulations 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including battery chargers and external 

power supplies. 76 FR 12442 (March 7, 

2011). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping has been approved by 

OMB under control number 1910–1400. 

The public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 20 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

In this final rule, DOE amends its test 

procedures for battery chargers and 

external power supplies. These 

amendments will enable manufacturers 

to test the energy consumption of 

battery chargers while charging batteries 

and reduce the amount of testing time 

during standby and off mode testing. 

The amendments also provide a method 

by which to test those external power 

supplies that are equipped with USB 

outputs as well as those power supplies 

that are of the multi-voltage type. These 

amendments, where applicable, will 

also be used to develop and implement 

future energy conservation standards for 

battery chargers and external power 

supplies. After carefully considering the 

nature and impacts of this rule, DOE has 

determined that this final rule falls into 

a class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without changing its 

environmental effect, and, therefore, is 

covered by the categorical exclusion 

contained in 10 CFR part 1021, subpart 

D, paragraph A5. The exclusion applies 

because this rule establishes revisions to 

existing test procedures that will not 

affect the amount, quality, or 

distribution of energy usage, and, 

therefore, will not result in any 

environmental impacts. Accordingly, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this rule and has determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of state regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of today’s rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the rule meets 

the relevant standards of Executive 

Order 12988. 

G. Review Under Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. For 

proposed regulatory actions likely to 

result in a rule that may cause 

expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish estimates of 

the resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) UMRA also requires 

Federal agencies to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by 

elected officers of State, local, and 

Tribal governments on a proposed 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate.’’ In addition, UMRA requires 

an agency plan for giving notice and 

opportunity for timely input to small 

governments that may be affected before 

establishing a requirement that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is 

also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). 

Today’s rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31776 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any 

proposed rule that may affect family 

well-being. Today’s rule will not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is unnecessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this rule will 

not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; 44 U.S.C. 

3516 note) provides for agencies to 

review most disseminations of 

information to the public under 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any proposed 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any proposed 

significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use if the regulation is 

implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Today’s regulatory 

action is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

it is not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), DOE must 

comply with section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

(Pub. L. 93–275), as amended by the 

Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95– 

70). (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 provides 

that, where a proposed rule authorizes 

or requires use of commercial standards, 

the rulemaking must inform the public 

of the use and background of such 

standards. In addition, section 32(c) 

requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) about the effect of 

the commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

DOE has evaluated these revised 

standards, which are based on testing 

protocols developed and adopted by the 

State of California. The specific sections 

from the CEC procedure that today’s 

rule incorporates into the test procedure 

are from Part 1 of the test procedure, 

with some modifications for clarity. 

After examining the public record 

related to the promulgation of these 

requirements by the CEC, DOE believes 

that these procedures were developed in 

a manner that fully provided for public 

participation, comment, and review 

from all interested parties. Additionally, 

DOE has consulted with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the affect on competition of 

requiring manufacturers to use the test 

methods contained in these standards, 

and neither objected to the 

incorporation of these standards. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s rule before its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 801(2). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. In § 430.23 revise paragraph (aa) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(aa) Battery Chargers. Upon the 

effective date of any energy 

conservation standard for battery 

chargers governing active and 

maintenance mode energy consumption, 

the 24-hour energy consumption of a 

battery charger in active and 

maintenance modes, expressed in watthours, and the power consumption of a 

battery charger in maintenance mode, 

expressed in watts, shall be measured in 

accordance with section 5.10 of 

appendix Y of this subpart. The power 

consumption of a battery charger in 

standby mode and off mode, expressed 

in watts, shall be measured in 

accordance with sections 5.11 and 5.12, 

respectively, of appendix Y of this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 

430 is revised to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31777 

1For clarity on any other terminology used in the 

test method, please refer to IEEE Standard 1515– 

2000. 

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Battery 

Chargers 

The provisions of this appendix are 

effective on the compliance date of any 

energy conservation standard for battery 

chargers. 

1. Scope 

This appendix covers the test requirements 

used to measure battery charger energy 

consumption for battery chargers operating at 

either DC or United States AC line voltage 

(115V at 60Hz). 

2. Definitions 

The following definitions are for the 

purposes of explaining the terminology 

associated with the test method for 

measuring battery charger energy 

consumption.1

2.1. Active mode or charge mode is the 

state in which the battery charger system is 

connected to the main electricity supply, and 

the battery charger is delivering current, 

equalizing the cells, and performing other 

one-time or limited-time functions in order to 

bring the battery to a fully charged state. 

2.2. Active power or real power (P) means 

the average power consumed by a unit. For 

a two terminal device with current and 

voltage waveforms i(t) and v(t), which are 

periodic with period T, the real or active 

power P is: 

2.3. Ambient temperature is the 

temperature of the ambient air immediately 

surrounding the unit under test. 

2.4. Apparent power (S) is the product of 

root-mean-square (RMS) voltage and RMS 

current in volt-amperes (VA). 

2.5. Batch charger is a battery charger that 

charges two or more identical batteries 

simultaneously in a series, parallel, seriesparallel, or parallel-series configuration. A 

batch charger does not have separate voltage 

or current regulation, nor does it have any 

separate indicators for each battery in the 

batch. When testing a batch charger, the term 

‘‘battery’’ is understood to mean, collectively, 

all the batteries in the batch that are charged 

together. A charger can be both a batch 

charger and a multi-port charger or multivoltage charger. 

2.6. Battery or battery pack is an assembly 

of one or more rechargeable cells and any 

integral protective circuitry intended to 

provide electrical energy to a consumer 

product, and may be in one of the following 

forms: (a) Detachable battery (a battery that 

is contained in a separate enclosure from the 

consumer product and is intended to be 

removed or disconnected from the consumer 

product for recharging); or (b) integral battery 

(a battery that is contained within the 

consumer product and is not removed from 

the consumer product for charging purposes). 

The word ‘‘intended’’ in this context refers to 

the whether a battery has been designed in 

such a way as to permit its removal or 

disconnection from its associated consumer 

product. 

2.7. Battery energy is the energy, in watthours, delivered by the battery under the 

specified discharge conditions in the test 

procedure. 

2.8. Battery maintenance mode or 

maintenance mode is the mode of operation 

when the battery charger is connected to the 

main electricity supply and the battery is 

fully charged, but is still connected to the 

charger. 

2.9. Battery rest period is a period of time 

between discharge and charge or between 

charge and discharge, during which the 

battery is resting in an open-circuit state in 

ambient air. 

2.10. C-rate is the rate of charge or 

discharge, calculated by dividing the charge 

or discharge current by the rated charge 

capacity of the battery. 

2.11. Cradle is an electrical interface 

between an integral battery product and the 

rest of the battery charger designed to hold 

the product between uses. 

2.12. Equalization is a process whereby a 

battery is overcharged, beyond what would 

be considered ‘‘normal’’ charge return, so that 

cells can be balanced, electrolyte mixed, and 

plate sulfation removed. 

2.13. Instructions or manufacturer’s 

instructions means the documentation 

packaged with a product in printed or 

electronic form and any information about 

the product listed on a Web site maintained 

by the manufacturer and accessible by the 

general public at the time of the test. It also 

includes any information on the packaging or 

on the product itself. ‘‘Instructions’’ also 

includes any service manuals or data sheets 

that the manufacturer offers to independent 

service technicians, whether printed or in 

electronic form. 

2.14. Measured charge capacity of a battery 

is the product of the discharge current in 

amperes and the time in decimal hours 

required to reach the specified end-ofdischarge voltage. 

2.15. Manual on-off switch is a switch 

activated by the user to control power 

reaching the battery charger. This term does 

not apply to any mechanical, optical, or 

electronic switches that automatically 

disconnect mains power from the battery 

charger when a battery is removed from a 

cradle or charging base, or for products with 

non-detachable batteries that control power 

to the product itself. 

2.16. Multi-port charger means a battery 

charger that charges two or more batteries 

(which may be identical or different) 

simultaneously. The batteries are not 

connected in series or in parallel but with 

each port having separate voltage and/or 

current regulation. If the charger has status 

indicators, each port has its own indicator(s). 

A charger can be both a batch charger and a 

multi-port charger if it is capable of charging 

two or more batches of batteries 

simultaneously and each batch has separate 

regulation and/or indicator(s). 

2.17. Multi-voltage charger is a battery 

charger that, by design, can charge a variety 

of batteries (or batches of batteries, if also a 

batch charger) that are of different rated 

battery voltages. A multi-voltage charger can 

also be a multi-port charger if it can charge 

two or more batteries simultaneously with 

independent voltage and/or current 

regulation. 

2.18. Off mode is the condition, applicable 

only to units with manual on-off switches, in 

which the battery charger: 

(1) Is connected to the main electricity 

supply; 

(2) Is not connected to the battery; and 

(3) All manual on-off switches are turned 

off. 

2.19. Rated battery voltage is specified by 

the manufacturer and typically printed on 

the label of the battery itself. If there are 

multiple batteries that are connected in 

series, the rated battery voltage of the 

batteries is the total voltage of the series 

configuration—that is, the rated voltage of 

each battery multiplied by the number of 

batteries connected in series. Connecting 

multiple batteries in parallel does not affect 

the rated battery voltage. 

2.20. Rated charge capacity is the capacity 

claimed by a manufacturer, on a label or in 

instructions, the battery can store under 

specified test conditions, usually given in 

ampere-hours (Ah) or milliampere-hours 

(mAh) and typically printed on the label of 

the battery itself. If there are multiple 

batteries that are connected in parallel, the 

rated charge capacity of the batteries is the 

total charge capacity of the parallel 

configuration, that is, the rated charge 

capacity of each battery multiplied by the 

number of batteries connected in parallel. 

Connecting multiple batteries in series does 

not affect the rated charge capacity. 

2.21. Rated energy capacity means the 

product (in watt-hours) of the rated battery 

voltage and the rated charge capacity. 

2.22. Standby mode or no-battery mode 

means the condition in which: 

(1) The battery charger is connected to the 

main electricity supply; 

(2) The battery is not connected to the 

charger; and 

(3) For battery chargers with manual on-off 

switches, all such switches are turned on. 

2.23. Total harmonic distortion (THD), 

expressed as a percent, is the root mean 

square (RMS) value of an AC signal after the 

fundamental component is removed and 

interharmonic components are ignored, 

divided by the RMS value of the fundamental 

component. 

2.24. Unit under test (UUT) in this 

appendix refers to the combination of the 

battery charger and battery being tested. 

3. Standard Test Conditions 

3.1. General 

The values that may be measured or 

calculated during the conduct of this test 

procedure have been summarized for easy 

reference in Table 3.1. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER01JN11.020</GPH>
31778 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3.1— LIST OF MEASURED OR CALCULATED VALUES

Name of measured or calculated value Reference Value 

1. Duration of the charge and maintenance mode test ................................................................................ Section 5 .2 

2. Battery Discharge Energy ......................................................................................................................... Section 4 .6 

3. Initial time and power (W) of the input current of connected battery ....................................................... Section 5 .8 

4. Active and Maintenance Mode Energy Consumption ............................................................................... Section 5 .8 

5. Maintenance Mode Power ......................................................................................................................... Section 5 .9 

6. 24 Hour Energy Consumption ................................................................................................................... Section 5 .10 

7. Standby Mode Power ................................................................................................................................ Section 5 .11 

8. Off Mode Power ........................................................................................................................................ Section 5 .12 

3.2. Verifying Accuracy and Precision of 

Measuring Equipment 

a. Measurements of active power of 0.5 W 

or greater shall be made with an uncertainty 

of ≤ 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence 

level. Measurements of active power of less 

than 0.5 W shall be made with an uncertainty 

of ≤ 0.01 W at the 95 percent confidence 

level. The power measurement instrument 

shall, as applicable, have a resolution of: 

(1) 0.01 W or better for measurements up 

to 10 W; 

(2) 0.1 W or better for measurements of 10 

to 100 W; or 

(3) 1 W or better for measurements over 

100 W. 

b. Measurements of energy (Wh) shall be 

made with an uncertainty of ≤ 2 percent at 

the 95 percent confidence level. 

Measurements of voltage and current shall be 

made with an uncertainty of ≤ 1 percent at 

the 95 percent confidence level. 

Measurements of temperature shall be made 

with an uncertainty of ≤ 2 °C at the 95 

percent confidence level. 

c. All equipment used to conduct the tests 

must be selected and calibrated to ensure that 

measurements will meet the above 

uncertainty requirements. For suggestions on 

measuring low power levels, see IEC 62301, 

(Reference for guidance only, see § 430.4) 

especially Section 5.3.2 and Annexes B and 

D. 

3.3. Setting Up the Test Room 

All tests, battery conditioning, and battery 

rest periods shall be carried out in a room 

with an air speed immediately surrounding 

the UUT of ≤ 0.5 m/s. The ambient 

temperature shall be maintained at 20 °C ± 

5 °C throughout the test. There shall be no 

intentional cooling of the UUT such as by use 

of separately powered fans, air conditioners, 

or heat sinks. The UUT shall be conditioned, 

rested, and tested on a thermally nonconductive surface. When not undergoing 

active testing, batteries shall be stored at 

20 °C ± 5 °C. 

3.4. Verifying the UUT’s Input Voltage and 

Input Frequency 

a. If the UUT is intended for operation on 

AC line-voltage input in the United States, it 

shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. If the UUT 

is intended for operation on AC line-voltage 

input but cannot be operated at 115 V at 60 

Hz, it shall not be tested. 

b. If a charger is powered by a low-voltage 

DC or AC input, and the manufacturer 

packages the charger with a wall adapter, 

sells, or recommends an optional wall 

adapter capable of providing that low voltage 

input, then the charger shall be tested using 

that wall adapter and the input reference 

source shall be 115 V at 60 Hz. If the wall 

adapter cannot be operated with AC input 

voltage at 115 V at 60 Hz, the charger shall 

not be tested. 

c. If the UUT is designed for operation only 

on DC input voltage and the provisions of 

paragraph 3.4 (b) above do not apply, it shall 

be tested with one of the following input 

voltages: 5.0 V DC for products drawing 

power from a computer USB port or the 

midpoint of the rated input voltage range for 

all other products. The input voltage shall be 

within ± 1 percent of the above specified 

voltage. 

d. If the input voltage is AC, the input 

frequency shall be within ± 1 percent of the 

specified frequency. The THD of the input 

voltage shall be ≤ 2 percent, up to and 

including the 13th harmonic. The crest factor 

of the input voltage shall be between 1.34 

and 1.49. 

e. If the input voltage is DC, the AC ripple 

voltage (RMS) shall be: 

(1) ≤ 0.2 V for DC voltages up to 10 V; or 

(2) ≤ 2 percent of the DC voltage for DC 

voltages over 10 V. 

Unit Under Test Setup Requirements 

4.1. General Setup 

a. The battery charger system shall be 

prepared and set up in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions, except where 

those instructions conflict with the 

requirements of this test procedure. If no 

instructions are given, then factory or 

‘‘default’’ settings shall be used, or where 

there are no indications of such settings, the 

UUT shall be tested in the condition as it 

would be supplied to an end user. 

b. If the battery charger has user controls 

to select from two or more charge rates (such 

as regular or fast charge) or different charge 

currents, the test shall be conducted at the 

fastest charge rate that is recommended by 

the manufacturer for everyday use, or, failing 

any explicit recommendation, the factorydefault charge rate. If the charger has user 

controls for selecting special charge cycles 

that are recommended only for occasional 

use to preserve battery health, such as 

equalization charge, removing memory, or 

battery conditioning, these modes are not 

required to be tested. The settings of the 

controls shall be listed in the report for each 

test. 

4.2. Selection and Treatment of the Battery 

Charger 

The UUT, including the battery charger 

and its associated battery, shall be new 

products of the type and condition that 

would be sold to a customer. If the battery 

is lead-acid chemistry and the battery is to 

be stored for more than 24 hours between its 

initial acquisition and testing, the battery 

shall be charged before such storage. 

4.3. Selection of Batteries To Use for Testing 

a. For chargers with integral batteries, the 

battery packaged with the charger shall be 

used for testing. For chargers with detachable 

batteries, the battery or batteries to be used 

for testing will vary depending on whether 

there are any batteries packaged with the 

battery charger. 

(1) If batteries are packaged with the 

charger, batteries for testing shall be selected 

from the batteries packaged with the battery 

charger, according to the procedure in 

section 4.3.b. 

(2) If no batteries are packaged with the 

charger, but the instructions specify or 

recommend batteries for use with the 

charger, batteries for testing shall be selected 

from those recommended or specified in the 

instructions, according to the procedure in 

section 4.3.b. 

(3) If no batteries are packaged with the 

charger and the instructions do not specify or 

recommend batteries for use with the 

charger, batteries for testing shall be selected 

from any that are suitable for use with the 

charger, according to the procedure in 

section 4.3.b. 

b. From the detachable batteries specified 

above, the technician shall use Table 4.1 to 

select the batteries to be used for testing 

depending on the type of charger being 

tested. Each row in the table represents a 

mutually exclusive charger type. The 

technician shall find the single applicable 

row for the UUT, and test according to those 

requirements. 

c. A charger is considered as: 

(1) Single-capacity if all associated 

batteries have the same rated charge capacity 

(see definition) and, if it is a batch charger, 

all configurations of the batteries have the 

same rated charge capacity. 

(2) Multi-capacity if there are associated 

batteries or configurations of batteries that 

have different rated charge capacities. 

d. The selected battery or batteries will be 

referred to as the ‘‘test battery’’ and will be 

used through the remainder of this test 

procedure. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31779 

TABLE 4.1—BATTERY SELECTION FOR TESTING

Type of charger Tests to perform 

Multi-voltage Multi-port Multicapacity 

Number 

of tests Battery selection (from all configurations of all associated batteries) 

No ..................... No ..................... No ..................... 1 ....................... Any associated battery. 

No ..................... No ..................... Yes ................... 2 ....................... Lowest charge capacity battery. 

Highest charge capacity battery. 

No ..................... Yes ................... Yes or No ......... 2 ....................... Use only one port and use the minimum number of batteries with 

the lowest rated charge capacity that the charger can charge. 

Use all ports and use the maximum number of identical batteries of 

the highest rated charge capacity the charger can accommodate. 

Yes ................... No ..................... No ..................... 2 ....................... Lowest voltage battery. 

Highest voltage battery. 

Yes ................... Yes to either or both 3 ....................... Of the batteries with the lowest voltage, use the one with the lowest 

charge capacity. Use only one port. 

Of the batteries with the highest voltage, use the one with the lowest charge capacity. Use only one port. 

Use all ports and use the battery or the configuration of batteries 

with the highest total rated energy capacity. 

4.4. Limiting Other Non-Battery-Charger 

Functions 

a. If the battery charger or product 

containing the battery charger does not have 

any additional functions unrelated to battery 

charging, this subsection may be skipped. 

b. Any optional functions controlled by the 

user and not associated with the battery 

charging process (e.g., the answering 

machine in a cordless telephone charging 

base) shall be switched off. If it is not 

possible to switch such functions off, they 

shall be set to their lowest power-consuming 

mode during the test. 

c. If the battery charger takes any 

physically separate connectors or cables not 

required for battery charging but associated 

with its other functionality (such as phone 

lines, serial or USB connections, Ethernet, 

cable TV lines, etc.), these connectors or 

cables shall be left disconnected during the 

testing. 

d. Any manual on-off switches specifically 

associated with the battery charging process 

shall be switched on for the duration of the 

charge, maintenance, and no-battery mode 

tests, and switched off for the off mode test. 

4.5. Accessing the Battery for the Test 

a. The technician may need to disassemble 

the end-use product or battery charger to gain 

access to the battery terminals for the Battery 

Discharge Energy Test in section 5.6. If the 

battery terminals are not clearly labeled, the 

technician shall use a voltmeter to identify 

the positive and negative terminals. These 

terminals will be the ones that give the 

largest voltage difference and are able to 

deliver significant current (0.2 C or 1/hr) into 

a load. 

b. All conductors used for contacting the 

battery must be cleaned and burnished prior 

to connecting in order to decrease voltage 

drops and achieve consistent results. 

c. Manufacturer’s instructions for 

disassembly shall be followed, except those 

instructions that: 

(1) Lead to any permanent alteration of the 

battery charger circuitry or function; 

(2) Could alter the energy consumption of 

the battery charger compared to that 

experienced by a user during typical use, e.g., 

due to changes in the airflow through the 

enclosure of the UUT; or 

(3) Conflict requirements of this test 

procedure. 

d. Care shall be taken by the technician 

during disassembly to follow appropriate 

safety precautions. If the functionality of the 

device or its safety features is compromised, 

the product shall be discarded after testing. 

e. Some products may include protective 

circuitry between the battery cells and the 

remainder of the device. If the manufacturer 

provides a description for accessing the 

connections at the output of the protective 

circuitry, these connections shall be used to 

discharge the battery and measure the 

discharge energy. The energy consumed by 

the protective circuitry during discharge 

shall not be measured or credited as battery 

energy. 

f. If the technician, despite diligent effort 

and use of the manufacturer’s instructions, 

encounters any of the following conditions 

noted immediately below, the Battery 

Discharge Energy and the Charging and 

Maintenance Mode Energy shall be reported 

as ‘‘Not Applicable’’: 

(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. 

4.6. Determining Charge Capacity for 

Batteries With No Rating 

If there is no rating for the battery charge 

capacity on the battery or in the instructions, 

then the technician shall determine a 

discharge current that meets the following 

requirements. The battery shall be fully 

charged and then discharged at this constantcurrent rate until it reaches the end-ofdischarge voltage specified in Table 5.2. The 

discharge time must be not less than 4.5 

hours nor more than 5 hours. In addition, the 

discharge test (Section 5.6) (which may not 

be starting with a fully-charged battery) shall 

reach the end-of-discharge voltage within 5 

hours. The same discharge current shall be 

used for both the preparations step (Section 

5.4) and the discharge test (Section 5.6). The 

test report shall include the discharge current 

used and the resulting discharge times for 

both a fully-charged battery and for the 

discharge test. 

For this section, the battery is considered 

as ‘‘fully charged’’ when either (a) it has been 

charged by the UUT until an indicator on the 

UUT shows that the charge is complete, or 

(b) it has been charged by a battery analyzer 

at a current not greater than the discharge 

current until the battery analyzer indicates 

that the battery is fully charged. 

When there is no capacity rating, a suitable 

discharge current must generally be 

determined by trial and error. Since the 

conditioning step does not require constantcurrent discharges, the trials themselves may 

also be counted as part of battery 

conditioning. 

5. Test Measurement 

The test sequence to measure the battery 

charger energy consumption is summarized 

in Table 5.1, and explained in detail below. 

Measurements shall be made under test 

conditions and with the equipment specified 

in Sections 3 and 4. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31780 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 5.1—TEST SEQUENCE

Step Description Data 

taken? 

Equipment needed 

Test 

battery Charger 

Battery 

analyzer or 

constantcurrent load 

AC power 

meter 

Thermometer 

(for flooded 

lead-acid 

battery 

chargers only) 

1 ....... Record general data on UUT; Section 5.1 ........ Yes ........ X X ........................ ........................ ........................

2 ....... Determine test duration; Section 5.2 ................. No ......... ................ ................ ........................ ........................ ........................

3 ....... Battery conditioning; Section 5.3 ....................... No ......... X X X ........................ ........................

4 ....... Prepare battery for charge test; Section 5.4 ..... No ......... X X ........................ ........................ ........................

5 ....... Battery rest period; Section 5.5 ......................... No ......... X ................ ........................ ........................ X 

6 ....... Conduct Charge Mode and Battery Maintenance Mode Test; Section 5.6.Yes ........ X X ........................ X ........................

7 ....... Battery Rest Period; Section 5.7 ....................... No ......... X ................ ........................ ........................ X 

8 ....... Battery Discharge Energy Test; Section 5.8 ..... Yes ........ X ................ X ........................ ........................

9 ....... Determining the Maintenance Mode Power; 

Section 5.9.

Yes ........ X X ........................ X ........................

10 ..... Calculating the 24–Hour Energy Consumption; 

Section 5.10.

No ......... ................ ................ ........................ ........................ ........................

11 ..... Standby Mode Test; Section 5.11 ..................... Yes ........ ................ X ........................ X ........................

12 ..... Off Mode Test; Section 5.12 .............................. Yes ........ ................ X ........................ X ........................

5.1. Recording General Data on the UUT 

The technician shall record: 

(1) The manufacturer and model of the 

battery charger; 

(2) The presence and status of any 

additional functions unrelated to battery 

charging; 

(3) The manufacturer, model, and number 

of batteries in the test battery; 

(4) The rated battery voltage of the test 

battery; 

(5) The rated charge capacity of the test 

battery; and 

(6) The rated charge energy of the test 

battery. 

(7) The settings of the controls, if battery 

charger has user controls to select from two 

or more charge rates 

5.2. Determining the Duration of the Charge 

and Maintenance Mode Test 

a. The charging and maintenance mode 

test, described in detail in section 5.8, shall 

be 24 hours in length or longer, as 

determined by the items below. Proceed in 

order until a test duration is determined. 

(1) If the battery charger has an indicator 

to show that the battery is fully charged, that 

indicator shall be used as follows: If the 

indicator shows that the battery is charged 

after 19 hours of charging, the test shall be 

terminated at 24 hours. Conversely, if the 

full-charge indication is not yet present after 

19 hours of charging, the test shall continue 

until 5 hours after the indication is present. 

(2) If there is no indicator, but the 

manufacturer’s instructions indicate that 

charging this battery or this capacity of 

battery should be complete within 19 hours, 

the test shall be for 24 hours. If the 

instructions indicate that charging may take 

longer than 19 hours, the test shall be run for 

the longest estimated charge time plus 5 

hours. 

(3) If there is no indicator and no time 

estimate in the instructions, but the charging 

current is stated on the charger or in the 

instructions, calculate the test duration as the 

longer of 24 hours or: 

b. If none of the above applies, the duration 

of the test shall be 24 hours. 

5.3. Battery Conditioning 

a. No conditioning is to be done on leadacid or lithium-ion batteries. The test 

technician shall proceed directly to battery 

preparation, section 5.4, when testing 

chargers for these batteries. 

b. Products with integral batteries will 

have to be disassembled per the instructions 

in section 4.5, and the battery disconnected 

from the charger for discharging. 

c. Batteries of other chemistries that have 

not been previously cycled are to be 

conditioned by performing two charges and 

two discharges, followed by a charge, as 

below. No data need be recorded during 

battery conditioning. 

(1) The test battery shall be fully charged 

for the duration specified in section 5.2 or 

longer using the UUT. 

(2) The test battery shall then be fully 

discharged using either: 

(i) A battery analyzer at a rate not to exceed 

1 C, until its average cell voltage under load 

reaches the end-of-discharge voltage 

specified in Table 5.2 for the relevant battery 

chemistry; or 

(ii) The UUT, until the UUT ceases 

operation due to low battery voltage. 

(3) The test battery shall again be fully 

charged as in step c.(1) of this section. 

(4) The test battery shall again be fully 

discharged as per step c.(2) of this section. 

(5) The test battery shall be again fully 

charged as in step c.(1) of this section. 

d. Batteries of chemistries other than leadacid or lithium-ion that are known to have 

been through at least two previous full 

charge/discharge cycles shall only be charged 

once per step c.(5), of this section. 

5.4. Preparing the Battery for Charge Testing 

Following any conditioning prior to 

beginning the battery charge test (section 

5.6), the test battery shall be fully discharged 

for the duration specified in section 5.2 or 

longer using a battery analyzer. 

5.5. Resting the Battery 

The test battery shall be rested between 

preparation and the battery charge test. The 

rest period shall be at least one hour and not 

exceed 24 hours. For batteries with flooded 

cells, the electrolyte temperature shall be less 

than 30 °C before charging, even if the rest 

period must be extended longer than 24 

hours. 

5.6. Testing Charge Mode and Battery 

Maintenance Mode 

a. The Charge and Battery Maintenance 

Mode test measures the energy consumed 

during charge mode and some time spent in 

the maintenance mode of the UUT. Functions 

required for battery conditioning that happen 

only with some user-selected switch or other 

control shall not be included in this 

measurement. (The technician shall 

manually turn off any battery conditioning 

cycle or setting.) Regularly occurring battery 

conditioning or maintenance functions that 

are not controlled by the user will, by 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER01JN11.021</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31781 

default, be incorporated into this 

measurement. 

b. During the measurement period, input 

power values to the UUT shall be recorded 

at least once every minute. 

(1) If possible, the technician shall set the 

data logging system to record the average 

power during the sample interval. The total 

energy is computed as the sum of power 

samples (in watts) multiplied by the sample 

interval (in hours). 

(2) If this setting is not possible, then the 

power analyzer shall be set to integrate or 

accumulate the input power over the 

measurement period and this result shall be 

used as the total energy. 

c. The technician shall follow these steps: 

(1) Ensure that the user-controllable device 

functionality not associated with battery 

charging and any battery conditioning cycle 

or setting are turned off, as instructed in 

section 4.4; 

(2) Ensure that the test battery used in this 

test has been conditioned, prepared, 

discharged, and rested as described in 

sections 5.3 through 5.7; 

(3) Connect the data logging equipment to 

the battery charger; 

(4) Record the start time of the 

measurement period, and begin logging the 

input power; 

(5) Connect the test battery to the battery 

charger within 3 minutes of beginning 

logging. For integral battery products, 

connect the product to a cradle or wall 

adapter within 3 minutes of beginning 

logging; 

(6) After the test battery is connected, 

record the initial time and power (W) of the 

input current to the UUT. These 

measurements shall be taken within the first 

10 minutes of active charging; 

(7) Record the input power for the duration 

of the ‘‘Charging and Maintenance Mode 

Test’’ period, as determined by section 5.2. 

The actual time that power is connected to 

the UUT shall be within ± 5 minutes of the 

specified period; and 

(8) Disconnect power to the UUT, 

terminate data logging, and record the final 

time. 

5.7. Resting the Battery 

The test battery shall be rested between 

charging and discharging. The rest period 

shall be at least 1 hour and not more than 

4 hours, with an exception for flooded cells. 

For batteries with flooded cells, the 

electrolyte temperature shall be less than 

30 °C before charging, even if the rest period 

must be extended beyond 4 hours. 

5.8. Battery Discharge Energy Test 

a. If multiple batteries were charged 

simultaneously, the discharge energy is the 

sum of the discharge energies of all the 

batteries. 

(1) For a multi-port charger, batteries that 

were charged in separate ports shall be 

discharged independently. 

(2) For a batch charger, batteries that were 

charged as a group may be discharged 

individually, as a group, or in sub-groups 

connected in series and/or parallel. The 

position of each battery with respect to the 

other batteries need not be maintained. 

b. During discharge, the battery voltage and 

discharge current shall be sampled and 

recorded at least once per minute. The values 

recorded may be average or instantaneous 

values. 

c. For this test, the technician shall follow 

these steps: 

(1) Ensure that the test battery has been 

charged by the UUT and rested according to 

the procedures above. 

(2) Set the battery analyzer for a constant 

discharge current of 0.2 °C and the end-ofdischarge voltage in Table 5.2 for the relevant 

battery chemistry. 

(3) Connect the test battery to the analyzer 

and begin recording the voltage, current, and 

wattage, if available from the battery 

analyzer. When the end-of-discharge voltage 

is reached or the UUT circuitry terminates 

the discharge, the test battery shall be 

returned to an open-circuit condition. If 

current continues to be drawn from the test 

battery after the end-of-discharge condition is 

first reached, this additional energy is not to 

be counted in the battery discharge energy. 

d. If not available from the battery 

analyzer, the battery discharge energy (in 

watt-hours) is calculated by multiplying the 

voltage (in volts), current (in amperes), and 

sample period (in hours) for each sample, 

and then summing over all sample periods 

until the end-of-discharge voltage is reached. 

5.9. Determining the Maintenance Mode 

Power 

After the measurement period is complete, 

the technician shall determine the average 

maintenance mode power consumption by 

examining the power-versus-time data from 

the charge and maintenance test and: 

(1) If the maintenance mode power is 

cyclic or shows periodic pulses, compute the 

average power over a time period that spans 

a whole number of cycles and includes at 

least the last 4 hours. 

(2) Otherwise, calculate the average power 

value over the last 4 hours. 

5.10. Determining the 24-Hour Energy 

Consumption 

The accumulated energy or the average 

input power, integrated over the test period 

from the charge and maintenance mode test, 

shall be used to calculate 24-hour energy 

consumption. 

TABLE 5.2—REQUIRED BATTERY DISCHARGE RATES AND END-OF-DISCHARGE BATTERY VOLTAGES

Battery chemistry Discharge rate 

C 

End-ofdischarge 

voltage 

volts per cell 

Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) .............................................................................................................. 0.2 1 .75 

Flooded Lead Acid ......................................................................................................................................... 0.2 1 .70 

Nickel Cadmium (NiCd) ................................................................................................................................. 0.2 1 .0 

Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) ......................................................................................................................... 0.2 1 .0 

Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) ......................................................................................................................................... 0.2 2 .5 

Lithium Polymer ............................................................................................................................................. 0.2 2 .5 

Rechargeable Alkaline ................................................................................................................................... 0.2 0 .9 

Nanophosphate Lithium Ion ........................................................................................................................... 0.2 2 .0 

Silver Zinc ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.2 1 .2 

5.11. Standby Mode Energy Consumption 

Measurement 

The standby mode measurement depends 

on the configuration of the battery charger, as 

follows. 

a. Conduct a measurement of standby 

power consumption while the battery charger 

is connected to the power source. Disconnect 

the battery from the charger, allow the 

charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, and 

record the power (i.e., watts) consumed as 

the time series integral of the power 

consumed over a 10-minute test period, 

divided by the period of measurement. If the 

battery charger has manual on-off switches, 

all must be turned on for the duration of the 

standby mode test. 

b. Standby mode may also apply to 

products with integral batteries. If the 

product uses a cradle and/or adapter for 

power conversion and charging, then 

‘‘disconnecting the battery from the charger’’ 

will require disconnection of the end-use 

product, which contains the batteries. The 

other enclosures of the battery charging 

system will remain connected to the main 

electricity supply, and standby mode power 

consumption will equal that of the cradle 

and/or adapter alone. 

c. If the product is powered through a 

detachable AC power cord and contains 

integrated power conversion and charging 

circuitry, then only the cord will remain 

connected to mains, and standby mode 

power consumption will equal that of the AC 

power cord (i.e., zero watts). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

31782 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

d. Finally, if the product contains 

integrated power conversion and charging 

circuitry but is powered through a nondetachable AC power cord or plug blades, 

then no part of the system will remain 

connected to mains, and standby mode 

measurement is not applicable. 

5.12. Off Mode Energy Consumption 

Measurement 

The off mode measurement depends on the 

configuration of the battery charger, as 

follows. 

a. If the battery charger has manual on-off 

switches, record a measurement of off mode 

energy consumption while the battery 

charger is connected to the power source. 

Remove the battery from the charger, allow 

the charger to operate for at least 30 minutes, 

and record the power (i.e., watts) consumed 

as the time series integral of the power 

consumed over a 10-minute test period, 

divided by the period of measurement, with 

all manual on-off switches turned off. If the 

battery charger does not have manual on-off 

switches, record that the off mode 

measurement is not applicable to this 

product. 

b. Off mode may also apply to products 

with integral batteries. If the product uses a 

cradle and/or adapter for power conversion 

and charging, then ‘‘disconnecting the battery 

from the charger’’ will require disconnection 

of the end-use product, which contains the 

batteries. The other enclosures of the battery 

charging system will remain connected to the 

main electricity supply, and off mode power 

consumption will equal that of the cradle 

and/or adapter alone. 

c. If the product is powered through a 

detachable AC power cord and contains 

integrated power conversion and charging 

circuitry, then only the cord will remain 

connected to mains, and off mode power 

consumption will equal that of the AC power 

cord (i.e., zero watts). 

d. Finally, if the product contains 

integrated power conversion and charging 

circuitry but is powered through a nondetachable AC power cord or plug blades, 

then no part of the system will remain 

connected to mains, and off mode 

measurement is not applicable. 

4. Amend Appendix Z to Subpart B of 

Part 430 by revising paragraphs 2(c), 

3(b), 4(a)(i) and 4(b) to read as follows: 

Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of External Power 

Supplies 

* * * * * 

2. * * * 

c. Active power (P) (also real power) means 

the average power consumed by a unit. For 

a two terminal device with current and 

voltage waveforms i(t) and v(t) which are 

periodic with period T, the real or active 

power P is: 

* * * * * 

3. * * * 

(b) Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply. Unless otherwise specified, 

measurements shall be made under test 

conditions and with equipment specified 

below. 

(i) Verifying Accuracy and Precision of 

Measuring Equipment 

(A) Measurements of power 0.5 W or 

greater shall be made with an uncertainty of 

≤ 2 percent at the 95 percent confidence 

level. Measurements of power less than 0.5 

W shall be made with an uncertainty of 

≤ 0.01 W at the 95 percent confidence level. 

The power measurement instrument shall 

have a resolution of: 

(1) 0.01 W or better for measurements up 

to 10 W; 

(2) 0.1 W or better for measurements of 10 

to 100 W; or 

(3) 1 W or better for measurements over 

100 W. 

(B) Measurements of energy (Wh) shall be 

made with an uncertainty of ≤ 2 percent at 

the 95 percent confidence level. 

Measurements of voltage and current shall be 

made with an uncertainty of ≤ 1 percent at 

the 95 percent confidence level. 

Measurements of temperature shall be made 

with an uncertainty of ≤ 2 °C at the 95 

percent confidence level. 

(C) All equipment used to conduct the tests 

must be selected and calibrated to ensure that 

measurements will meet the above 

uncertainty requirements. For guidance on 

measuring low power levels, see IEC 62301, 

Section 5.3.2 and Annexes B and D 

(Reference for guidance only, see § 430.4). 

(ii) Setting Up the Test Room 

All tests shall be carried out in a room with 

an air speed immediately surrounding the 

UUT of ≤ 0.5 m/s. The ambient temperature 

shall be maintained at 20 °C ± 5 °C 

throughout the test. There shall be no 

intentional cooling of the UUT such as by use 

of separately powered fans, air conditioners, 

or heat sinks. The UUT shall be conditioned, 

rested, and tested on a thermally nonconductive surface. A readily available 

material such as Styrofoam will be sufficient. 

(iii) Verifying the UUT’s Input Voltage and 

Input Frequency 

(A) If the UUT is intended for operation on 

AC line-voltage input in the United States, it 

shall be tested at 115 V at 60 Hz. If the UUT 

is intended for operation on AC line-voltage 

input but cannot be operated at 115 V at 60 

Hz, it shall not be tested. The input voltage 

shall be within ± 1 percent of the above 

specified voltage. 

(B) If the input voltage is AC, the input 

frequency shall be within ± 1 percent of the 

specified frequency. The THD of the input 

voltage shall be ≤ 2 percent, up to and 

including the 13th harmonic. The crest factor 

of the input voltage shall be between 1.34 

and 1.49. 

4. * * * 

(a) * * * 

(i) Standby Mode and Active Mode 

Measurement—The measurement of standby 

mode (also no-load mode) energy 

consumption and active mode efficiency 

shall conform to the requirements specified 

in section 5, ‘‘Measurement Approach’’ of the 

CEC’s ‘‘Test Method for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 

Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power Supplies,’’ August 

11, 2004, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.3). Switch-selectable single-voltage 

external power supplies shall be tested 

twice—once at the highest nameplate output 

voltage and once at the lowest. 

(A) If the product has more than two 

output wires, including those that are 

necessary for controlling the product, the 

manufacturer shall supply a connection 

diagram or test fixture that will allow the 

testing laboratory to put the unit under test 

into active mode. 

(B) For those external power supplies that 

cannot sustain output at 100 percent loading 

condition, this efficiency metric shall not be 

included. For these external power supplies, 

the average efficiency is the average of the 

efficiencies measured at 25 percent, 50 

percent, and 75 percent of maximum load. 

(C) In the case where the external power 

supply lists both an instantaneous and 

continuous output current, it shall be tested 

at the continuous condition only. 

* * * * * 

(b) Multiple-Voltage External Power 

Supply—Power supplies must be tested with 

the output cord packaged with the unit for 

sale to the consumer, as it is considered part 

of the unit under test. There are two options 

for connecting metering equipment to the 

output of this type of power supply: cut the 

cord immediately adjacent to the output 

connector or attach leads and measure the 

efficiency from the output connector itself. If 

the power supply is attached directly to the 

product that it is powering, cut the cord 

immediately adjacent to the powered product 

and connect output measurement probes at 

that point. The tests should be conducted on 

the sets of output wires that constitute the 

output busses. If the product has additional 

wires, these should be left electrically 

disconnected unless they are necessary for 

controlling the product. In this case, the 

manufacturer shall supply a connection 

diagram or test fixture that will allow the 

testing laboratory to put the unit under test 

into active mode. 

(i) Standby-Mode and Active-Mode 

Measurement—The measurement of the 

multiple-voltage external power supply 

standby mode (also no-load-mode) energy 

consumption and active-mode efficiency 

shall be as follows: 

(A) Loading conditions and testing 

sequence. (1) If the unit under test has onoff switches, all switches shall be placed in 

the ‘‘on’’ position. Loading criteria for 

multiple-voltage external power supplies 

shall be based on nameplate output current 

and not on nameplate output power because 

output voltage might not remain constant. 

(2) The unit under test shall operate at 100 

percent of nameplate current output for at 

least 30 minutes immediately before 

conducting efficiency measurements. 

(3) After this warm-up period, the 

technician shall monitor AC input power for 

a period of 5 minutes to assess the stability 

of the unit under test. If the power level does 

not drift by more than 1 percent from the 

maximum value observed, the unit under test 

can be considered stable and measurements 

can be recorded at the end of the 5-minute 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER01JN11.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 105 / Wednesday, June 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31783 

period. Measurements at subsequent loading 

conditions, listed in Table 1, can then be 

conducted under the same 5-minute stability 

guidelines. Only one warm-up period of 30 

minutes is required for each unit under test 

at the beginning of the test procedure. 

(4) If AC input power is not stable over a 

5-minute period, the technician shall follow 

the guidelines established by IEC Standard 

62301 for measuring average power or 

accumulated energy over time for both input 

and output. (Reference for guidance only, see 

§ 430.4). 

(5) The unit under test shall be tested at 

the loading conditions listed in Table 1, 

derated per the proportional allocation 

method presented in the following section. 

TABLE 1—LOADING CONDITIONS FOR UNIT UNDER TEST

Loading Condition 1 ................................................................................. 100% of Derated Nameplate Output Current ± 2%. 

Loading Condition 2 ................................................................................. 75% of Derated Nameplate Output Current ± 2%. 

Loading Condition 3 ................................................................................. 50% of Derated Nameplate Output Current ± 2%. 

Loading Condition 4 ................................................................................. 25% of Derated Nameplate Output Current ± 2%. 

Loading Condition 5 ................................................................................. 0%. 

(6) Input and output power measurements 

shall be conducted in sequence from Loading 

Condition 1 to Loading Condition 4, as 

indicated in Table 1. For Loading Condition 

5, the unit under test shall be placed in noload mode, any additional signal connections 

to the unit under test shall be disconnected, 

and input power shall be measured. 

(B) Proportional allocation method for 

loading multiple-voltage external power 

supplies. For power supplies with multiple 

voltage busses, defining consistent loading 

criteria is difficult because each bus has its 

own nameplate output current. The sum of 

the power dissipated by each bus loaded to 

its nameplate output current may exceed the 

overall nameplate output power of the power 

supply. The following proportional 

allocation method must be used to provide 

consistent loading conditions for multiplevoltage external power supplies. For 

additional explanation, please refer to section 

6.1.1 of the California Energy Commission’s 

‘‘Proposed Test Protocol for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power 

Supplies Revision 6.2,’’ November 2007. 

(1) Consider a multiple-voltage power 

supply with N output busses, and nameplate 

output voltages V1, * * *, VN, corresponding 

output current ratings I1, * * *, IN, and a 

nameplate output power P. Calculate the 

derating factor D by dividing the power 

supply nameplate output power P by the sum 

of the nameplate output powers of the 

individual output busses, equal to the 

product of bus nameplate output voltage and 

current IiVi, as follows: 

(2) If D ≥ 1, then loading every bus to its 

nameplate output current does not exceed 

the overall nameplate output power for the 

power supply. In this case, each output bus 

will simply be loaded to the percentages of 

its nameplate output current listed in Table 

1. However, if D < 1, it is an indication that 

loading each bus to its nameplate output 

current will exceed the overall nameplate 

output power for the power supply. In this 

case, and at each loading condition, each 

output bus will be loaded to the appropriate 

percentage of its nameplate output current 

listed in Table 1, multiplied by the derating 

factor D. 

(C) Minimum output current requirements. 

Depending on their application, some 

multiple-voltage power supplies may require 

a minimum output current for each output 

bus of the power supply for correct 

operation. In these cases, ensure that the load 

current for each output at Loading Condition 

4 in Table 1 is greater than the minimum 

output current requirement. Thus, if the test 

method’s calculated load current for a given 

voltage bus is smaller than the minimum 

output current requirement, the minimum 

output current must be used to load the bus. 

This load current shall be properly recorded 

in any test report. 

(D) Test loads. Active loads such as 

electronic loads or passive loads such as 

rheostats used for efficiency testing of the 

unit under test shall be able to maintain the 

required current loading set point for each 

output voltage within an accuracy of ± 0.5 

percent. If electronic load banks are used, 

their settings should be adjusted such that 

they provide a constant current load to the 

unit under test. 

(E) Efficiency calculation. Efficiency shall 

be calculated by dividing the measured 

active output power of the unit under test at 

a given loading condition by the active AC 

input power measured at that loading 

condition. Efficiency shall be calculated at 

each Loading Condition (1, 2, 3, and 4, in 

Table 1) and be recorded separately. 

(F) Power consumption calculation. Power 

consumption of the unit under test at 

Loading Conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 is the 

difference between the active output power 

at that Loading Condition and the active AC 

input power at that Loading Condition. The 

power consumption of Loading Condition 5 

(no-load) is equal to the AC active input 

power at that Loading Condition. 

(ii) Off Mode Measurement—If the 

multiple-voltage external power supply unit 

under test incorporates any on-off switches, 

the unit under test shall be placed in off 

mode and its power consumption in off mode 

measured and recorded. The measurement of 

the off mode energy consumption shall 

conform to the requirements specified in 

paragraph (4)(b)(i) of this appendix. Note that 

the only loading condition that will be 

measured for off mode is ‘‘Loading Condition 

5’’ in paragraph (A), ‘‘Loading conditions and 

testing sequence’’, except that all manual onoff switches shall be placed in the off 

position for the measurement. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12595 Filed 5–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER01JN11.023</GPH>